Posted on 04/27/2007 3:10:50 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
In a startling departure from his previously stated position on civil unions, Mayor Giuliani came out to The New York Sun yesterday evening in opposition to the civil union law just passed by the New Hampshire state Senate.
" Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly," the Giuliani campaign said in a written response to a question from the Sun. "In this specific case the law states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside states. This goes too far and Mayor Giuliani does not support it."
The Democratic governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, has said publicly that he will sign the civil union law.
On a February 2004 edition of Fox News's "The O'Reilly Factor," Mr. Giuliani told Bill O'Reilly, when asked if he supported gay marriage, "I'm in favor of … civil unions."
He also said, "Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman." Asked by Mr. O'Reilly in the interview how he would respond to gay Americans who said being denied access to the institution of marriage violated their rights, Mr. Giuliani said: "That's why you have civil partnerships. So now you have a civil partnership, domestic partnership, civil union, whatever you want to call it, and that takes care of the imbalance, the discrimination, which we shouldn't have." In 1998, as mayor of New York City, Mr. Giuliani signed into law a domestic partnership bill that a gay rights group, the Empire State Pride Agenda, hailed as setting "a new national benchmark for domestic partner recognition."
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
I do find it hard to argue a poster so involved in the discussions could possibly not know about the actual quote.
But unless we adopt a rule forbidding newsmax articles, I’d hate to see us trashing a rudy supporter for THAT, when there is other more substantive things we can use to refute the arguments made.
I try very hard to go back to primary sources when getting what a candidate says. Not because I’m perfect, but because I hate getting called a liar for believing what someone else wrote.
Another moth just couldn’t stay away from the light. Despite warning after warning.
Where ya been, toots?
I don't recall that speech putting forth anything specific.
Sounds eerily similiar to the recent hosts of republicrats - 'cept for the letter of choice.
I laugh, despite my alarm, at the people who describe Rudy as a straight shooter, a man we need for President. How could anyone trust somebody like this? Sure, we have to make allowances that he’s a professional politician, which is synonymous with “panderer” and “liar”, but still...how can anyone fall for his line?
Considering what has gone down over the last week, she got far more warnings than I would have expected. Seems she was trying to get herself banned, all while feigning the "I'm taking the high road" approach of lying with a virtual smile on her face. Probably so she could go commiserate with the other Guiliani groupies about how "mean" the rest of us are.
When he backtracks from his liberal past on gay civil unions, they applaud it as proof of his conservatism.
All the while oblivious to the contradiction between the two.
OK, since that is your criteria, this should be an easy question to answer.
What results has Rudy acheived on the War on Terror? What terrorist attack did he stop? What actions has he taken to help prevent terrorists from attacking us? What laws has he introduced that would make us safer? What legislation did he sign that strengthen's america in our fight against terrorism and the invasion of our country?
You say you are a results-oriented person, and will support the candidate that has real results on the war on Terror. So you must have a ready list of those results.
You know, something substantive, not "he threw a terrorist out of a theater once".
She new aout the actual quote. She even admitted posting it on this forum before. Her use of a secondary source, she new misrepresnted the original source is reprehesible.
No, it’s a right-lying rag. They do exist, you know.
Soory, I acciently ommited pinging you to my post
Not that I'm a fan of Arafat in any way, shape or form, but did Guiliani actually have a valid legal reason to do that, or was he just abusing the power of his office?
Matters little, she's ozone now.
Another one flies into the light.
You make it hard to defend you.
I would never have posted that newsmax quote, first because I never trust newsmax, and second because I knew the fox news interview and KNEW that Fred did not address “gay rights”.
I defended you because you quoted from a right-wing publication, and I couldn’t prove you knew of the original source and therefore that the quote was a lie.
But here you say you KNEW the original source, and in fact had linked to it before.
That means you KNEW that Fred Thompson had said we needed to be a tolerant nation, NOT be tolerant toward “gay rights”. You KNEW the article was lying.
Why would you post a secondary source that you knew was lying? That’s just stupid, it’s like you are begging to be attacked.
I want civil discourse. I don’t like the personal attacks, I like arguing on the merits. I defend people like you who appear to be trying to cite sources.
I hurts me when, having put my own neck on the line to defend your integrity, you admit to being less than honest.
It makes it that much harder for me to win the argument over civility when I am made to look the fool by those I am trying to defend.
Again, when did I ever say I was supporting Rudy????
What I’m about to say isn’t meant against you, so please don’t take it that way. However, I feel the need to rant:
The level of opinions in this thread based upon assumptions innuendos is staggering.
Fellow FReepers are being called liars for posting from a source that is often considered as gospel when Dhimmicrats are the target. If the article had been about Hillary, it would have had 100 kudos by now. What’s going on here?!?!?
It seems to me that the absolute hatred for Rudy - his politics and core beliefs - is so rampant on FR that the meaning of the word CONTEXT is postings has been lost.
It’s as if the dark side of Free Republic has come to the surface. It’s truly disappointing to watch.
Charles, I never would have attacked her the way I did if I didn’t already know she knew her source was disingenuous.
I’m still trying to understand just what it is that makes some republicans want to support this guy. They mention mention his strength on the WOT but never provide any specific policy proposals of his, and they mention his supposed electability, but I don’t see that neither. I’ve lurked at liberal sites and they hate Rudy. I’ve lurked at libertarian sites and they hate Rudy. And the so-called moderates are by all indications totally fed up with the situation in Iraq and are certainly not going to support any one they perceive as being overly aggressive in that area, so where are all these crossover votes suppose to come from? Methinks the Rudybots are living in la-la land.
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.