October 04, 2005

Miers' Gay Sensationalism

Drudge is reporting in giant headlines a link to Time article that claims

she supported full civil rights for gays and lesbians

This is being spun as the idea that she is pro-gay and anti-family by various sources. However, if you look at the actual questionnaire, a completely different picture appears.

The questionnaire specifically asks,

Do you believe that gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women?

Miers' answer: Yes.

Therefore, she's pro-gay and anti-family, according to the spin. However, take a peek at the very next question:

Do you...support repeal of...code which criminalizes the private sexual behavior of consenting adult lesbians and gay men?

Miers' answer: No.

The answer to the first question depends on your meaning of "civil rights." I support civil rights for anyone and special rights for no one. So I would answer "yes" to the first question as well.

However, if you ask me if I support gay marriage or any other special rights for some, I'd say no, as it appears Ms. Miers would as well.

Posted by: Ogre at 02:55 PM | Comments (8) | Add Comment
Post contains 185 words, total size 1 kb.

1 How does allowing gays/lesbians to marry fall under "special rights for some?" Isn't NOT allowing gays/lesbians to marry granting special rights to everyone else? It's like restricting blacks from voting or people with blue eyes from carrying firearms.

Posted by: BKFreshBoy at October 04, 2005 03:22 PM (Xdg4t)

2 That's not the point of this post, so I'll save that rather long discussion for another time. Basically, it breaks down to granting rights for actions of people (having blue eyes is not an action, being black is not an action).

Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 03:29 PM (/k+l4)

3 Come see my blog for who should be nominated instead of Miers!

Posted by: patd95 at October 04, 2005 04:46 PM (ogWpI)

4 Awesome, PatD!

Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 05:16 PM (iJFc9)

5 Ogre - you know what interests me? The remark by the gay group that they could not understand why she had bothered to respond. I ran for office - more than once - as a Republican, and I ALWAYS wasted a day talking to the Teacher's Union and such, knowing I had NO chance for an endorsement. I did it out of courtesy, as they have a right to have their questions answered from a candidate. The idea that you answer questions only if seeking endorsement is a wrongheaded one.

Posted by: Peter Porcupine at October 04, 2005 05:48 PM (8DsKX)

6 True, and Peter, if you look down the form, there is a question that says "Do you Seek Endorsement?" and Miers answered, "no."

Posted by: Ogre at October 04, 2005 08:04 PM (iJFc9)

7 Get a clue. She's 59, never married, and supports gay rights but not gay marriage (a lot of gays don't). The woman's a lesbian. More like Souter by the minute!

Posted by: Ralph Stroup at October 05, 2005 02:19 PM (LQJdM)

8 ROFL! You got me there, Ralph! Thanks for stopping by.

Posted by: Ogre at October 05, 2005 02:22 PM (/k+l4)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
18kb generated in CPU 0.0141, elapsed 0.1227 seconds.
88 queries taking 0.1158 seconds, 197 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Search Thingy



Recent Comments

Categories

Archives

Blogroll

Sample link

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 23242
  • Files: 136
  • Bytes: 316.5M
  • CPU Time: 14:58
  • Queries: 2022366

Content

  • Posts: 3282
  • Comments: 19803

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0