That comment ain't just humorous, but laughable.
Good luck on DU and other forums that more closely match your persuasions.
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 ...
Compare that to Rudy keeping the ECC in WTC7 despite warnings from emergency professionals. Never getting around to fixing comm problems with first responders. And pushing a corrupt crony for the most important anti-terror job in the country.
IMO he's one of the worst GOP candidates when evaluated against the WOT. He's all talk, all symbolism, but where he has had a chance to act, he's failed.
Wow, get real. How do you equivocate Muslim brain dead suicide bombers with desirable Christian Mexican workers? By and large we are not replacing ourselves and getting them 'legally' from south of the border suits me fine.
I don’t know if it’s been clarified or not, but Thompson did say on Fox Sunday that the matter of civil unions should be left to the states. That is a fact.
There is only one candidate qualified to be CIC for these times who will also seal the border like a bank vault. Duncan Hunter
I respect that, and realise that in this case I was played for a fool.
The new policy has caused me some consternation, but I think I understand your reasoning and see some merit in it; and certainly it is your perogative. I hope my dissent is not a burden, and is seen for what I mean it to be, just my opinion in the hopes of moderating your stance (not that I expect to be successful).
Here’s how the new policy effects me, maybe because of my own paranoia. I wrote an opinion column about using the tech tragedy for political gain, and someone sent me a fundraising letter from a conservative candidate that specifically used the tech tragedy. I’d love to post it here to ask others what they think about it, and how they would respond — to see if my aversion to it is misplaced.
But I don’t want to be accused of attacking a good conservative to support my “more liberal” candidate. I just want to be able to use this outstanding resource to obtain facts and opinions I can use to further the conservative cause.
I know this is not your primary mission for this site, but it has been invaluable to me in my writing to have the input from so many smart, conservative people.
How dumb does Giuliani think we are?
No I suggest you get real when approximately 4 to 5% of those crossing that border are what are known as OTM’s, many of those from Islamic Countries who are going to Latin America and then travelling north to get into the US.
Yes, he did. But he said they shouldn’t be forced on any other state, and he said he PERSONALLY OPPOSED THEM, which shows that his position is a “states rights” position.
Rudy previously said he SUPPORTED THEM.
Civil unions are not like abortion. Abortion is about the right to life of a human being. It is a law-and-order issues, a respect-for-life issue, an issue of the basis for the foundation of our country, that all men are created equal and have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
So for a candidate to say that they oppose abortion BUT that women have a right to choose them anyway is contradictory.
But civil unions are not about destroying another person’s liberty, they are simply very bad policy for the country OR a community.
But the government doesn’t exist to protect us from our own stupidity, and if a state wants to destroy it’s own society by using tax dollars to support gay unions, it doesn’t hurt the rest of us, only the voters of that state, and if it’s not the courts imposing the rules the people of that state can protect themselves through their legislative process, or they can move to a sane state.
So, so long as the courts are prevented from imposing gay unions, and so long as each state is protected from civil unions approved in other states, it makes sense for a person who opposes civil unions to still argue for the right of a state to choose them.
If Babe Ruth could quit Boston to play for NY, and Gore first, then Lieberman later switch to pro choice just to play in the WH, so can Rudy. On the plus side he has a lot going for him.
Heck, I've been bouncing between all our candidates, but it's foo early in the game to jump into a can of cement. Time for more pop corn.
You got to give credit where credit is due. A step in the right direction for Rudy. I’d rather he pander to the Right than to the Left.
More like a head-fake than a dodge. Remember the swoons from the Rudy boosters when Rudy said he'd appoint strict constructionists? Rudy then turned around and said, in his view, that a strict constructionist could uphold Roe. This is all pandering.
That comment ain't just humorous, but laughable.
Good luck on DU and other forums that more closely match your persuasions.
It's not just the next election; the war on traditional values transends years and venues.
Our political elections are just one battlefield among many.
And I can say the same of all the foreigners coming in
thru La Guardia AP.
Clintonian "nuance" BS...
Just like 'I'm personally against abortion but I support a woman's constitutional right to choose...'
Why anyone believes a word that comes out of this ClintonClone's mouth is beyond me.
At least we know who most of those are, but I advocate ending all immigration until we get this entire thing under control.
Rudy would lose NY, as would any candidate... That’s not that important... He could still win the election by holding onto most of the Bush states, and tipping one or two states, like Michigan or PA to our side. I’m not supporting him, I’d love to see FDT or Romney, or even McCain ahead of him, but unkike JR, I’d support Rudy wholeheartedly over any Dem.
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.