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 posted the following statement to our front page in response to the criticism I’m receiving lately as to not being fair and balanced and perceived mistreatment of trolls and assorted malcontents. Got news for all, I’m NOT fair and balanced. I’m biased toward God, country, family, liberty and freedom and against liberalism, socialism, anarchism, wackoism, global balonyism and any other form of tyranny. Hope this helps.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1103363/posts
Personal attacks and distorted information are tolerated, and addressed and corrected, when the conversation is in the mainstream. Conspiracy nuts, jewhaters and the looney right haven't been tolerated when they're over the top or quote questionable sources. Yes, the standard was/is stricter.
I see a standard similar to what would be applied to GWB brought down the towers posters here. And in my view Rudy supporters aren't loons, they're simply supporting the wrong candidate.
I do disagree, and admit my bias' would include a Republican in the White House in 2008, I sincerely hope not one with so many vowels in his last name. Clearly we disagree about how to accomplish that.
IMO, it was a smart thing to do. Rudy had a better handle on Arafat's character than Baker, Bush I, or Clinton, and likely has a better handle on Abbas than GWB. As do Gingrich, Hunter and McCain.
I think it's the candidate, which is your perrogative. You don't need my permission or support, but clarity is helpful.
Technically, he complained because the state recognized civil unions FROM other states, not that the state was pushing it TO other states.
Certainly a pure states-rights position would allow a state to decide to recognize civil unions from other states.
Bias? Bannings? I just reiterated my positions on the statement pasted below and the Rudy liberal activist supporters went hysterical and started committing mass freepercide.
Hope this helps:
Will FR embrace socialism to make way for Rudy Giuliani as a Republican presidential candidate?
vanity | April 21, 2007 | Jim Robinson
Posted on 04/21/2007 6:42:25 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
We’ve got some real challenges facing us. FR was established to fight against government corruption, overstepping, and abuse and to fight for a return to the limited constitutional government as envisioned and set forth by our founding fathers in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution and other founding documents.
One of the biggest cases of government corruption, overstepping and abuse that I know of is its disgraceful headlong slide into a socialist hell. Our founders never intended for abortion to be the law of the land. And they never intended the Supreme Court to be a legislative body. They never intended God or religion to be written out of public life. They never intended government to be used to deny God’s existence or for government to be used to force sexual perversions onto our society or into our children’s education curriculum. They never intend for government to disarm the people. They never intended for government to set up sanctuary cities for illegals. They never intended government to “rule” over the people and or to take their earnings or private property or to deprive them of their constitutional rights to free speech, free religion, private property, due process, etc. They never intended government to seize the private property of private citizens through draconian asset forfeiture laws or laws allowing government to take private property from lawful owners to give to developers. Or to seize wealth and redistribute it to others. Or to provide government forced health insurance or government forced retirement systems.
All of the above are examples of ever expanding socialism and tyranny brought to us by liberals/liberalism.
FR fights against the liberals/Democrats in all of these areas and always will. Now if liberalism infiltrates into the Republican party and Republicans start promoting all this socialist garbage, do you think that I or FR will suddenly stop fighting against it? Do you think I’m going to bow down and accept abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, global warming, illegal alien lawbreakers, gun control, asset forfeiture, socialism, tyranny, totalitarianism, etc, etc, etc, just so some fancy New York liberal lawyer can become president from the Republican party?
Do you really expect me to do that?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1821435/posts
Hi Jim:
You said you posted it in response to criticism you’re receiving “lately” but it’s dated 2004... Is there an updated thread?
The various articles were at odds about that as well. most said he left "within 20 minutes", a few said he left quietly, a couple said he specifically stayed until "he wanted to leave", at least one said for 2 "somethings" (I'm sorry, I've forgotten what the name is for parts of music).
Rudy said so long as Arafat left before the "ode to joy" part, he missed the purpose of the symphony. That suggests that Arafat did not leave immediately.
But leaving quietly does not indicate acknowledgement of misconduct. Arafat had already gotten the political coup, having shown up, having been greated with admiration by others (one article said people lined up to get his autograph), and having sat through a portion of the music.
He could well have decided that, with Rudy ordering him out, leaving would be the best political ploy. It didn't turn out that way, so far as I can tell, over time more people supported Rudy than otherwise.
Again, I appreciate your questioning my position, as it led me to do more research and learn more about the event.
And there are plenty of us who subscribe to, like, enjoy and appreciate those biases.
Dang, Monk, that's brilliant!
And I expanded on my remarks here (any many other places) a few days later:
There’s a bit more to it. Do you know anything about the conservative movement? The Religious Right? The pro life movement? The conservative grassroots movements for the defense of the constitution and the Bill of Rights? The GOP? The official Republican Party Platform? Even of the history of ALL Republican presidents throughout the history of the Republican Party?
If you did, then you would know that they all share a group of common core principles, values and beliefs. And first among these are the belief in God and that the United States of America was founded on the idea that all men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, and that among these rights are the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
Our rights are not handed down and doled out or controlled by government. They are among God’s precious gifts to mankind and cannot be taken away by man or government. They are our God-given “unalienable rights.” Our constitution is designed to protect these rights. Our government was designed first and foremost to defend these rights.
America was settled by a religious people. The Revolutionary war was fought by religious people. Our Founding Fathers and the Framers of the US Constitution were all religious people. America is designed for a people of high moral character. The idea of self government and individual freedom requires a moral society or it fails.
Our Founders never intended an overbearing government ruling over the people. They intended for the people to govern themselves and only ceded certain strictly limited powers to do certain enumerated tasks that are best suited to a central government, ie, to defend the nation, put down rebellions, manage the post office and postal roads, the mint, the patents office, the courts, etc. They never intended a federal government to control every aspect of our lives and livelihoods. When government controls all, that’s socialism and leads to tyranny and totalitarianism.
The Republican party from its very inception has a history of defending and fighting for (conserving) our American heritage, our God-centered society, our traditional family values and our individual freedom and equality under the law for all.
The GOP is and always has been pro-God, pro-Life, pro-family, pro-America, pro-Constitution, pro-Declaration, pro-Bill of Rights, pro-individual rights, pro-free speech, pro-free religion, pro-decency, pro-right to dissent, pro-gun, pro-private property, pro-rule of law, pro-due process, pro-presumption of innocence, pro-states rights (eh, not slavery), pro-local control, pro-self government, pro-limited government, pro-limited taxes, pro-sound fiscal policy, pro-national defense, pro-national-security, pro-national sovereignty, etc.
The GOP I know and respect is opposed to slavery, racism, socialism, fascism, liberal activist judges, moonbat liberalism, radical feminism, homosexualism, abortionism, radical environmentalism, globalism, paganism, gun control, big spending, high taxes, runaway government, socialist entitlement programs, federal welfare programs, socialized health care, wealth redistributionism, confiscatory taxation, social engineering, welfare or entitlements to illegal aliens, government enforced atheism or destruction or removal of religion/religious values and symbols and slogans from public life, the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, abortion, partial birth abortion, public funding for abortion, the gay agenda, gay marriage, gay unions, gay instruction to school children, gays rights in the military, thought crimes, gay agenda lobbies, the United Nations, terrorism, tyranny, totalitarianism, etc.
Now true, there have been many lapses and weaknesses and outright violations of our values and principles by the party, by our presidents, by our representatives, by our judges, even by ourselves, but still our traditional common core values and principles of conservatism and Republicanism and our Godly heritage should be defended and we should diligently fight to preserve same.
I see no reason whatsoever to cave-in to those who now are pushing the idea that conservatism is wrong or that America has deserted God or outlived our traditional American conservative values. That conservatives have held their boot on the neck of the GOP for far too long. That the GOP must make a sudden hard left turn and govern from the left if we are to survive. NOTHING can be further from the truth.
It’s time for some people to buck up, to dust off their copies of Reagan’s speeches. Read up on what Reagan says about socialism vs freedom. How socialists wish to control every aspect of your lives, your property, your livelihood, your income, your religion, even your thoughts. That’s socialism at its worst.
This IS the time for choosing. You can choose despair and fear and surrender of all that’s good to all that’s evil and to follow the cross-dressing dancing pixie hard left off the cliff into the godless pits of a socialist Utopian hell by supporting an abortionist supporting, gay rights “thought crimes” activist, gun grabbing, illegal alien sanctioning authoritarian liberal, or you can remain optimistic about a free American nation UNDER GOD and help us fight for Liberty and justice for all and to revive that shining city on the hill by supporting and electing a conservative.
Liberalism, abortionism, feminism, homosexualism, gun control, rights for illegal aliens, etc, are all causes of the America hating, freedom hating, constitution hating socialist left that is fighting to destroy our moral society and free nation.
Liberalism/socialism vs conservatism/freedom?
Now that should not be a hard choice for FReepers to make. The answer should be instinctive and immediate. Hell no I will not throw away all I’ve ever believed in to support a liberal!
FR chooses to fight and fight hard and all the way for conservatism and for our free nation under God!
Supporting liberalism/socialism will kill the GOP.
Those who oppose us and support socialism and socialist mores should do so elsewhere.
73 posted on 04/26/2007 3:17:54 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1824079/posts
Well, the certainly pre-dates all the Rudy stuff, doesn’t it.
No, haven’t updated that particular statement in awhile. Have posted similar sentiments many times since, though. Just above are two recent examples.
THOMPSON: 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.
And I'm for the rights of everybody, including gays, but not any special rights.
WALLACE: So, gay marriage? You're against.
THOMPSON: Yes. You know, marriage is between a man and a woman, and I don't believe judges ought to come along and change that.
WALLACE: What about civil unions?
THOMPSON: I think that that ought to be left up to the states. I personally do not think that that is a good idea, but I believe in many of these cases where there's real dispute in the country, these things are not going to be ever resolved.
People are going to have different ideas. That's why we have states. We ought to give great leeway to states and not have the federal government and not have the Supreme Court of the United States making social policy that's contrary to the traditions of this country and changing that overnight. And that's what's happened in a lot of these areas.
I've always thought that you have been fair and your posts are well reasoned. Even when I disagree with you, I have always found you to be a thoughtful and thought provoking Freeper.
"...nor have I questioned your right to make these judgements."
My statements weren't intended to seem like judgements, I was making observations.
Since this whole "Pro-Rudy vs. Anti-Rudy" conflict started here, I have seen a great many things that disturbed and surprised me. I even avoided the pro-Rudy threads for a while, because I found myself saying things that were out of character for me.
But the fighting was even on the other threads too, and soon every thread, whether political or not, started becoming a battleground.
For better or worse, Jim made a decision only he could make. Now we all must deal with it and move forward, or move on.
I too would like to see a Republican in the White House, but I want more than just someone with an (R) next to his name. I want more than a man with a name that the uninformed man on the street recognizes. I want us to choose someone on the basis of his record, not on how much money he can raise or how well he does in the latest media polls.
I want a conservative who has the same basic moral principles as I do. Who has a past that my kids can look at and see as an example.
And I have always found FreeRepublic a place that I could come (until lately) and find people with the same hopes and dreams for our Party and our nation.
Now, with everything that's happened, we'll get back to supporting a candidate we can be proud of.
By the way, my 2003/2004 statement above was posted after the Iraq war started and we had a little mini war erupt here on FR. The Paleocons, Buchananites and Rockwellians, et al, all aligned themselves with the Democrats, French, Germans, Russians and Saddam Hussein against America. They couldn’t understand why they were getting banned for bashing Bush, bashing our war efforts and basically supporting the other side. The irony of this is, many of the now banned liberal Giuliani supporters/conservative bashers were cheering wildly as the Bush bashers were getting their heads handed to them. Guess perceived fairness all depends on whose ox is getting gored.
He is so far on the left of so many issues that it is hard to see why Mr. Giuliani doesn't run as a Democrat instead of as a Republican.
Sounds like FR is now about properly centered in the conservative movement. Conservative, but not to the point of being stupid like the Buchananites. Pragmatic, but not willing to sell out for a candidate like Rudy.
It should be interesting to see what kind of mileage FR gets after your latest tune-up.
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.