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 ...
“...baited and zotted...”
Zook, Veronica has been on the JRob thread during the time that the owner made it perfectly clear what was definately off limits. He stated he would not permit members to trash conservative candidates and icons as a tactic to prop up a liberals’ (Giuliani) candidacy. Comparing Giulianis record and intensity of efforts on gay rights to Fred Thompson’s is just absurd, by any accumulation of their words and actions.
Oh really?
Did she, or did she not, post an out-of-context quote from Thompson in order to falsely equate his position with Guiliani's?
Did she, or did she not, later admit that she knew the quote was out of context (something I had already known that she knew)?
Did she, or did she not, receive multiple public warnings from Jim to stop making those false assertions?
Did she, or did she not, persist in continuing those assertions after the warnings?
Well, let's see what your version of objectivity is, shall we?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1813747/posts?page=162#145
Rudy Giuliani doesn’t support abortion on demand.
Your own words. You say that despite Rudy's 100 percent NARAL rating. Rudy's addressing NARAL twice and praising their efforts to keep abortion legal.
So if that is your version of objectivity, no thanks, you can friggin' have it.
But, unless I missed something, I saw no “trashing” of FT. Her point, based on the article in question, was that FR and RG “are not that far apart” on gay issues.
She may be wrong. But it wasn’t a “lie” to make the point nor did it seem to be aimed at trashing FT. If I missed some offensive comment she made, then I hope someone will point it out to me.
So sad what I’m seeing. Conservatives afraid to debate issues. So afraid that all they can say is get out get out. We can only hear one side of an issue.
Conservatives that I know and love are able to debate and win on issues w/o the vitriol and double standards of debating etiquette.
Check my post 244. Zook apparently is a regular consumer of the grape Rudy-Aide. So forgive him if that has clouded his perception of objectivity.
What does “abortion on demand” mean?
Certainly is, for your feeble attempts at defending the indefensible.
Which is complete and utter nonsense once you look at the underlying statements and actions from both.
Abortion where there is none of the exceptions of rape, incest or life of the mother. Basically, abortion as birth control.
Please explain what you mean by “indefensible.”
I was defending a poster’s right to claim that FT and Rudy “are not that far apart” on the gay issue without being called a liar.
Is that what you mean by “indefensible”?
Does Rudy support the use of 3rd trimester abortions as a means of birth control?
A poster has "rights" on FR? That's a good one. Are you saying that JimRob has to grant rights to veronica to say something that JimRob finds highly objectionable - namely to misrepresent that Fred and Rudy aren't that far apart on gay rights?
Abortions occurring at any time during a full pregnancy.
Hairsplitting, eh? Now you've gone from saying "Rudy Giuliani doesn’t support abortion on demand" to saying "Does Rudy support the use of 3rd trimester abortions".
You're being a major-league weasel now, Mr. Objectivity.
No, she was wrong, and she knew it. That's what makes it a lie.
Yes.
He is just lawyering the definition of marriage with Kerryesque nuance.
In the eyes of the law all mariage is a “civil union”. The ABA for years has pushed a model domestic relations law (which the Mass Supreme Court copied) which has marriage based on adult sexual behavior and children are a mere accessory to “breeding couples” (normal people for those in rio linda).
All any homosexual who wants to cohabitate with another like fetished person can execute a cohabitation agreegement available from any staples, office depot, or office max store for about $25. No lawyer needed.
Guiliani must be nuancing this because he has staffers and/or personal friends who are homsoexuals and want to ultimatly have laws which sanction homosexual behavior.
This is an effor to move to the center of america via blatent election season pandering. So after the election will he re-nuance again?
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.