Posted on 02/18/2007 2:31:51 PM PST by Spiff
Trying to read too much into any 2008 poll at this point, especially with respect to horserace numbers, is somewhat silly and a waste of time. But a recent FOX News poll does have some interesting tidbits in the internals asking about voters' general impressions on issues.
Are you more who are more or less likely to support a candidate who is pro-choice on the issue of abortion? Republicans only: More likely 22 percent (a lot more likely 12 percent, somewhat more likely 10 percent). Less likely 46 percent (a lot less likely 36 percent, somewhat less likely 10 percent). Not a major factor 30 percent. Are you more who are more or less likely to support a candidate who supports civil unions for gays and lesbians? Republicans only: More likely 8 percent (a lot more likely 5 percent, somewhat more likely 3 percent). Less likely 50 percent (a lot less likely 39 percent, somewhat less likely 11 percent). Not a major factor 38 percent. [snip]
The biggest red flag for Giuliani has to be that only 42 percent of Republicans surveyed correctly identified him as pro-choice. Twenty-one percent of Republican voters have it wrong and think Giuliani is pro-life, and another 36 percent of Republicans don't have a clue what his position on abortion. In other words, nearly six out of 10 registered Republican voters have yet to learn something about Giuliani which, we can infer from the first question on abortion, will make close to half of them either "somewhat" less likely or "a lot" less likely to vote for him. There's no doubt the same holds true of his position on civil unions for gays, and the Second Amendment as well.Running the Republican Numbers on Rudy
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
It is giving some of the rights of a married couple to two people. It depends on the state statute. You would have to be more specific.
And besides, what's it to you what two people do? Sometimes I wonder if you people get so worked up on gay marriage because you would fall to tempation without laws against it.
Opposition to Giuliani is centered around a bunch of extreme fringe zealots. Good riddance to them. I welcome their exit from the party.
No infringement at all..
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress;...
If you are going to continue to post the same crap over and over, cutting and pasting and spamming the threads, at least get it right.
Rudy is on the record, again and again, as stating that he believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Rudy is OPPOSED to same sex marriage.
No we don't... 98 U.S. 145, REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, October Term, 1878.
What I think doesn't matter anyway, I'm not even a republican, I just tend to vote for them in general elections.
"What have "pro-life" politicians done to criminalize abortion?"
We have had almost 16 years of avowedly Pro-Life Presidents. Abortion is still legal.
Just for the record, Giuliani didn't have anything to do with Gotti's eventual downfall. He did prosecute the heads of the five families in the 80s, but Gotti didn't get taken down until 1992.
Government doesn't "allow" gay marriage. It uses its coercive power to force everyone else to recognize it and accommodate it.
If it's a matter of "allowing" gay marriage, that's already the state of affairs in every state but Massachusetts and Vermont. In forty-eight states gays can exchange wedding vows and can even get the unholy union blessed by any of a number of liberal churches. What they cannot do is call in the government to bash everyone else over the head and force them to recognize it as a marriage.
Except in Massachussets and Vermont. You ignore and disregard gay marriage at your peril in those two states.
Don't just copy and paste, connect the dots between state's rights and the decision you referense... if you can.
Why all the Rudy smearing on this site? The only social issues a Republican President (and for that matter Congress) should be concerned with are Federal judge appointments and Rudy has alreay stated he will appoint justices in the Roberts mold.
Social issues should be left to the states- despite what the wacko right and left want otherwise.
NO get it thru YOUR head there is NO difference between civil unions and marriage. its a word game-get it.
No, it is not...
REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 98 U.S. 145, October Term, 1878.
Look it up...
Though gay marriage is a states' issue there are also questions at the federal level. For instance, should the IRS recognize a gay union as a legal marriage for tax purposes? And what about federal death benefits to the surviving spouse? A president will eventually have to take a stand on this issues and not defer to the courts to decide them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.