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 Apr. 27,2007 at 9:00 AM EST by Andy Towle in Gay Marriage, New Hampshire, News, Republican Party, Rudy Giuliani | Permalink
El PoShitForBrains: you are the perfect pathetic manifestation of partisanship over facts. Try to pay attention. Guiliani unequivocally now has a position WORSE than any Democrat. Repeat NONE of the Dems have become MORE conservative about legal recognition of gay relationships since announcing for their party's nomination. Guiliani—that's Italian for "crawls on his stomach"—has. What's next? His refusal to march in the Columbus Day Parade because he's decided that old Christopher was wrong and the earth is flat after all?
While I don't follow RB's assertion that Hillary has similarly specifically said she now supports fewer gay rights than she once did, at least he alludes to other issues that, from his perspective, collectively outweigh positions by Dem candidates. But Polack, come on!
Posted by: Leland | Apr 27, 2007 8:13:12 PM
"I don't blame Giuliani one bit. I'd have done the same."
You are right that I misread him on who he will vote for (he actually didn't state) so I apologize for that. However, he did write the above quote--so I will stand by that criticism.
RB, I won't be running for anything so I won't be needing your vote.
Posted by: Daniel | Apr 27, 2007 8:23:16 PM
I'm no Hillary fan but when she talked about her E-volving beliefs on gay marriage, she was talking about moving toward more acceptance, not DE-volving into less.
RB my friend, thanks for joining the discussion and offering a different point of view. I will admit that the Democrats aren't a WHOLE lot better than Giuliani on gay issues but I think ALL of them are considerably better. As for what the Democrats have done in the four short months that they've been in power I think you may have missed a couple of things. The Democrats have put a bill forward to expand hate crimes to add gays to the existing catagories protected and they have an anti-discrimination bill working its way through. A DADT repeal is most likely in the works as well. I think the Dems have done more in the last four months, for gay people, than the Republicans did in the last six years. Not to mention that we WON'T be seeing a gay marriage amendment under their watch.
I think those things are pretty significant, especially in light of the rabidly homophobic rhetoric, and attempts at passing anti-gay legislation, we've seen coming out of Washington the last few years.
Posted by: Zeke | Apr 27, 2007 8:38:49 PM
No Daniel,
You were right on the money on MJ. Check out some of the lovely things he said on the last Guliani post on this blog. He's a total right wing robot.
Posted by: Adam | Apr 27, 2007 8:46:09 PM
You may have a point Zeke in that you believe that dems are better on gay rights than repubs. However, neither party is ready to step up and do the right thing for equality!
I am just saying that not all repubs are Mitt Romney and not all dems are Ted Kennedy! They are the extremes.
Posted by: RB | Apr 27, 2007 8:59:57 PM
I would be interested in hearing about the policies of Rudy that have drawn you to support him.
Until this latest report I understood your support because he seemed like a moderate, gay positive Republican. It seems like every day he becomes less moderate and more like Bush.
He had a terrible record in New York on just about everything until DOING HIS JOB after 9/11 made him a god. The firefighters and police officers groups of New York hate him.
He's pro-Choice, even calling for public funding.
And now anti civil unions and becoming more sketchy by the day on his support of gay rights.
Not much there for a gay, pro-Life, Conservative to like as far as I can see.
What am I missing?
Posted by: Zeke | Apr 27, 2007 9:59:38 PM
"Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman."
Funny last time I checked Rudy has had three wives, that is not to mention his mistresses, amopung those who who have made the press, his third wife and another city worker:
"married to Donna Hanover, a TV new anchor in New York. In 1996, he started appearing in public frequently with his press secretary, Cristyne Lategano (who was 28, and the youngest NYC press secretary ever, when Giuliani appointed her.) Vanity Fair magazine reported that they were dating. Hanover then changed back to her maiden name on tax returns, stopped appearing with Guiliani in public, and barred Cristyne from any of her public events."
This of course was after he married his first cousin, thank God they didn't have kids. Maybe Rudy was looking ahead to his run in 2008, gunning for the southern vote.
The fact that anyone could vote republican after the way they have fucked up this country is beyond me. As if the war was not enough reason, Rudy's slam against our saftey if any Dems win is just proof he'll play the fear card. Don't forget it was a Reublican in the Mayors, Governors and White House when we were hit on 9/11.
There are a few things most people forget about Rudy that many of us political junkies know here in NYC. His families ties to the Mob, his hiring Bernard Kerek, first as a body guard, then promoted to the head of the Corrections and then Police Department. This is the man whose mother was killed by her pimp. Who himself had ties to orginized crime and had to withdraw his name for the homeland security job when this was all brought up by the press, Bush wanting to push a 'real' hero into the job.
The sad thing is I do not give a shit about Rudy, he's dead in the water, and not for any of the reasons I've posted. He's going to lose because middle America is not going to be cool about a man who likes to dress up as a woman, a joke is once, Rudy's done it over and over. Trust me, the guys McCaine have hired all worked for Rove, the ones who buried McCaine, God I love irony.
As for who I'm voting for, last Democrat standing. They are all the lessor of evils. They all, dem and rep, say what it takes to get ahead. God Bless America.
Posted by: patrick nyc | Apr 27, 2007 10:27:51 PM
I'm terribly disappointed in Rudy, who was always a bit of a bastard but one that I liked. He always seemed like he couldn't be bothered to kiss anyone's ass, and if you didn't like it you could fuck off.
Obviously I see him differently now. It's all the more discouraging because it really won't get him anywhere. After years of supporting gay rights and living with gay friends and dressing in drag, does he really think this one nasty little betrayal will win him the trust of the right wing? Of course it won't - they'll always hold his past against him. He's sold away a big piece of his integrity and has little chance of gaining any votes from it. What a stupid move.
Posted by: Zlexar | Apr 27, 2007 11:51:53 PM
Hey Patrick, NYC, I'm Southern and I've never wanted to have sex with my cousins, and believe me, I could've because 1/3 of them are gay! :)
"I look forward to receiving my rights as a gay man from our "new" democratic congress."
RB, generally I enjoy your posts about why you vote Repub because I feel you're sincere and clear cut. But you always end it with the above statement. That's when you lose me.
Are you REALLY waiting for any particular gay rights? Or is that something you just like to say because you don't feel either Party is going to come through for us gays? Because if you really wanted politicians to pass laws securing your rights as a gay man, you would welcome it from the Party most likely to do so.
And that ain't the Republicans.
So I am left asking the same question.. are you really concerned about gay rights or is that just an issue you can live without because Republicans reflect issues that you care about more?
It's time to get real.
Posted by: mark m | Apr 28, 2007 2:49:49 PM
Mark M you make a very good point and I appreciate the fact that you called me on it in respectful manner. I do want to have my relationship recognized. I do want gay rights. I suppose I feel as though I am just as likely to get those rights from one party as I am the other. Yes, the dems are good about talking about rights and I am genuinely happy everytime we advance regardless of the party that created those rights, but when the rubber hits the road they cave to middle America!
I would rather you call it like it is than tell me you are for my rights and then do nothing after elected. When I listen to the "talk" by many of the dems and watch their action I simply do not understand why I should blindly accept the crumbs they offer. I weigh all issues that are important to me before I vote. I refuse to be a one issue voter and I want to make people think! If anyone can tell me WHY they are a dem without saying they are better for us gays as the only reason I am willing to listen. Zeke has done this better than anyone thus far and I totally respect his opinion.
However, many cannot name their mayor, senator, etc let alone what they stand for. I suppose I end my posts with that statement so often in order to make people think. I feel no more alienated from one party than I do the other thats all. And when you take into account my anti-abortion, anti needle exchange program, low tax, small fed government platform I tend to fall in line with repubs more often. That does not mean that I will not cross party lines to vote for a candidate that will be a better choice. I vote the person.
If all gays would involve themselves in the election process regardless of the party we would be in a different world. We simply do not vote as a community! If I knew that EVERY GLBT PERSON WOULD VOTE in an election that would further our cause by supporting a quality candidate that would not cave on gay rights I would cross over and vote in line with everyone. However, we make it to the polls only about 2 -4% of the time.
I appreciate your post Mark M! I hope I answered your question. I stand for gay rights, among other things. When the right candidate comes along I will vote for them regardless of party. How many of the people here can say the same thing? How many here would cross party lines to vote for the right repub? Few and far between.
If anyone can clearly explain what they believe in and why they vote for a particular party I listen everytime. If all you can tell me is that dems are better for gays and you cannot support ANY OTHER ISSUE then I am checking out. And again, for the record, I HAVE NO USE FOR GEORGE W. BUSH!!! I voted for Gore and Kerry. So there you have it.
Take care
RB
Posted by: RB | Apr 28, 2007 3:50:41 PM
Again to me, the problem isn't so much Rudy's current position on gay rights, as much as what I feel was a *misrepresentation* of his true feelings on this topic in recent days (hence why I called it all 'hearsay').
If he had said in the beginning of the campaign -when every article was touting his support for civil unions-, "hey wait a minute, this was 3 years ago, I've reconsidered everything and this is where I stand today", I would have been fine with it.
But he allowed the doubts to linger on; and for misinformation to be spread on this very important for gays (and some conservatives too). That is what I dislike the most: the lowness and the decietfulness of it all. That more than anything speaks of his character, and makes him untrustable on any topic of importance.
Posted by: Da | Apr 28, 2007 9:55:46 PM
RB
You say:
"When I listen to the "talk" by many of the dems and watch their action I simply do not understand why I should blindly accept the crumbs they offer. I weigh all issues that are important to me before I vote. I refuse to be a one issue voter and I want to make people think! If anyone can tell me WHY they are a dem without saying they are better for us gays as the only reason I am willing to listen."
I agree most pols, the GOP and Dems talk out their ass, but when it comes to offering crumbs, the Dems do that, while the GOP constantly fights us or makes us the target of the right wing. If you do not see that then there is no use in me trying to go on. If you do, the next thing is to address the issues you bring up.
"I feel no more alienated from one party than I do the other thats all. And when you take into account my anti-abortion, anti needle exchange program, low tax, small fed government platform I tend to fall in line with repubs more often."
Number one would be abortion. While I wish it did not happen, it is an issue I have several problems with as a gay man. When I came out to my family my mother said the only worse thing I could do was have an abortion. I said "Well Mom you don't have to worry, the doctor said my hips are too small." She shot back "I suppose you think that's funny!" I told her yes, I think the idea of a gay man having an abortion is funny.
The reason I bring that little tale up is that as not only a gay man, but a man in general, I do not know what it is like to carry a child or make that decision. I leave this up to the men and women who it affects. We should stay out of their business.
On the anti-needle exchange issue I do not understand your thinking. I was involved with both the GMHC and Act Up fights to so what was right, it was proven that the number of AIDS cases drop when people us clean needles and use condoms. No they do not promote sex and drug use, they are going to do it either way, better to keep their unknowing sex partners safe and healthy.
As for the low tax, smaller goverment. While we are not paying higher taxes now, how do you think we are going to pay for this war? As for smaller government, it is bigger under the GOP than when Clinton was in office.
Posted by: patrick nyc | Apr 29, 2007 7:43:19 PM