Posted on 04/29/2007 8:01:42 AM PDT by Mr. Brightside
Giuliani Panders to Religious Right
April 29, 2007 9:12 AM, by Ed Brayton
Mitt Romney isn't the only Republican presidential candidate snuggling up to the religious right and pretending to be against gay rights to win the nomination; Rudy Giuliani, who has a long track record of support for gay rights, is now in full pander mode as well. Pam Spaulding is on the case. This post reports on his new position on civil unions:
An advanced copy of an article sent to RAW STORY shows that the New York Republican has backed off his earlier support for civil unions, prompted by the passage of a law in New Hampshire's State Senate.
"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 Giuliani campaign said in a written response sent to the Sun's Ryan Sager.
And offers a few choice quotes from years past, when Rudy didn't need to pander to the Dobson wing of the Republican party. Like this one:
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." And this one:
"Marriage should be a man and a woman...I think that the domestic partnership legislation in NY has worked very, very well. I think that's a good way to deal with it, and I think that would be a good model for other states to have. Some places call them domestic partnerships, some states call it civil unions, and I think that would be the best way to deal with it."
So not only do we now get to watch this serial adulterer tell gays that they can't even have civil union protections, much less marriage, but we get to watch him contradict his own previous positions on the matter. And of course, when called on it, he'll react with feigned outrage over the personal attack on his character. All he has shown, of course, is that character is precisely what he does not have.
I don’t support gun control, thanks very much. Why don’t you go find someone else to make up lies about?
If he gets in, I’ll likely support him. However if Hunter suddenly charged into contention I’d likely vote for him instead.
Oh, so you've changed your mind? Do you now favor allowing those with CCP's to carry on campus?
Fred would be my preference. But I would vote for Mayor Guliani or Senator McCain or Governor Romney in a heart beat over Obama or what’s her name.
I never said I was against people on campus with guns. I said I could think of some people on MY campus that I wouldn’t want to have guns. And then every person on the thread jumped down my throat and twisted my words.
So do you favor allowing those with CCP’s to carry on campus?
Traitor! You’re not really a conservative if you would ever vote for Rudy under any condition.
(Sorry, I was just seeing what it’s like to act like a whacko.)
Uh...yes. I thought that was kind of obvious.
Good!
Unfortunately, it wasn't the least bit obvious based on your words on that thread.
I’ve never seen, heard, or read Mr. Dobson. Yet, Ed Brayton tells me that I am a member of the Dobson wing of the Republican party. Another strike against Brayton.
I don’t see why men having anal sex with men should gain anyone’s approval. It doesn’t matter whether you believe in God or Darwin, it is a perversion of human nature.
That’s because people decided they could determine for me what I really meant instead of listening to what I actually said.
It’s too bad you didn’t just say you were in favor of allowing those with CCP’s to carry on campus. That’s - what - ten words, and would’ve halted the argument right there.
Or people could have listened to me and stopped jumping to conclusions. But hey, why bother listening to what people actually say? You’re all-knowing, right? You can just decide for me what I really mean.
Very unfortunate.
Liebral scum--so who cares what this garbage writes. SHEESH!!!!!!
Is he in error? Is he drawing unsupported conclusions?
“If Rudy is pandering to the Religious Right, by calling for federally funded abortions, supporting Roe v. Wade, he is doing a pretty bad job of it.
“
Agree 100%. He’s pandering for leftwingers with those stances.
Can I have a legal domestic partnership with my dog? He doesn’t like being considered a dependent it’s discriminatory and it hurts his feelings. He does everything a dog is supposed to do or can do. He’s family but he has no legal rights at all. It isn’t fair, Rudy. You do support me don’t you? I don’t want to marry my dog and he doesn’t want to marry me either but we have rights too you know. Why should we be treated differently?
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.