04/27/2007
Giuliani Flip-Flop: Withdraws Support for Civil Unions
For all our Rudy Giuliani coverage, click here.
Thought Rudy was that kinder, gentler, more "moderate" Republican candidate? Think again.
Flipping on his previously stated support for civil unions, Rudy Giuliani last night came out and said that he no longer supported them. The Republican presidential contender was reacting to the New Hampshire legislature's passage of a bill that would legalize same-sex unions in the state.
His spokesperson told the New York Sun: "Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly. 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 Sun notes Giuliani's 2004 appearance on The O'Reilly Factor in which he said "I'm in favor of … civil unions" and went on to explain why: "Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman. 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."
Giuliani has really made some ugly turns this week. First the 9/11 fear-mongering, now this.
Even Republican pollsters are somewhat astounded by the latter. One reached by the Sun said: "Why would you want to take a position where you are splitting hairs, when you have been so consistently on the record as for civil unions? You can't turn around at the eleventh hour and say this comes a little too close to marriage and then not support it."
Photo above: Rudy attempts to smell better for the religious right. Problem is, you can't put perfume on a pig.
Giuliani's Startling Departure on Civil Unions [ny sun]
Giuliani, in effort to appease far-right of GOP, is now reversing himself on gay issues [americablog]
Giuliani now opposes civil unions [pam's house blend]
Posted 9:00 AM EST by Andy Towle in Gay Marriage, New Hampshire, News, Republican Party, Rudy Giuliani | Permalink
Like it?
Subscribe to FREE Towleroad daily headlines with our RSS feed!
RECENT STORIES:
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
Cyd, you don't see the inclusion of "under law" in that last statement as an escape valve so Rudy can hedge on this issue all he wants?
Posted by: 24play | Apr 27, 2007 11:20:28 AM
I really don't want to have to get into this with you again MJ but:
So throw gay people under the bus in order to elect Republican presidents? Bush was a "compassionate conservative" too way back in 2000. How did that work out?
Posted by: Adam | Apr 27, 2007 11:28:17 AM
Hey, everybody, look: it's Cyd. Cyd Who? Cyd OutSports Who Pimps Books For Ann Coulter [whom he thinks of as "just a comedienne"] And Other Fag Bashers. Cyd Who Worships Ronald AIDS Is God's Punishment Reagan. Cyd Who Thinks That Echoing Rudy's "Nonequality Equals Equality" position MAKES SENSE and IS A GOOD THING. Cyd Who Thinks That He's Actually Making Rudy Look Good By Echoing His Declaration That Gay Marriage Would Somehow Make "Marriage Between A Man And A Woman" Less Sacred.
Gee, Cyd. You really need to change positions. When you're getting fucked by another Fag Repug I mean. Because when your ass is repeatedly higher than your head it obviously destroys a lot of brain cells.
Posted by: Leland | Apr 27, 2007 11:33:26 AM
MJ, I'm very sorry for your loss indeed. We all have our hot buttons, just as I don't find any joke about AIDS to be even remotely funny as I have watched people close to me deteriorate and die horrid deaths, but I will say this much...WE didn't blow up the World Trade Center. That was the work of some very vile people, so I am less inclined to take issue with a joke inferring Giuliani is the Wicked Witch of the East (in this case). Again, I do truly understand your message, but that wasn't at all what my second comment was about. I was just poking fun at a slight typo Vince had made and the error just brought together a array of hilarities in my mind. I believe he meant to say that Americans are all "naive", not "native".
CRIXI DID IT! CRIXI DID IT!
Posted by: FizziekruntNT | Apr 27, 2007 11:34:00 AM
Crixi, may the next terrorist attack happen at your place of work. You are just crude. I'd tell you to get AIDS and die, but then I'd just be stooping to your level of humor.
Rudy's still getting my vote. He's no better than the Dems stumping to get the ultraliberal Hollywood left. You do what you have to do to get elected and then you do what you want when you've got the job. Even our current president didn't do all he said he would. I mean, abortion is still legal isn't it? And he's an idiot, but knew how to do it.
Posted by: Kamasutra Jones | Apr 27, 2007 11:34:49 AM
Okay, Fizz. I hear ya.
Posted by: MJ | Apr 27, 2007 11:37:38 AM
While we're on the subject, who IS everybody voting for? I know it's early, but who are you leaning towards now?
Posted by: MJ | Apr 27, 2007 11:40:30 AM
Edwards or Obama.
Posted by: Charles | Apr 27, 2007 11:46:11 AM
Edward or Obama here too.
Posted by: Zeke | Apr 27, 2007 12:03:36 PM
He's extremely vulnerable on this issue--he'll be forced out of the race before the primaries begin.
Posted by: anon | Apr 27, 2007 12:15:35 PM
Cyd, with all due respect my friend, you are serously twisting yourself in knots to defend Giuliani and your Republican credentials here.
You claim that he supports equal opportunities and equal benefits just not marriage but you are ignoring the fact that he released a statement CONDEMNING a STATE legislature for doing JUST THAT. I'm sorry bubba, you guys are all about states making their own decisions, and complaining about "activists judges and activist courts" but when a duly elected STATE LEGISLATURE votes, WITH "activist" court intrusion to give civil unions, you come out to defend one of your boys who NOW says that that state did the wrong thing.
It's just like how you boys changed your talking points when the elected California legislature passed a marriage equality bill and your golden boy Ahhnuld vetoed it saying that it should be decided by the courts or by the people.
Similarly, anti-gay forces in Spain are trying to overturn the will of the parliament, and the majority of Spaniards by ending marriage equality, HOW? By going to the COURTS of course.
I understand the bobbing and weaving and hypocrisy from the rabid homophobes but I find it truly disgusting when gay people like yourself play the game right out of the anti-gay playbook.
I guess being a Republican is something you're born with, and worth fighting for to the death, but being gay is a choice and not worthy of defense against some of the outrageous crusades of the GOP. You certainly find a way to always fall on the side of the GOP when it comes to gay issues.
Posted by: Zeke | Apr 27, 2007 12:18:51 PM
make that, ...WITHOUT "activist" court intrusion...
Posted by: Zeke | Apr 27, 2007 12:20:46 PM
Zeke, anyone who's read a little of Cyd's blog knows that he has enormous difficulty with reason and logic.
I have often had differences of opinion with reasonable, well-spoken conservatives and been left respecting their opinions and appreciating their arguments. With Cyd that's rarely an option.
Posted by: 24play | Apr 27, 2007 12:29:44 PM
I'll support Clinton or Edwards. I like Obama, but I'd like him better with about ten more years experience.
Posted by: peterparker | Apr 27, 2007 1:23:13 PM
I'm still leaning toward Giuliani for Republican candidate. Obama for Democrat. But I also think that Obama might be too young. Maybe later, when he doesn't look so much like Tiger Woods.
Posted by: MJ | Apr 27, 2007 1:47:49 PM
Edwards, Obama, Clinton and Richardson, and not in that order. Indecisive yes, but we still have plenty of time to decide.
Gore is my real choice, but, sigh, he is not running and it appears that he won't be running.
Posted by: Will | Apr 27, 2007 1:56:03 PM
Frankly, I don't even understand why anyone is surprised by this. All this talk about him being "pro-gay" had been nothing more than hearsay (imo)...
Facts are:
-He did not accept the invitation HRC extended to "top tier" presidential candidates who had supported gay civil rights in the past; so it's obvious he didn't want to stand in too close quarters with gays, cause it doesn't look good for his campaign.
http://www.washblade.com/2007/3-9/news/national/10150.cfm
-When General Pace used his military badge to make a moral call on the lives of gay Americans in the army (and beyond), Giuliani dodged the issue when asked what he thought of Pace doing that. much like other republican candidates.
http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/archives/2007/03/3877_no_surprise_rep.html
-He's never stood up publicly for gay rights since he began his campaign; and I knew that when push came to shove he would never stand up for LGBT people -- and let's be honest here, he's pandering to the religious right!! the same people who unleashed 20,000 teens from Battlecry to march against "gay sin" and "liberal" San Francisco back in March and who have been multiplying attacks against our community in the last months and years to effectively move the country to the right (that's the ultimate goal) to make it
safer for an anti-gay republican to be elected. If you don't see him speak against such tactics, it means he approves of them cause he benefits from it.
Today, his actively and purposedly going against a State's decision should be seen as what it is: it is a PREEMPTIVE ATTACK ON GAY RIGHTS.
Yep, I really do think so.
He's basically telling us where he stands, and what we can expect from him if he becomes president. -- And make no mistake, he will continue to go against our rights to satisfy his base, and I this point I can no longer rule out the possibility of him attempting to amend the constitution to ban gay marriage altogether.
Posted by: Da | Apr 27, 2007 2:18:58 PM
More "magical thinking" is beginning to appear on Towleroad than at a kindergarten Story Time. Or is it "Guiliani Magic Beans" that some fools keep deepthroating and distorting their ability to reason? The guy increasingly, actively, consciously, EXPLOITS homophobia to try to get elected and you think he's going to turn into the Lavendar Messiah thirty seconds after he's sworn in? Just WHERE the fuck do you pull any suggestion that he might do that other than out of your ass?
If verbal gay bashing helps him get elected, along with full-bore homohating Repugs riding his proverbial coat tails, then he will be motivated to "stay the course" in order to get elected to a second term, again with these fascists in his bag. And during his second term he will be motivated to "stay the course" in order to get a Republican successor elected, and a Republican Congress, and so on and so on.
Has a Dem candidate for the nomination attacked civil unions? No. Here's your cookies and milk and the morale of the story: GROW THE FUCK UP!
Posted by: Leland | Apr 27, 2007 2:32:49 PM
Michael Signorile has the exclusive audio of Rudy Giuliani at SiriusOutQ in december 2003 where he touted his support for gay rights as a Republican.
http://tinyurl.com/2m3wgy
Giuliani specifically said there was no difference between domestic partnerships or civil unions, that he supported states that called it either and that he supported civil unions.
How quickly things change!
Posted by: Bill | Apr 27, 2007 4:08:07 PM
Rudy's pandering, but he can't put his past back into the closet completely. The other candidates will use whatever they can get against him.
Posted by: anon | Apr 27, 2007 4:18:04 PM
So I am walking into a war zone here, but I was personally invited by my good friend Zeke to try and defend my vote for Rudy. So, here it is, I cannot defend his flip/flop on gay marriage any more than many of you here can defend Hillary's "evolvement" in her thinking of gays! Where is the anger towards her for her flip/flop?
I am amazed at how many of you can look the other way when a democrat makes homophobic remarks with all the memory of a 2 year old! Let's face it, THERE ARE HOMOPHOBIC PEOPLE IN BOTH PARTIES! Do I agree with Rudy on this issue, NO. Do I agree with Rudy on MORE issues than I do any of the dem frontrunners, YES! Having said that, I do not feel as though I have to defend anything further. Voting repub does not mean that I am a closeted, self hating individual that would sell his soul for a tax cut. I am sure that there are many here that would disagree, but since I do not sleep with you, you are not my kids, family etc. I have little concern for your thoughts on my personal beliefs. Zeke, on the other hand, is a very important friend to me. While I greatly appreciate his view point and respect his opinion, I still have my own beliefs which include the support of Rudy.
I posted here months ago that I look forward to receiving my rights as a gay man from our "new" democratic congress. I am still waiting and have yet to hear any talk at the federal level about me or my family. You can point fingers all day and so can I, but in the end I will vote for the candidate that I agree with on the MOST points and not just one or two.
Posted by: RB | Apr 27, 2007 4:20:18 PM
the dems all make it very clear that they are also AGAINST 'gay marriage' .. then they dance around going on about how they believe in equality.. blah blah.. just not THAT much equality. those folks who choose to turn this (and every other) issue into a partisan, name-calling screed should worry less about the opposing party and hold their own beloved candidates' feet to the fire.
Posted by: el polacko | Apr 27, 2007 6:05:34 PM
Wow, MJ, I was starting to think I was too hard on you about the Irish thing, but after reading what you've posted here I think you must have no integrity or self respect at all. You say that if you were running for office you'd sell out gay people and then you say you'll vote for a candidate who did just that. I don't expect much from politicians, but I won't vote for one who does this--and I don't respect gay people who would vot for him.
Posted by: Daniel | Apr 27, 2007 7:01:55 PM
he's no Ed Koch.
Posted by: A.J. | Apr 27, 2007 7:11:16 PM
Daniel, you have misquoted MJ almost as badly as the media has misquoted Rudy! Re-read his post and try again. And for the record, I would never vote for you either!!!
Posted by: RB | Apr 27, 2007 7:58:09 PM