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.
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