Posted on 04/27/2007 3:10:50 AM PDT by Jim Robinson
In a startling departure from his previously stated position on civil unions, Mayor Giuliani came out to The New York Sun yesterday evening in opposition to the civil union law just passed by the New Hampshire state Senate.
" Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly," the Giuliani campaign said in a written response to a question from the Sun. "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 Democratic governor of New Hampshire, John Lynch, has said publicly that he will sign the civil union law.
On a February 2004 edition of Fox News's "The O'Reilly Factor," Mr. Giuliani told Bill O'Reilly, when asked if he supported gay marriage, "I'm in favor of … civil unions."
He also said, "Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman." Asked by Mr. O'Reilly in the interview how he would respond to gay Americans who said being denied access to the institution of marriage violated their rights, Mr. Giuliani said: "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." In 1998, as mayor of New York City, Mr. Giuliani signed into law a domestic partnership bill that a gay rights group, the Empire State Pride Agenda, hailed as setting "a new national benchmark for domestic partner recognition."
(Excerpt) Read more at nysun.com ...
Once again, the context has been provided to you. Yet you persist in drawing equivalence between Rudy and Fred where there is none.
I suspect I have some of that Texan simplicity in my genes somewhere 'cause I'm the same way....a person's record of what they've done seen as a pattern of their character type is basis for what can be expected.
Clinton42 had a pattern of lying or distorting truth - isn't that an indicator he shouldn't be trusted to tell the truth in future encounters? I think so..."trust but verify" only applies when someone hasn't broken that trust.
WND jumped the shark during the Clinton years. I don't consider NewsMax reliable as a news source either, the Thompson article is a perfect example of their tendency to skew the truth via omission and selective reporting.
Both organizations still do have some columnists worth reading (e.g., Melanie Morgan), but for "news", they might be less reliable than the leftist MSM.
You cited an article that lied by omission.
When it comes to the border, Duncan Hunter has the best pedigree in this area, so to speak.
He pushed for the bill that led to the construction of the big doublefence between San Diego and Tijuana. Crime in San Diego fell over 50%, while the incoming flow of drugs and illegals plummeted by more than 90%.
Hunter also coauthored the bill that would extend that same fence for 800 miles along the smugglers’ routes at the borders of Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas.
To date, only two miles of that fence have been built. Needless to say, Hunter is not pleased with the Administration’s lack of progress here.
So when it comes to guts, Hunter’s got plenty.
I’m not going to tell you again. Stop trashing our conservative candidates!! Heed the warning!!
If you want to trash conservatives and campaign for liberals do it somewhere else. It’s NOT welcome on FR!
Yep, it is a good policy that has served me well in the past.
I don’t agree with your characterization of the Newsmax article.
I posted the transcript. Newsmax lied by ommission.
I don’t think Fred and Rudy are that far apart on the issue of gays
Fred Thompson says gay rights should be left up to the states. That's called a punt. :)
why can't Rudy evolve too??
Do you think Fred Thompson is going to be a hard-ass about gay rights?? He won't be. He works in Hollywood for crying out loud.
So you liked Rudy's position before, you like it now, you think he's the same as Fred, but you think's Fred position is a punt.
So, does that mean you like "punt" positions, or that you think Rudy has "punted" this, or you really don't think they have the same position?
Do you think Rudy should NOT be a "hard-ass" on gay rights issues? You say Fred won't be, and that Rudy has the same positions, so are you saying you LIKE fred's position, and if so why do you act like it's a negative?
Your argument here has been that Rudy is consistant but evolving, that you support his position regardless of what it is, that his position is the same as Fred's regardless of what Fred's really is, and that Fred's position is a negative one for a candidate.
In other words, we are still at "Vote for Rudy, no matter what his positions are, he's the only one who can beat hillary".
Hardly a reason to vote for someone, much less to defend his positions.
We was on the radio in Houston a few days talkign about the border.
You should write a letter to the editor of Newsmax and voice your opinion on the subject.
If I were a guest in someone’s house and they called me a liar, I would promptly head for the nearest door, whether I thought I was lying or not.
Thompson or Hunter in ‘08.
As stated before, the chasm dividing Giuliani’s politics and mine are so greatly antithetical there is far too much territory to cede from both directions to ever compromise, and I’m as unwavering in my convictions as Giuliani in his.
You should learn to read transcripts.
Obviously, since you used the same lie-by-omission in your #18.
Taking a statement out of context to make it represent something that it really doesn't is a tactic more in line with Maureen Dowd than Free Republic.
They hate him because he is not a democrat. Plus, he supports the war in Iraq (at least this week, maybe he'll "evolve" on that as well).
Of course, this kind of destroys the argument that Rudy appeals to liberals and independents and therefore can beat Hillary.
And it's funny to attribute any rationality to the democrats actions, other than that they want a person in the white house with a "D" by their name, no matter what they believe.
Your question is a good follow up to the question of what specifically Rudy did in the wake of 9/11 that qualifies him to be president. Of course, there’s still the FACT that in his first seven and a half years as mayor, he did NOTHING about developing an evacuation plan for the WTC even though it had been attacked less than a year before he took office.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.