37 year old freelance writer
co-founder of Michigan Citizens for Science
Posted on 04/29/2007 8:01:42 AM PDT by Mr. Brightside
Giuliani Panders to Religious Right
April 29, 2007 9:12 AM, by Ed Brayton
Mitt Romney isn't the only Republican presidential candidate snuggling up to the religious right and pretending to be against gay rights to win the nomination; Rudy Giuliani, who has a long track record of support for gay rights, is now in full pander mode as well. Pam Spaulding is on the case. This post reports on his new position on civil unions:
An advanced copy of an article sent to RAW STORY shows that the New York Republican has backed off his earlier support for civil unions, prompted by the passage of a law in New Hampshire's State Senate.
"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 Giuliani campaign said in a written response sent to the Sun's Ryan Sager.
And offers a few choice quotes from years past, when Rudy didn't need to pander to the Dobson wing of the Republican party. Like this one:
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." And this one:
"Marriage should be a man and a woman...I think that the domestic partnership legislation in NY has worked very, very well. I think that's a good way to deal with it, and I think that would be a good model for other states to have. Some places call them domestic partnerships, some states call it civil unions, and I think that would be the best way to deal with it."
So not only do we now get to watch this serial adulterer tell gays that they can't even have civil union protections, much less marriage, but we get to watch him contradict his own previous positions on the matter. And of course, when called on it, he'll react with feigned outrage over the personal attack on his character. All he has shown, of course, is that character is precisely what he does not have.
That’s hardly the same thing.
I forgot to count a few liberals that will pick Rooty because of the issues that he is farther left than the Rats.
Why not? Do you have something against dogs?
37 year old freelance writer
co-founder of Michigan Citizens for Science
I have something against stupidity.
I am more inclined to believe that Romney has had an honest change of mind. Unlike Rudy, Romney has lived his full 60 years (and over 35 years of marriage) in full accordance with social conservative principles. Viewed from that perspective, Romney's earlier support for a few social liberal positions rake on the appearance of having been a conviction of the mind--not of the heart.
You’re a dog hating bigot.
So what is the definiton of "civil union?" Is it only between homosexuals? Is it only for two partners? Where is that defined? What is the basis for "civil union?"
Show us how smart you are and give an intelligent and informed answer to those questions.
I strongly suspect you couldn’t care less what my response to that question is. You only mean to mock me if I do answer it.
Your response tells me that you have nothing of substance to say. You're a drive-by poster that takes a couple of easy shots and when pressed to back up your bravado you fold like a house of cards.
No, I began by pointing out that civil unions has nothing to do with animals and you decided to behave like a child, under the deluded impression that you’re amusing.
Does the following sound familiar?
You’re all-knowing, right? You can just decide for me what I really mean. #33
That second post was a continuation of an earlier thread which you obviously weren’t involved in. So, no, it doesn’t sound familiar at all. The other person took a post and decided that I didn’t really mean what I actually said.
Rudy is “land locked” by his record : )
You can't defend you position so you continue to insult.
All that aside you apparently still feel that you can decide for me what I think.
You want a definition, go to a dictionary. That’s not my problem. And I don’t recall stating a position.
In other words you feel free to attack my position but you don’t have one of your own. Is that about right?
You didn’t have a position either. You had a question that was irrelevant. I pointed out the irrelevance of it and from there, the conversation got dumber.
That's not too hard to understand. That's the nature of a discussion forum. It's very much like a discussion in any other medium.
If my question is irrelevant you ought to be able to explain why it's irrelevant. I clarified my position quite crisply in post #51 so my original tongue-in-cheek post shouldn't be confusing you now.
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.