Harriet Miers Supported "Full Civil Rights for Gays and Lesbians"
So shrieks the siren over at Drudge Report.
Before anyone freaks out, take a moment to read the original document Ms. Miers filled out. And recall that it was 1989 when "civil rights" didn't mean "gay marriage" -- it had a more traditional definition pertaining to things like having the right to live where one pleased, and vote. Who opposes those kind of civil rights for law-abiding citizens?
Whether one agrees with them or not, the responses aren't those of an agenda-driven raving liberal. Note that Ms. Miers opposed decriminalizing even private homosexual behavior between consenting adults -- and, in a question about whether the City of Dallas should outlaw employment discrimination against homosexuals, her answer was as follows:
"I believe employers should be able to pick the best qualified person for any position to be filled considering all relevant factors."
Who disagrees with this? Read the document for yourself.
Before anyone freaks out, take a moment to read the original document Ms. Miers filled out. And recall that it was 1989 when "civil rights" didn't mean "gay marriage" -- it had a more traditional definition pertaining to things like having the right to live where one pleased, and vote. Who opposes those kind of civil rights for law-abiding citizens?
Whether one agrees with them or not, the responses aren't those of an agenda-driven raving liberal. Note that Ms. Miers opposed decriminalizing even private homosexual behavior between consenting adults -- and, in a question about whether the City of Dallas should outlaw employment discrimination against homosexuals, her answer was as follows:
"I believe employers should be able to pick the best qualified person for any position to be filled considering all relevant factors."
Who disagrees with this? Read the document for yourself.
posted by LadybugUSA at 10:06 AM
7 Comments:
In what way is someone's sexual orientation a factor in how well they perform their job. Determination for job qualifications should be tied to experience, education, skill set and of course if the person is a good person and likeable and able to work well with others. You dont want to hire someone with a history of violence etc... Where exaclty does orientation fit it into this process. I guess tolerance for others based on things like if they are a valued member of society, if they contribute to their community, are helpful to others is not a good idea. All that seems to be overshadowed by orientation. I suppose the owner of the blog is also a Christian conservative and if she is then I would ask if she is selective when it comes to the Bible. Does she take the words to be the literal text fo God. If she is a conservative Christian then she by defintion has to claim that the Bible is the actual word of god. If that is true then why does this statement only have selective applications for Christian conservatives "What you do to the least of your brethren you do to Christ"
In most cases, I don't think sexual orientation would affect a person's ability to perform well in an occupation. However, what if a religious school is looking for an instructor and their particular religion condemns homosexuality as a sin? Is it then right for the government to tell this private entity that they must hire someone whose very lifestyle is at odds with their mission and standards? You can see how this would be a problem. No matter how anyone FEELS their actions are always a choice. Homosexuals choose to engage in a homosexual lifestyle. By doing so, they must recognize that some paths are now closed to them -- marriage, parenthood, certain occupations (like the priesthood, for another example). As adults, they should be prepared to accept the consequences of their choices instead of trying to abolish those consequences through legislation which causes irrevocable harm to individuals, families and society. Christians are expected to forgive repentant sinners. Those who are still sinning, we still love, but we do not shield them from the natural consequences of their actions. If we were to do that, how would they ever come to understand that they are sinning? How would they come to understand the very basic and eternal principle that wickedness never was happiness?
I'm not freaking out Carol. I'm all for "Full Civil Rights for Gays and Lesbians".
Carol, in 1989 a boatload of people opposed "those kinds of civil rights for law-abiding citizens." In fact, as you noted below, in Texas it wasn't possible to be a "law-abiding citizen" and engage in "private homosexual behavior between consenting adults."
jcgb you have a good example when using the school principle. Yes you have a valid point about some oocupations become restricted when you choose an alternate lifestyle. I don't disagree with you there. I do disagree when the notion of alternative lifestlye bars you from jobs where the orientation really has no place. So in the case of a principle for a Christian school I think it would be appropriate to consider lifestlye choices but this is not true for the public schools where there is not supposed to be any religious influence. I also am congnizant of that fact that every religion I am aware of atually opposes alternate lifestyles. I can see your point where you think it is a sin and is wicked. But a sin to what degree? How a person treat others, how much a person shows compassion for all, how much a person embodies the "love your brother as yourself" in my opinion far outweighs the sin of an alternate lifestyle. I don't see where a Christian who commits adultery is less of a sinner then a person who chooses an alternate lifestyle. But if you listen to Christian consevatives from all walks of life the underlying message is that homosexuality is indeed a sin far greater and in fact overrides any admirable qualities that the person may possess even if those admirable qualities far outweigh those of yur average Christian conservative.
Anon -- If you look at my post, I said that sexual orientation would have little to no effect in most work situations. So we agree there.
I think you confuse the condemnation of the sin with the condemnation of the sinner. Except for run-ins with a few misguided individuals, I have never heard a Christian say that we should hate gays or that they shouldn't have any rights, etc. Gay and lesbian individuals have the same exact rights that everyone else has and I think that is unequivocally the way things should be. (This includes the right to marry -- none of us are free to marry whoever we want. All of us who marry are constrained by certain laws which prohibit the choice of some individuals as our mates. That is not the same thing as being refused the right to marry.) I also believe most Christians (at least the ones I know) try very hard to love the sinner and hate the sin. This is an exercise that Christians must engage in even with themselves, as we are all sinners.
As far as which sins are worse than others, I will not engage in a debate about that. I think there is a general consensus on some issues, where as how we react to other sins largely has to do with our own experience. From what I have lived through in my own life, I have come to the conclusion that both adultery and homosexual behavior are extremely abhorrent, damaging acts. Other people who have not experienced what I have may not feel the same way.
jcgb - my misunderstanding. I like the "hate the sin but not the sinner" sentiment. From my experience with the few christian conservatives I know personally that sentiment is just not there when it comes to hot-button issues. I have lots of respect for people who I feel are open-minded on issues and show me an ability to at least consider another viewpoint regardless if they are liberal, conservative or moderate. However, the sentiment you convey would also work for me even if your mind was closed on the topic of alternative lifestyles. I guess bottom line it shows that you have the capacity to seperate the person from the behavior and that is a trait I respect a great deal.
Post a Comment
<< Home