Posted on 04/21/2009 9:03:33 PM PDT by zaphod3000
The religious right, which vehemently opposed Rudy Giuliani’s 2008 bid for the Republican presidential nomination, is rallying to the former New York mayor’s defense against attacks from gay rights groups.
The skirmish began when Giuliani in an interview with the New York Post opposed New York Gov. David Paterson's proposed gay marriage bill and asserted it would spark a backlash against Democrats. ....[S]ocial conservatives are applauding him for his stance on an issue over which they have often been at odds with him.
SNIP
Even Tony Perkins, president of the influential Family Research Council and an outspoken critic of Giuliani’s social views, commended his recent comments — albeit in a slightly backhanded manner.
SNIP
In fact, Giuliani has opposed same-sex marriage since at least his aborted 2000 Senate run against Hillary Clinton. But he hasn’t spotlighted the issue or his other social views, many of which are far to the left of the Republican activists who play a major role in deciding early presidential nominating contests.
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
“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...”
Domestic partnershp = gay marriage
Why are we pretending about this?
I think Rudy would make a fine Governor for NY. He’d also be a far superior president to either Obama or McCain. But I’d rather have a real conservative as President.
I’d love to see Rudy debate Obama. That’d be fun if he could channel his speech at the RNC.
Civil unions are gay marriage. Playing with the meanings of words doesn’t change the reality.
Giuliani remains a shify-eyed liar and deceiver.
And the fools who support him and his deceptions in the “religious right” are a big part of the problem.
Rootie is a liberal political opportunist who will say and do anything to fit his needs. As long as he stays in New York however, I don’t care what he does.
Alrighty, who has the picture of Rootie in drag?
>>>Alrighty, who has the picture of Rootie in drag?
Don’t worry. Some dumbass will come up with one. The question always has been what has a comedy skit to do with anything about the man? Nothing I can see.
The whole notion that we must subordinate marriage to the mercy of government (ie - politicians) is sickening.
>>>Actually, the question has always been, why do so many so-called conservatives think a man like Rudy with his liberal record should ever lead the GOP?
And if you look on any far left wing site, to them he’s always Rudy the Fascist, Rudy Mussolini, Rudy the thug who tells his police to rape black men with broom handles, blah blah blah. Ever notice how the very far left and the very far right meet and merge on the far side of the circle? Same result, we hate Rudy.
To sane people he is simply the racket buster who went on to, at least temporarily, divert NYC from the pit Lindsey, Koch, and Dinkins had been steering the city. But that’s no small accomplishment. Looking around I am hard pressed to see anybody on the left or the right who has done more starting with such a hopeless problem.
Come to think of it, I wonder if in any of his roles, Fred Thompson ever had to wear a skirt.
I did answer your question. If you don’t like the answer, it’s not my problem. The junk about him running the party is totally a strawman. As far as I can tell he is simply running for governor of a state where I don’t reside. But I note he isn’t the devil, and has superior qualifications and experience. Something we desperately could use much more of but see too little. So good for Rudy.
>>>Just called everyone here and all social conservatives extremists.
Bull. I am here. I am no extremist. Nor are many others here so please just speak for yourself. Where and when the shoe fits though, wear it. And I find it sickly fascinating that certain types would rather the Obamas of the world run rampant then stop them unless the candidate score 100 % on their homemade morality tests. As if anybody who could actually get votes ever could.
Fringes ARE the fringe for a reason, be they left or right. The county takes neither very seriously, for good cause. And again, the extremes do oddly merge into one common stance. In this case, the adverbs may be different on DU or Huffington then the Rooty Tooty brigade here use, but the Rudy hate is identical. That alone should give people pause.
Do you know what happens to women and children with your choice of culture?
Answer: Islam.
WTF?!?
The government *IS* Islam in Islamic countries. That makes anything the government does approved by G-d.
And you think that taking the government out of marriage equals that?
(I think I hear a cuckoo clock somewhere.)
And, he still supports the right to kill unborn children.
Rudy is very strong on local and national security and a fiscal conservative, but he is very weak on social issues like the homosexual agenda and abortion. He also has an authoritarian, statist streak, and is a gun grabber. Don’t forget, it was Rudy, not Bloomberg or Dinkins who initiated the ridiculous NYC lawsuit against gun manufacturers.
I do give him credit for not flip-flopping and pandering on these issues, during the primary campaign, the way Romney did. In one of the early debates, he made a weak effort to be pro-life, but clearly his heart wasn’t in it, and he reversed himself during the same debate, and held to his old (wrong) positions for the rest of the campaign. I hope someday he will see the light on gun rights, homosexualism and especically abortion, and if he does, I will tend to believe him.
Because of his strengths and flaws, I think Rudy is a guy who is good in small doses. He was generally great for NYC, but he went overboard, cracking down on things like jay walking and sidewalk food vendors. Before 9-11, he had pretty much worn out his welcome, and then after 9-11 he tried to toss aside the electoral process and get his term extended. Eight years of him was good for NYC, anything more, might not have been. He would probably be about as good a governor as could be elected in NYS, but I would never want him as President.
Rudy is also a very loyal Republican and supports and defends conservatives much more powerfully and eloquently than many so-called conservatives do.
Also, while I am vehmently opposed to civil unions, domestic partnership and same sex marriage, I do think there is a distinction between them. DPs and CUs can be seen as allowing any two people to pool their resources and be treated as a unit. I don’t see any reason to have them, but at least they are not dishonest. Same sex marriage, on the other hand, is not only immoral, but is an impossibility and an absurdity.
“To sane people he is simply the racket buster who went on to...”
To me, he is an liberal politician who views my constitutional rights as mere obstacles that he needs to overcome.
My rights are non-negotiable. They are not his to barter away for political gain.
Think about it a little more.
Western civilization and it’s Judeo/Christian culture is the only thing that stands between you and Islam.
As you dismantle the family, the building block of our way of life, you are left with Islam.
And why would taking the corrosive influence of corrupt politicians out of the marriage process... directly result in Islam?
It’s your idea, why don’t you tell me how you think a culture without a marriage contract would work.
Rudy is about as Christian as I am, ie not very. Why anyone could take this greaseball seriously after his clownish "all on Florida" campaign is beyond me.
I've noticed that Rudybots who just signed up have been posting alot as of late.
Two people wanting to marry would have to find a church/synagogue/mosque/whatever... and see if the paster/priest/rabbit/imam/whatever would marry them.
If the answer was yes, the two get married. If the answer is no, then they’re SOL... and will probably have to fly to somewhere more permissible to get married (like San Franscisco, probably).
And since there is no governmentally mandated ‘marriage’ document, the residents/businesses/local government can ignore any less-than-ordinary marriage at their pleasure... without fear of lawsuit.
One other thing. This would prevent atheists from marriage.
For the only marriage available would be through religious institutions.
Sounds good. How do you plan to implement it - like who will be financially responsible for any children?
???
Parents are responsible for the offspring they produce.
I don’t understand how that applies to governmentally-approved marriages, though.
If you eliminate civil marriage, you have to decide what to do about: spousal abuse, legitimacy, adoption, surrogacy, child abuse, and child abduction, the termination of the relationship, divorce, annulment, property settlements, alimony, and child custody and visitation, child support awards. . .
Government acknowledge marriage is a business contract.
Legitimacy - as determined by whatever church/synagogue/temple/mosque you belong to.
Adoption - in the same manner single parents can place their children up for adoption... marriage really doesn't figure into this. And if you want to adopt, why would private adoption companies change their adoption rules because there is no more government-sponsored marriage? These agencies are private, after all.
Surrogacy - how would the removal of governmental marriage affect this? Unmarried women can pay for artificial insemination all they want... right now! Removal of governmental marriages isn't going to affect much of anything on this.
Child abuse - again... child abuse is child abuse. Whether the parents have a governmental marriage contract doesn't change the criteria in the law. Right now, if parents are married, they don't get a free-pass or a reduced sentence. The same if the parents are divorced or never married in the first place.
Child abduction - can only happen if the parents are living separately. If that's the case, then... just as now, the courts will have to determine which parent is the best to raise the child. So there wouldn't need to be a change to the law here.
Termination of the relationship/divorce/annulment - based off the faith of the those married by it.
Property settlements - same as those who, in the here and now, simply co-habitate.
Alimony - see above.
Child custody/visitation - ditto
Child support awards - again, ditto
“Government acknowledge marriage is a business contract.”
Here is where the truth comes out. Marriage has become a business. The government has created tax benefits and special perks for it. So naturally, everyone would like to get in on the action.
Take the special perks away, and marriage returns back to where it original came from... ie - a religious sacrament.
(Not even the kings and queens of medieval Europe, despite being absolute monarchs of their own kingdoms... ever considered controlling marriage law. Even they knew that marriage was between two people and conducted by the rules of whatever religion existed. Yet we, who are supposed to be more enlightened... feel we can do so?)
And yet he still was 1000 times better than the Kenyan Usurper, or Meaghan's Dad.
So, you still want the government to regulate those things; but, you don’t want the government to issue a marriage license.
Sharia law would be okay with you.
You aren’t making much sense here.
If the only change would be to remove the government’s (and by default, the corrupt politicians) hand in marriage... then it follows that everything else remains the same.
And as such, if you believe that having laws about all the rest leads to sharia... then you are currently living under sharia, as everything is *already* that way.
You haven’t explained how the influence of government prevents that.
If all you want to change is the act of getting a state marriage license - what’s the point?
Because then gays can’t destroy the sacrament of marriage by having the courts and lawmakers forceably redefine it for all Americans...
...for the government would not be *IN* the business of marriage.
Except for: spousal abuse, legitimacy, adoption, surrogacy, child abuse, and child abduction, the termination of the relationship, divorce, annulment, property settlements, alimony, and child custody and visitation, child support awards. . .
Just no STATE issued piece of paper called a license.
How are you going to get every state to change their law?
So you believe that this would allow Islam and homosexuals to destroy America and make everyone a gay jihadist, then?
I already told you what will happen - is happening.
Thank God your not running for office.You seem to shrink as you post.I like Rudy.Wish he was prolife.
i hate how you guys are so narrow minded when it comes to rudy
had you guys down south actually gave the guy a chance...i bet we wouldn’t have had obama as president
i’m pro life and against gay marriage but you guys have to realize that as long as Rudy was picking a conservative judge those issues would be supported....
i just wish my fellow conservatives down south were more trusting of us northern conservatives and not be biased against an italian new yorker ...
“A gun grabbing, pro-gay, pro-abort, wishy-washy on taxes and yoon-yuns, statist cross-dressing whore HAS BEEN may win the votes of corrupt clergy, but will not win the vote of THIS agnostic.
Rudy is about as Christian as I am, ie not very. Why anyone could take this greaseball seriously after his clownish “all on Florida” campaign is beyond me.
I’ve noticed that Rudybots who just signed up have been posting alot as of late.”
greaseball??? really as a guinea from nj i find that highly offensive
look we all believe in the same principles...just because we don’t look like jeff foxworthy doesn’t mean we can’t be conservatives...you do realize independence started in the northeast right?? do you guys ever want to win the northeast like reagan and h.w. bush did ever again? stop with the narrow mindedness
i’m probably way more conservative than you
Darn those gay jihadists!
Since I’ve never seen one, maybe you could help point them out?
2. Rudy is NOT conservative in any way. He is essentially a "lawr and or-dah" Democrat, with Eurofascist tendencies.
Governor of New York, maybe. GOP nomination for Pres, I DON'T THINK SO!
Don’t worry, you’re doing your part to help them out.
I just prayed for healing for your shift key so you can use capital letters.
And, just fyi - this is not a Rudy friendly board.
You’re dodging the question.
I’ve asked for your help in seeing those darn jihadists that are making America a sharia-compliant state by removing marriage from the hands of the government.
I’d think that you’d want to help me see the light... and get another convert to your belief. It shouldn’t be all that hard to do, right?
I’m just in awe of your big plans to remove government from marriage by simply eliminating the certificate of marriage.
Why, you should think about suggesting the elimination of IRS 1040 form and save us all from income tax.
You’re dodging the question.
I’ve asked for your help in seeing those darn jihadists that are making America a sharia-compliant state by removing marriage from the hands of the government.
I’d think that you’d want to help me see the light... and get another convert to your belief. It shouldn’t be all that hard to do, right?
Why so insistent? You’re views are the in the majority. 40 percent of children are born out of wedlock and going up.
You’re sure the government will be backing out of everyone’s personal lives at any minute. Things are getting better in this country just as you say they will, right?
Heavens, according to your position, all the evidence is against my view. What more do you need from me?
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.