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]
Sphere: Related ContentPosted 10:45 AM EST by Andy in Election 2008, Gay Marriage, New York, News, Republican Party | Permalink
Comments
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
So sorry about your coma, Nikk, but a lot of things happened while you were in it. So pull your catheter out, get out of the hospital bed, dress, indulge in some non-hospital food, and then pay attention:
1. EVERY Democratic candidate for President has repeatedly said that they support EVERY legal right and benefit associated with het civil marriage, INCLUDING FEDERAL benefits, which requires repealing Section 3 of federal DOMA [Section 2 re "states rights" is now 99% moot because states have enacted their own laws.] The only difference that remains is nomenclature.
Giuliani not only is against use of the word marriage but he's also against, as indicated above: even granting gays rights which come close to it, attacking New Hampshire in April for legalizing "civil unions" that "go too far." His reps did not respond to requests then to spell out exactly which rights royal Rudy thought we should have to give up. Now they're applying some kind of NYC definition. Well, in NYC, Guiliani opposed requirements that companies doing business with the city offer domestic partner benefits [as San Francisco's law requires] so we have both his denunciation of any rights "too close" to "marriage" and an example which specific rights he fought against as chief executive of NYC. Lord help us if he gets in the White House. [NYC's law also does not cover transgendered people while San Francisco's does.]
2. ALL the Dem candidates support repeal of DADT and a military fully open to out gays.
Giuliani did before, but does not now.
3. John Edwards declaried in the recent forum that respect for gays should be taught in public schools: "kids who go to public schools need to understand why same-sex couples are the parents of some of the children. They need to understand that these are American families, just like every American family. .... we as adults have a responsibility to make sure that they're educated, that they understand this is a good thing and it's something that we as Americans believe in and embrace.”
While mayor, Giuliani opposed the inclusion of lesbians and gay in multicultural curriculum.
4. Dem candidates have pledged not to have anyone in their administrations who opposed gay rights. While mayor, Giuliani "supported Ruben Diaz, who sat on the Police Department’s Civilian Complaint Review Board, who wrote a homophobic and AIDS-phobic column about the upcoming Gay Games being held in the city. The Mayor was quoted as saying, 'I don’t condemn him' and said Diaz’s views reflected 'a couple of thousand years of moral theology'.” Giuliani appointed openly homophobic Irene Impellizzeri to the Board of Education and appointed AIDS-phobic board member Ninfa Segarra as Deputy Mayor.
Enjoy that post coma double cheeseburger and fries but don't confuse headcheese Giuliani with the real meat and potatoes ALL the Dem candidates are definitively supporting.
Posted by: Leland Frances | Aug 14, 2007 2:21:59 PM
Come on, did anyone expect anything else from this guy or any Republican? It constantly amazes me that GLBT people are just shocked at how bigoted the GOP can be even though the Republicans have used hatred against non-whites (the Southern Strategy) since 1968.
Hello?! Divide and conquer using hatred is the Republican way. So, no, it's not surprising that Rudy! would pull this crap especially considering his use of racism during his terms in office as mayor.
Yeah, Democrats (can be putzes) but they aren't deliberately seeking to injure Americans. Be honest with yourselves about which party has been behind most of the major progressive laws since the mid-/late- 1960s.
Posted by: noah | Aug 14, 2007 2:47:15 PM
i'm under the impression that ghouliani would suck my cock for my vote. give it up corpse. you'll never make it into office except as the copier boy.
Posted by: sean | Aug 14, 2007 2:53:25 PM
Pretty soon now Stephen will be along to tell us that Giuliani is correct on this issue and that GLBT families don't deserve all the rights of heterosexual families because homosexual couples can't procreate.
And then Matt is going to stop by to say pretty much the same thing Stephen said.
Posted by: peterparker | Aug 14, 2007 3:19:17 PM
You'd better be right in your prediction, Sean.
If he gets in, the Constitution and Bill of Rights will be "quaint" (to quote Gonzales) memories.
Posted by: Eric | Aug 14, 2007 3:33:42 PM
PeterParker, Be careful what you say about "Stephen". I never defended him before but yesterday he revealed that he is in fact NOT "Stephen" but instead is actually Jesus. What other explanation could there be for this comment made to me on the LOGO Presidential Forum thread?:
Zeke:
You consistently want to force this idea of your church being able to marry two people of the same sex. That's fine. Go ahead and walk down the aisle.
But I question your definition of church.
Surely it must be a derivative of Christianity that spins off, gets so far away from the core beliefs of Christians and becomes something else altogether.
If you believe THAT, I've no quibbling to do with you. But don't demean me for having my own set of beliefs, i.e., TRUE Christianity.
Posted by: Stephen | Aug 14, 2007 7:21:03 AM
Bottom line, now that I know He's Jesus instead of merely "Stephen", I feel compelled, as a Christian, to defend Him, and His "TRUE Christianity", to the death; just as any good martyr would.
On the other hand maybe he's just another Focus on the Anus volunteers, with too much time on their hands, blogtrolling Towleroad from headquarters in Colorado Springs pretending to be a gay man "concerned" about the homosexual agenda and its goal of destroying inny + outy marriages and "natural" families.
In that case, have at him.
Oh, and don't forget his alter ego "Jimmie".
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 14, 2007 4:24:48 PM
But Zeke, Stephen's version of Christianity IS the only way! Don't you know that Jesus urged us all to love one another so long as the other person wasn't a sodomite? You can be a murderer, a rapist, a thief and you will still be deserving of Christ's love. Just don't put your cock in another man because when that happens, you are toast! (And yes, I know there are true Christians who understand that Jesus' overarching message was one of love for ALL mankind. It's just that Stephen isn't one of those Christians.)
Posted by: peterparker | Aug 14, 2007 6:37:54 PM
TOAST????? Nobody warned me about the toast. That explains sooo much. Now about the jam......
Posted by: Leland Frances | Aug 14, 2007 6:51:00 PM
Why is Rudy any different that Obama, Hillary, Edwards, Kerry etc. I'm told they'll do the right thing if they get in (wink wink, right!) You guys kill me!!!
Posted by: Rufus | Aug 14, 2007 9:24:39 PM
He favors NYC's weak-ass DP law? It's practically nothing ... basically amounts to, if you get sick and have to go to a city-run hospital, your partner can visit. What a lying backtracking sonofabitch. But then, those of us who lived under the piece of shit when he was mayor already knew that.
Wayne Barrett's piece in the Village Voice this week is a must-read, by the way, giving the real story about Giuliani and 9/11.
Posted by: Glenn | Aug 14, 2007 9:47:35 PM
RUFUS, read Leland's love note to Nikk above and replace NIKK with RUFUS.
That will save me from having to explain the obvious to you.
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 14, 2007 11:18:07 PM
I don't much like the ESOA quote. These press quotes need to minimize the power of these morons. "It's quite obvious he's playing to the people whose votes he needs to get the Republican nomination" should be..."It's quite obvious he's playing to the minority of bigons whose votes he believes he needs to get the Republican nomination."
Posted by: So Left I'm Right | Aug 15, 2007 2:31:43 AM
Zeke, why should I vote for a Democrat or a Republican that doesn't have my interests at heart. All the top candidates are exactly the same give or take a few minor details. As an American I have one vote like you and I don't vote for a party, I vote for a candidate that wants to lead a coutry not just someone that is hungry to be president. I don't care what his/her polls say, its what comes out of their mouths. Kucinich has everything I need. He may be too liberal for most but if people sat down and listened to what he is saying, they might realize he's saying what they believe in. I can see no worse candidate then Obama , Clinton or Giuliani. They're just politics as usual. I'm not here to argue politics or name call (you know who you are people) because this is forum to discuss opinions. It's the idependents that will decide the election in the end.
Posted by: Rufus | Aug 15, 2007 7:29:01 AM
Leland Frances and Zeke like to dominate and name call others to drive their point across. Its like listening to Obama and clinton go at it.
Posted by: Liz | Aug 15, 2007 8:10:13 AM
Liz, you can say what you want, however, Leland and Zeke's banter is always insightful and entertaining. Even when I do not agree.
Which brings me to my point. Does anyone here really, truly believe that anything that Clinton, O'bama or Edwards said during the Logo debate is what they will do? There is no greater politician than Clinton, except for her husband, and she will say anything to anyone to get elected. So will Edwards! And as for O'bama, I am not feeling it at all...no experience.
Having said that, I know that Rudy is doing the same thing. However, he did not sit on Logo and promise the world knowing that he cannot deliver!!! I believe that is called bait and switch.
I will not hold out for one issue if I do not agree with the candidate on 15 other issues. Which brings me to two points:
1. If the dems are all about the people and doing the right thing for society, why isn't New Orleans a "utopia". The dems, afterall, have been in total control for 50 years!
2. The dems took control of congress this year for the first time in years and what have they accomplished? A record LOW approval rating. One actualy lower than W's! And I am still waiting for the rights that many here stated I would get when they took control. I knew it wouldn't happen, but I played along.
I am looking forward to 1/20/09, but stop the dreaming. NO ONE gets to the presidency by being nice. NO ONE gets to the presidency by saying anything that goes against the will of greater than 50% of the population! Rudy is no more a panderer to the right and Clinton is to the left. Only many believe her as gospel. Amazing...
Posted by: RB | Aug 15, 2007 9:27:49 AM
Clinton's gonna win by a landslide. She doesn't even need the gay vote.
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 15, 2007 10:22:09 AM
By the way, there are now two people posting on here with the screen name Zeke.
Don't assume that every post is from Zeke in Tampa.
I am the original Towleroad Zeke but not all of the posts above are mine.
I certainly didn't say that "Clinton is gonna win by a landslide".
Thanks for the kind words Liz. Could you please point to examples of where I have been rude or bullied anyone?
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 15, 2007 2:02:18 PM
Yeah Liz, that's EXACTLY the response I expected.
In future don't make bogus accusations that you can't back up with some kind of evidence.
Posted by: Zeke | Aug 16, 2007 10:19:49 AM
Recent Comments