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 ...
They're afraid of anybody that might upset their "anointed one". I think you'd see them equally afraid, if not more so, if Fred were in the ring right now.
As for being afraid, you think maybe Rudy's flip-flopping is because he's starting to get the message that there are those of us, a great number of us actually, who are tired of sacrificing core beliefs just because someone has an (R) after their name? Fred's numbers, numbers of a current non candidate, have to be ringing some bells somewhere in Rudy central.
Now if we could just get the party brain trust to figure that out, we might actually salvage it. Otherwise the GOP in its present form should be renamed the RINO party, and we conservatives can start rebuilding the GOP from the ashes.
Course Rooty sucked up to anything that could write a campaign contribution check-------but the incessant, obsessive way Rooty knelt in obeisance to gay brigades was particularly startling.
Does lead one to conclude that Rooty has an unusual affinity for gays......probably finds his comfort level among them.
I tend to agree with you. I have no idea what the hype is about. If Rudy is “the only one who can beat Hillary” then he should have proved it last November.
1) As I've said, I don't consider NewsMax a reliable source, period. They have a nasty habit of putting forward a very skewed version of a story, using partial or out of context quotes and omitting pertinent information that runs counter to the "message" they want to send.
2) The poster veronica knew the full context of the quote, but chose to post NewsMax's out-of-context version in order to misrepresent the position of Thompson, in a vain attempt to justify Guiliani's liberalism.
His "comfort zone"?
If I were a guest in your house and I didn't like what I was seeing, I would leave.
In my opinion he had no right to do so. The mayor does not own the theater, the people do. He acted like a dictator. Further, Arafat was here, as much as I hated it, on the invitation of our President, which means it was the official policy of our government that he be treated as a guest.
I don’t like mayors thinking they can make foreign policy. We cheered this, but what if a mayor kicked the prime minister of Australia out of a public building because the mayor opposed the war? We’d all be up in arms about meddling in national policy.
I felt the same about refusing 10 million in relief money for victims of 9/11. Rudy took an arbitrary action on behalf of people who he gave no voice. Maybe the people of New York would have rejected the money if given the opportunity. But Rudy acted without their input, in disregard of the will of the people, in an arbitrary and capricious manner, without any real authority to do so.
He should have submitted emergency legislation to reject the money, that way the representatives of the people could have spoken for the will of the city.
I want my President to be strong. I don’t want him to take arbitrary actions based on his personal predelictions.
“If I were a guest in your house and I didn’t like what I was seeing, I would leave.”
Using that same approach, we should just pack up and leave now that the Dhimmis are in charge in Congress.
No thank you.
See my post 177. My support for veronica was misplaced, as she admits to knowing the original article’s information, and therefore knew that her statement was false.
And knowing that, she persisted in arguing it again and again, even though she had been permitted to MAKE her false claim without punishment, and was told merely to STOP repeating it.
Meanwhile, she ignored my questions about the issues, showing no evidence she wanted to participate in a rational discussion of policy or substance.
When you are young, you learn when further protests are fruitless, and what the result is of re-arguing points that have been rejected.
veronica is like one of those people who end up in contempt of court because after the judge warns them to stop, they insist on asserting their right to continue.
Thanks. I apologize, I see that now.
The Arafat incident is one case. His disrespect for the 2nd Amendment is well documented. He made NYC a "sanctuary city", flaunting federal immigration laws. He tried to illegally extend his second term, citing 9/11 as an emergency.
Each of those, perhaps, could be reasoned away. But as a whole, I see a very dangerous pattern of absolutist authoritarianism that would be extremely unwise to be allowed in a U.S. President.
OK-—comfort zone-—where Rooty can relax and “be himself.”
That was just a speech. I realise it answered the question the other poster asked. Veronica said words were cheap, and she wanted people with proven results.
I don’t know whether you are a results-oriented person, but would you care to pick up the challenge and provide any ACTIONS Rudy has taken to stop terrorism, as opposed to just talking about it? What results has Rudy achieved?
I ask this every time someone says Rudy is strong on the WOT, and I have yet to see anybody answer it.
Rooty's "comfort zone" is going to make a lot of men uncomfortable when these pictures and his association with gay groups hits the media limelight.
His opponent Ms. Clinton, will come off more masculine than him.
We have seen this stuff for awhile on FR, the rest of the public just has no idea yet.
If I were a guest in your house and I didn't like what I was seeing, I would leave.
That doesn't have anything to do with the "Dhimmis" in congress, no matter how much you try to make it so.
This isn't congress, no one elected anyone here, unlike congress, this web site is privately owned. If you disagree with the owners policy you do not have the option to vote him out.
Hang in there. I agree, on gay marriage, Fred and Rooty are in basic agreement IMO. But they're both wrong in supporting 'domestic partnerships'.
Rudy couldn’t even beat that carpetbagger Hillary in a state that some Rudybots are now claiming he could win in a presidential election, they seem to be employing some fuzzy logic in their ridiculous calculations. I’m not up on the current polls, but I really don’t see that happening.
“This isn’t congress, no one elected anyone here, unlike congress, this web site is privately owned. If you disagree with the owners policy you do not have the option to vote him out.”
I don’t believe for a second that I have that option. Who said that I did? FR is a privately owned web site. Jim makes the rules. I get both of these points.
But, last I checked, I am free to post - at least for the moment, anyways - and put my thoughts into words. So, why would I just up and leave? Am I breaking a rule by posting???
Don't forget his hauling his official mayor records away to a warehouse, in violation of the law.
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.