Giuliani Panders to Religious Right

Science Blogs ^ | 4/29/07

[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.

[TigersEye]

Oh, and once again you insulted me. I’m getting more and more certain that is all you have.

[ilovew]

I did explain why it’s irrelevant. I don’t know of any definition of civil union that includes animals. Thus, the irrelevance of your question. If the definition is confusing you, though, here ya go: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civil%20union

I looked at all the definitions, they don’t mention animals.

[caffe]

If all one had to do is “love” another, then someone who falls in love with man’s best friend should NOT be denied their civil rights.

Since when is sexual perversion a civil right?

[cowdog77]

“I don’t see why men having anal sex with men should gain anyone’s approval. It doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or Darwin, it is a perversion of human nature.”
_____________________________

Agreed ~ Well stated!

[TigersEye]

Dictionaries don't create definitions they just list them. Who came up with that? What is the history of "civil union?" Where has it ever existed before?

The answer is that liberal homosexual activists came up with the defintion. It has no history beyond that. It never existed until the VT Supreme Court ordered the VT legislature to write it into law about ten years ago. It has no cultural basis, no religious basis and no legal basis beyond the last few years of liberal judiciary activisism.

As ridiculous as all that is if that is acceptable to the courts then it is perfectly reasonable to include animals, multiple partners or "civil union" with a patch of Spanish Moss.

My original post accurately reflects the absurdity of any kind of "civil union" being enshrined in law.