Giuliani's Startling Departure on Civil Unions [Giuliani weaseling]

The New York Sun ^ | April 27, 2007 | RYAN SAGER

[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."

[FreeReign]

He’s no more a hypocrite than our own small-government, secure borders president. Take your pick.

Our current president doesn't flip-flop on issues. When our current president is right or wrong about something, he stays that way...

[FreeReign]

"I think that we ought to be a tolerant nation. I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn't set up special categories for anybody. Marriage is between a man and a woman and I don't believe judges ought to come along and change that."

Thanks for the full Fred quote.

[Liz]

Thanks for publishing the "announcements." The evidence is not just mounting but clear in terms of Giuliani and his support for the homosexual agenda. And it isn't from 15 years ago either, but 1998, 2000, etc. He must be stopped and I'm glad tosee the lines drawn in the sand now on FR and elsewhere to call him out on his opinions so the truth be known.

You're very welcome. A look at Rudy's past is a glimpse into the future.

[Politicalmom]

You are a hit and run troll. There are numerous replies to your posts, and you simply ignore them after you get your worn-out material on the thread.

Are you cutting and pasting your “thoughts”? They sure are repetetive. Of course you HAVE no defense for Giuliani, and you have pounded the couple negatives on Thompson into the ground.

[CharacterCounts]

You are a hit and run troll.

She is toast.

[cuky]

Another typical blame Bush for everything post. So far off base. Sickening if you ask me, even if you don’t ask me its sickening.

[Liz]

Rooty has a "come to Jesus" moment.

" Oh, please, let me sound conservative. Who knew I'd need those
'dumb pro-life Christian conservatives' to make a primary showing?

They're killing me on FR just b/c I had three wives, several mistresses,
was honored by NARAL, donated to Planned Parenthood, and marched
for gay rights under the NAMBLA banner."

[dirtboy]

But Bush certainly contributed to the breakdown of the conservative framework, which led to liberal politicians like Rudy succeeding under the Republican banner.

That's quite an accomplishment - Rudy was elected mayor and served almost all of his two terms before Bush became president.

I never knew the governor of Texas had so much sway on New York City politics.

[SJackson]

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.

The heck he doesn't.

Arafat was here to speak to the UN. That doesn't give him and his cohorts the keys to America.

The City of New York was hosting a private reception, invitataion only.

Arafat was not invited. Deliberately, he wasn't wanted.

IMO that's clearly in the purvue of the Mayor, since he was elected by the people.

Who I might note if the do in fact collectively own the theatre, opera I believe, don't get free access either.

Arafat showed up in the company of several UN officials, he was asked to leave since he wasn't invited, and he did.

Same as you or I.

That's not making foreign policy.

The $10 million, you seem to have some thing about the "people", as a mob like collective who must approve each executive decision.

He's the mayor, if the "people" don't like his decision, they can throw him out. My impression, the decision was rather popular.

[zook]

Before Veronica got the zot, I sent her mail. I essentially gave her a pat on the back for her post. I saw no lies in any of her posts, nor did I see her deny that FT may have made other related comments.

There was no reason for anyone to call her a liar. Posters were free to point out the full context of the comments in a civil fashion. Instead, she was baited and banned.

FR ought to be better than that.

[kevkrom]

Arafat showed up in the company of several UN officials, he was asked to leave since he wasn't invited, and he did.

Thanks for that clarification. I had not heard the full story before, and was left with the impression that Guiliani had overstepped his bounds. I'll make sure not to use that as a negative example in the future and to correct anyone who does use it as such.

[dirtboy]

There was no reason for anyone to call her a liar. Posters were free to point out the full context of the comments in a civil fashion. Instead, she was baited and banned.

Oh, horsecrap.

She was clearly shown where NewsMax lifted Fred's comment out of context. But she apparently decided to ride her nonsensical "Fred's the Same as Rudy on Gay Issues" all the way down to the seafloor.

[kevkrom]

I saw no lies in any of her posts, nor did I see her deny that FT may have made other related comments. There was no reason for anyone to call her a liar. Posters were free to point out the full context of the comments in a civil fashion.

Bull. She knew what she was posting was a deliberate twisting of Thompson's words. She was called on her deception correctly. She's been making similar snide comments about Thompson for some time, it's not just an isolated incident.

Instead, she was baited and banned.

No one baited her. She made a bogus statement and was called on it. She was given ample opportunity and warnings to quit that particular line of attack, and she persisted. Don't blame the rest of us for the fact that she basically asked to be zotted.

[vox_freedom]

Amen!

[vox_freedom]

Before Veronica got the zot, I sent her mail. I essentially gave her a pat on the back for her post. I saw no lies in any of her posts, nor did I see her deny that FT may have made other related comments.

[ZULU]

“Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman.”

In an undending series of relationships.

[zook]

I think an objective reading of the record leads one to different conclusions than those you’ve both expressed regarding Veronica. Just my opinion. All are free to ignore it and move on.

[ZULU]

This guy will never beat the Dems in a general election. I pray he doesn’t get nominated.

[zook]

“Blah Blah Blah” is a sadly apt slogan indeed.

[dirtboy]

I think an objective reading of the record leads one to different conclusions than those you’ve both expressed regarding Veronica

And I think you're full of it. Here is the sentence from the article that Veronic posted:

He also called last month for "a tolerant nation" on gay rights."

And here is what Fred actually said:

Gay rights? I think that we ought to be a tolerant nation. I think we ought to be tolerant people. But we shouldn't set up special categories for anybody.

So Fred says he doesn't think there is "gay rights" per se - there should be no special categories. That is diametrically opposite of what the Newsmax article (and veronica) said.