08/14/2007
Rudy Giuliani Withdraws Support for Civil Unions
Rudy Giuliani, whose candidacy has been applauded by Log Cabin Republicans, is slipping from his previously socially moderate stance on civil unions into a grey area in order to court hard-line conservatives and get his party's nomination, according to reports:
"A campaign aide told the Globe this weekend that Giuliani favors a much more modest set of rights for gay partners than civil union laws in effect in four states offer. Giuliani has described himself as a backer of civil unions and is frequently described that way in news reports. But he began distancing himself from civil unions in late April, when his campaign told The New York Sun that New Hampshire's new law goes too far because it is 'the equivalent of marriage,' which he has always opposed for gays. Giuliani's aides offered little explanation of what specific rights he would support for same-sex couples."
The Globe notes that in 2004 Giuliani told Bill O'Reilly: "I'm in favor of . . . civil unions. 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."
But now, according to Maria Comella, Giuliani's deputy communications director, the candidate's stance has changed: "It's about rights and benefits more than the title. The mayor supports the benefits and rights as they are written in the domestic partnership law in New York City."
Said Joe Tarver of the Empire State Pride Agenda: "It's really disappointing he's stepped back from his position on civil unions. It's quite obvious he's playing to the people whose votes he needs to get the Republican nomination."
Giuliani continues his conservative shift [boston globe]
Posted 10:45 AM EST by Andy Towle in Election 2008, Gay Marriage, New York, News, Republican Party | 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.
Someone needs to ask Guiliani how many times while he was married to one of his wives did his cock stray inside another woman.
Posted by: homer | Aug 14, 2007 10:50:57 AM
Someone needs to ask Guiliani how many times while he was married to one of his wives did his cock stray inside another woman.
Posted by: homer | Aug 14, 2007 10:51:10 AM
I don't blame him one bit. Politics is a numbers-game. You add up what position you have to take to get the votes needed. (Then, once elected, you do whatever you want). It was made clear, earlier this year, that no matter how gay-friendly he was, no gays were going to vote for a Republican.
Posted by: Joe T. | Aug 14, 2007 10:59:57 AM
Go figure. Flip flopping around just like Mitt Romney. He cant be Hillary anyways so let him have his fun. Interesting how the party of family values hates gay people but is okay with three marriages, cheating, and hiring prostitutes for casual sex. Hmmmm...can we say hypocrite?
Posted by: Gregg | Aug 14, 2007 11:07:53 AM
I hope this man is exposed for the total political and personal fraud he is. The sad fact is, had 3000+ people not been killed on 9/11, this man wouldn't even be mentioned as a contender. It's amazing that people like Giuliani and Romney, who have completely flip-flopped on so many previous positions, can be considered viable candidates. What next? Will Giuliani claim that he found God, which is why he's no longer in favor of civil unions?
Posted by: Larry | Aug 14, 2007 11:09:09 AM
Wait, a man who was married to his cousin, who has cheated openly on two former wives, is talking about the sanctity of heterosexual marriage? Pardon me while I vomit.
Posted by: ish | Aug 14, 2007 11:14:27 AM
I would like to hear him spell out which of the rights associated with civil unions it is that he thinks are "too much".
We let these politicians, Democrats and Republicans, get away with making statements like this without demanding more clarity.
Why let him say that he doesn't support civil unions because they give too many rights without asking him which specific rights those might be?
Frankly, I (having been with the same man MONOGAMOUSLY, for 16 years) find it beyond insulting to get a lecture about marriage or family values from a man who has been married three times and has cheated on at least two of his wives. The same goes for all of the multi-married, lyin', cheatin', "do as I say not as I do", presidential candidates in the field today (MOST of whom, incidentally, seem to be on the Republican side).
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 14, 2007 11:15:29 AM
Someone needs to get a quote from the gay couple Giuliani admittedly lived with during his last divorce. At the time, one of them spoke out very fondly of Giuliani. Would he still? (He might; he might be one of those gay Republicans like Bob Colacello who believes in 'going out' not 'coming out,' in other words, 'as long as I'm rich and happy fuck the rest of you.')
Posted by: Matthew Rettenmund | Aug 14, 2007 11:30:22 AM
This is not a surprising development really. What's surprising is mention of Log Cabin Republicans. Are those boys still around? How's that working for ya?
Posted by: jtg | Aug 14, 2007 11:37:04 AM
a bit disappointed, but not at all surprised. guy has to play politics to win the nomination...
Posted by: Alex | Aug 14, 2007 11:39:03 AM
who cares! i wouldn't expect anything less from an outlaw party of hypocrites. most reasonable respectable gay men would never vote for a republican anyway....not even if he put on a dress and did a rendition of We Are the World.
Posted by: Vinny | Aug 14, 2007 11:39:23 AM
What an asshole.
Posted by: Frank L | Aug 14, 2007 11:41:20 AM
Did we really expect anything less... It just goes to show he's not a leader and therefore not Presidential material.
Posted by: JKM | Aug 14, 2007 12:04:15 PM
Would that Vinny was right. But unless Joe T. can document who made it clear and how that no gays would vote for a Republican in 2008, one must remind Towlies that despite the fact that Bush fils and the GOP demonized gays throughout the 2004 campaign, and that despite the fact that because of that demonization even the Log Cabin Republican’s refused to endorse him —according to exit polls by the Associated Press and CNN 21-23% OF SELF-IDENTIFIED GAY VOTERS VOTED FOR GEORGE BUSH!
So anyone who dismisses Giuliani’s chances to win this election with the help of gays is a willing fool. We all say or do foolish things at times, but the increasing insane actions of a professional we PAY to know better are far more alarming and unforgivable. NGLTF Executive Director Matt Foreman followed up his recent irrational and misleading smear of the Democrats with praise for Giuliani which, throwing all common sense out the window, amounted to, “Yes, Giuliani is stabbing us in the back in order to build a bridge to the White House with our bodies, and, in fact, is a pig, but, hey, he used to do a lot for us. Give the man a hand!”
So God only knows what will come out of Foreman’s mouth now that Giuliani has slithered even further backward.
But here’s my two cents: 1. Great White Gay Father, ya can’t have it both ways. You can’t ignore what Hillary is saying now while trashing her for what not she but her husband did/did not do in the past and ignore what Giuliani is saying now while praising him for his past. 2. In a political campaign, in a romantic relationship, in a friendship, in business, betrayal today is not erased by bouquets yesterday.
There’s a lot of gray in this campaign, and not all Dems are where we would like them to be. But there’s nothing more black and white than candidates who support us LESS than they did even five months ago.
No one can guarantee anyone that any of the Dems, once in office, will attempt [key word there as this is not a monarchy] to do what they now say they will. But there is no surer bet than that someone who is supporting less than they did in the past will do any more in the future. In other words, don’t bet that a pig like Giuliani will turn into a silk purse.
Further, if it is fair to judge people by the company they keep—and it is—Giuliani campaign honcho Little Teddy Olson was one of the leaders brown shirts for Bush fils. After playing dirty in the 2000 campaign, he was the lead counsel who persuaded the US Supreme Court to reverse their own precedents and install Bush in the White House. His reward was nomination as Solicitor General, a position so influential in government that it is sometimes known as “the tenth Supreme Court justice.” In confirmation hearings, he lied about his deep involvement in the notorious “Arkansas Project,“ that very real right wing conspiracy for which Hillary is still mocked for mentioning. Even many well-intended gays don’t realize how much their current opinion of Hillary was manipulated by this unprecedented organized campaign to slaughter the Clinton’s credibility. It was funded by millions of dollars from pathological extremist Richard Mellon Scaife to dig up or create any dirt possible on the Clintons, and spread not just stories of Bill’s alleged pre-election infidelities, but drug trafficking and accusations that the Clintons actually had Vincent Foster murdered, a myth they still propagate. THESE are the kind of fascists working to put Giuliani in the White House.
[For much more about Olson and GOP ruthlessness, see: “WHAT Liberal Media?” by Eric Alterman, and “Blinded by the Right” by David Brock.]
Posted by: Leland Frances | Aug 14, 2007 12:12:03 PM
He is beyond vile. Racist, opportunistic and now swimming towards homophobia. If he wins the nomination watch Rove come to his aid.
Posted by: Gary | Aug 14, 2007 12:19:33 PM
Don't worry about it. Rove etc. won't let Giuliani anywhere near the nomination. They're hand-picking their whitebread WASP born again child of wealth and privilege as we speak.
Posted by: Roscoe | Aug 14, 2007 12:45:47 PM
Hillary, Obama, Edwards and Rudy all same the same thing. Here's a news alert, Kucinich and Gravel are both for Gay Marriage. Stop supporting other candidates! Start donating to those that support you!
Posted by: Rufus | Aug 14, 2007 12:47:54 PM
Rudy's not going to win the nomination.
Posted by: anon (gmail.com) | Aug 14, 2007 12:53:18 PM
I will be happy to vote Libertarian party as a protest vote due to stuff like this.
Ever since Bush's support for DOMA I have been voting Libertarian Party and Democratic Party more often.
Posted by: Matt from California | Aug 14, 2007 12:56:42 PM
You're retarded, Rufus. Get your head out of your ass before you suffocate.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Aug 14, 2007 12:58:39 PM
What a tool.
Posted by: Brian | Aug 14, 2007 1:04:08 PM
Why dismiss voting for Ghouliani on the basis of gay issues alone? There is a trove of valid reasons not to vote for this totalitarian asswipe.
Posted by: Marco | Aug 14, 2007 1:19:46 PM
first off, i am not hearing any better from the leading democratic candidates on this issue so i wouldnt be too hard on someone who is still pretty much in line with the friendliest version out there. Granted, he is not Denis Kucinich territory, but as soon as they catch that Oompa Loompa and send himm back to the factory his positions can be taken out of the equation.
Posted by: Nikk | Aug 14, 2007 1:23:56 PM
Members of his own party aren't even going to vote for such a flip-flopper.
Posted by: Patrick | Aug 14, 2007 1:31:33 PM
Hey, at least the democrats aren't afraid to appear on LOGO.
Posted by: Marco | Aug 14, 2007 1:42:20 PM