Remember Mindy Meyer, the self-declared “diva of the district” who is running for the New York state senate in a campaign that looks like a combination of Elle Woods and Paris Hilton? Well she’s giving interviews now and showing just how vapid she truly is.
YK: Do you have any friends who are gay or lesbian??
Mindy: I have a friend that actually works at the U.S. Attorney’s office and she said I have a very big gay following.
YK: Is that right?
Mindy: That’s what I’ve been hearing, you know, from the streets…
YK: Okay. So, let me ask you a question, do you support marriage?
Mindy: Um, I personally do not have anything against people being gay. I know my party line does not support it, but I definitely wouldn’t try to repeal it. I feel there’s other issues to focus on, so-
YK: So if I wanted to marry my partner, would you be against that?
Mindy: Again, I personally feel that it’s not a platform for marriage, I think marriage is between a man and a woman. But again, I would not go and repeal it. I feel there are more important issues to focus on in my district than — I really feel, personally, it’s within a person’s discretion what they want to do and I would not oppose that.
YK: So you wouldn’t oppose — if it were my discretion to want to marry a same sex partner, you wouldn’t oppose that?
Mindy: I’m not particularly for gay marriage, I’m just not against it. I’m saying, as I mentioned, I don’t necessarily feel it’s a platform for marriage, but again, it’s within a person’s discretion to decide what they want to do. Me personally, those are not my views.
YK: But let’s say, would you block–
Mindy: As I mentioned, I would not repeal it. I would focus my energies to other issues.
YK: So marriage equality is now legal in New York State, you would support and recognize that law as it stands today, meaning you wouldn’t try and overturn it and you would recognize it–
Mindy: I would just leave it alone, meaning I wouldn’t necessarily try and repeal it, but I wouldn’t necessarily vote for it.
YK: Okay, huh. And then let’s say that moved forward on a national platform, so now to try and repeal federal laws, if the people you represented, if the LGBT members of your community, asked you to support a repeal federal DOMA, is that something that you would do?
Mindy: Not necessarily, I am running on the Conservative Party line.
Here’s video of the interview.
14 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
slc1
August 11, 2012 at 10:49 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The take I get from the excerpt of the interview is that the lady really doesn’t give a shit about the issue, but has to espouse a position that will somehow satisfy the denizens that run the Conservative Party in New York State. Since they have endorsed her, that would suggest that the Rethuglican candidate in the district was unacceptable to that party.
dingojack
August 11, 2012 at 10:54 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
What? She/s not a poe?
Dingo
John Hinkle
August 11, 2012 at 11:13 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well, for being so young, she already has a handle on tap dancing around questions and equivocating. At least she doesn’t pepper her statements with “like” and “you know.” She needs to polish her act and increase her vocabulary, and then she’ll graduate to politician.
Bronze Dog
August 11, 2012 at 11:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
It sounds to me like she’s trying to have her cake and eat it, too: Trying to avoid sounding overtly hostile to marriage equality while avoiding criticism within her party. I’m glad I’ve got the basic intelligence necessary to see through tactics like that.
YankeeCynic
August 11, 2012 at 1:41 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
“The streets?”. Why do I get the feeling she thinks talking to her friend in the AGs office is like going down to the alley to go talk to Huggy Bear?
jakc
August 11, 2012 at 2:12 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I saw Legally Blonde. I saw Legally Blonde II. And Mindy is no Elle Woods. Elle was smart and competent
gridlore
August 11, 2012 at 7:42 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
OK, I get a different take from this. Her position seems to be this: “I personally feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But New York law is settled, I feel that people should be able to live their lives, and I’m not going to try to repeal the existing law as there are more pressing issues to deal with.”
Isn’t that the essence of the pro-individual freedom argument? That it is perfectly fine to disagree with the actions of others but no OK to try to impede those actions?
It also seems the host was desperately trying to get an answer that he wanted. He kept moving the goal posts.
Sorry, but this is in no way an airhead moment.
Michael Heath
August 11, 2012 at 8:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
gridlore writes:
No, Mindy Meyer’s response is not even close to the idea of individual liberty; instead it stands opposed to that idea. Supporters of individual liberty might not agree with another’s behavior, but will support their right to exercise that behavior*. On this issue Ms. Meyer refused to offer such an assurance.
gridlore writes:
Your take is completely off; the interviewer was trying to get a substantial answer from Ms. Meyer when it came to defending gays equal rights if she became a member of the legislature. Ms. Meyer was attempting to avoid answering that question.
Consider how many Republicans are actively fighting to take down Obamcare in spite of its already passing Congress and being signed into law. Many Republicans might not be an active participant in overturning Obamacare, but knowing how they’ll vote if the issue is raised again in Congress is important. This interviewer was asking essentially the same thing about gay rights to Ms. Meyer. When future gay right bills come to the floor of the NY legislature; where do you stand Ms. Meyer? Ms. Meyer was mostly avoiding a direct answer though I think she strongly hinted a handful of times she’d deny gays their equal rights.
*Assuming the exercise of that right doesn’t infringe on somebody else’s competing or superior right, which isn’t an issue when it comes to gay marriage.
joewinpisinger1
August 12, 2012 at 3:36 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Gridlore stated:
That is the sense I got from her responses. Sounds like she wants to represent both the Evangelical Wing of the Tea Party and the Ron Paul Wing. Which I see no problem with as long as it is not fluff to get elected and then go in and vote with the rest of the crooks in Congress.
This wedge issue within the GOP is starting to go away as people unite against Obamacare. Agree or disagree with the statements or not the political reality is that there is a brand new batch of candidates that are anti-establishment and have different views. Many of them more in line with a Libertarian like Ed Brayton than the normal GOP. Simply put, the Evangelicals a scare shitless of the Ron Paul people and the party is shifting toward the Libertarian direction. At least at the grass roots.
joewinpisinger1
August 12, 2012 at 3:38 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Sorry used to blogger html.. Gridlore’s quote I responded to was:
“OK, I get a different take from this. Her position seems to be this: “I personally feel that marriage should be between a man and a woman. But New York law is settled, I feel that people should be able to live their lives, and I’m not going to try to repeal the existing law as there are more pressing issues to deal with.
Isn’t that the essence of the pro-individual freedom argument?”
That is the sense I got from her responses. Sounds like she wants to represent both the Evangelical Wing of the Tea Party and the Ron Paul Wing. Which I see no problem with as long as it is not fluff to get elected and then go in and vote with the rest of the crooks in Congress.
This wedge issue within the GOP is starting to go away as people unite against Obamacare. Agree or disagree with the statements or not the political reality is that there is a brand new batch of candidates that are anti-establishment and have different views. Many of them more in line with a Libertarian like Ed Brayton than the normal GOP. Simply put, the Evangelicals a scare shitless of the Ron Paul people and the party is shifting toward the Libertarian direction. At least at the grass roots.
joewinpisinger1
August 12, 2012 at 3:50 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath states:
“No, Mindy Meyer’s response is not even close to the idea of individual liberty; instead it stands opposed to that idea. Supporters of individual liberty might not agree with another’s behavior, but will support their right to exercise that behavior*. On this issue Ms. Meyer refused to offer such an assurance.”
This is a nuanced topic more than this comment lets on. Taken to the asinine extreme your comment could say that you do not agree with child molestation but support a person’s right to do so. Which is absurd and I know you do not feel that way. Nor do I lightly bring up that topic in a trite hyperbolic manner. I bring up to illustrate that there are limits to behavior that should be tolerated in a society. What are those limits? The laws of the land decide and hopefully it lines up with the voice of the people.
This issue of gay marriage is really a mute point for me period personally even as a Conservative. This is because I do not think the state should even be involved in marriage in the first place. In fact, I personally do not think the church should either. It is a personal decision between two people. If they want the church to recognize it then I have no problem with them. If they want the state to recognize it then that is up to the voice of the people in each individual state.
I know it comes down to insurance and other practical issues and see many gay couples point. I lived with a woman for the last year really no different than a married couple. She could not use my insurance. We get no tax break. I get it. But the root of the issue is government involvement in something it should not be involved in. At least at the levels it is. Maybe more of a local thing would work. Tough issue..
joewinpisinger1
August 12, 2012 at 3:58 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath states:
joewinpisinger1
August 12, 2012 at 4:00 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Done with Html for today!!!
Here is Mr Heath’s quote:
“Your take is completely off; the interviewer was trying to get a substantial answer from Ms. Meyer when it came to defending gays equal rights if she became a member of the legislature. Ms. Meyer was attempting to avoid answering that question.”
I agree with Mr. Heath here. She was avoiding a direct answer to the question. But in fairness to her in this sound bit world where full context is rarely given I am not sure I blame her. How many fair interview are given today? I see very few. We are used to the talk show mentality of painting those who disagree with us as evil. It has stifled almost all reasonable discussion in this nation.
I am getting fairly well known in some Tea Parties Facebook forums. I have been reaching out to Gary Johnson type libertarians who I agree with on many issues and most are so completely convinced their view is the only view it is like talking to the wall. The Evangelicals are just as bad. This is within the same wing of the GOP. Imagine how hard it is for people that really disagree to have rational dialogue?
escuerd
August 13, 2012 at 7:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
joewinpisinger1 @11:
That would indeed be an asinine extreme, given the asterisk Michael Heath included:
Children have a competing right not to be molested.
It makes complete sense for the state to offer a ready-made set of contracts for people in long-term committed relationships to pool their resources, and gain legal authority to make decisions for one another when necessary (this is particularly important for people who are estranged from their biological families, as many gay people are). It also facilitates handling immigration in a humane, sensible manner by not insisting on splitting up families. These are all legitimate concerns of the government that go well beyond insurance and tax breaks. Since you’re aware that such “practical issues” exist, it seems hasty to suggest that the government simply get out of the marriage business altogether.
Sure, people could handle many (not all) aspects of this in a piecemeal fashion with power of attorney, and various other contracts (and lots of gay couples do this already in places where they’re prohibited from marrying), with a great deal of effort and expense. I don’t know that many people would find this preferable to being able to handle these things all at once with a relatively easy-to-obtain document. Most people have a general understanding of the rights and obligations that come with marriage, but lack the legal expertise or money needed to draw up their own custom contracts.
Incidentally, I once thought position you espouse was eminently reasonable back when I went through a period as a libertarian. The more thought I’ve given it, the more it strikes me as a sort of reflexively anti-government boilerplate and contrarianism that’s really common among libertarians. It’s also a way of avoiding taking a stand on a real issue that is before our society (and is currently affecting lots of real, living people) in favor of taking a bold stand on an idealized vision of society that’s unlikely to come to pass in the foreseeable future.
Given that civil marriage does exist in our society, and isn’t going anywhere anytime soon, the issue at hand is whether the right to marry should be applied fairly.
The suggestion to abolish civil marriage invariably seems to come up when someone’s discussing the far more pertinent issue of treating gay couples (i.e. people who actually have some significant stake in the outcome) equally under the law. This isn’t getting to the root of the problem, it’s changing the subject.
I strongly disagree. The root is in the insistence on treating gay couples differently from straight ones.
Minor note:
To quote someone, you can use the <blockquote> </blockquote> tags here.
If you want to experiment, the preview button is helpful too.