The Candidates
Featured Archives
In an interview on the Christian Broadcasting Network yesterday, Mitt Romney was asked what he thought about the Republican frontrunner Rudy Giuliani.? Romney answered: “He is pro-choice, and pro-gay marriage, and anti-gun.? That’s a tough combination in a Republican primary.” (emphasis mine)
Regardless of the fact that Romney completely butchered Rudy’s position on the Second Amendment by categorically labeling it as “anti-gun” (Rudy is pro-Second Amendment and has come to a federalist understanding on the issue, believing that localities should be free to make gun laws as are appropriate for their area), the bigger problem is the outright falsehood that Romney tacked onto Rudy–that of being “pro-gay marriage.”
Let’s get this straight one more time:
“I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, that it should remain that way, it should remain that way inviolate, and everything should be done to make sure that that’s the case.”? -Rudy Giuliani.? May 19, 2006.? NY Times.
Rudy is pro-gay rights and in favor of civil unions, but he will preserve the sanctity of traditional marriage.
This misconception that Rudy is pro-gay marriage needs to get stamped out and stamped out now.? Is Romney really that unfamiliar with his foremost opponent’s decisions, or was he just running his mouth too fast?
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Rudy is often portrayed as more liberal than he really is. Ironically, this will help to inoculate him from future attacks on social issues.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:35 pm
I think the confusion comes in where Giuliani told the Daily News in March of 2004 that, “I certainly wouldn’t support [a ban] at this time.”
So when he said last year, “…everything should be done to make sure that that’s the case”, does that mean he will support a ban now? There is, after all, 22 months of difference between the two statements. People do change their minds.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:55 pm
TM,
I doubt it. Wishful thinking.
March 3rd, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Gosh is there mincing regarding all of this… After every single story, mincing comments after more mincing comments. How boring this is…
There is a difference between being against Gay Marriage and not supporting a constitutional ban.
Isn’t this tiring you all? …having to come on and make these Clintonesque mincing distinctions in order to play “gotcha” with every candidate. Cause it’s sure tiring me, and I know that it’s tiring and boring much of our readership.
I am pleading with everyone to get back to intelligent discussion of the issues.
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:03 pm
Civil unions are gay marriage by a more palatable name. I’m not interested in this distinction.
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:04 pm
Kavon,
I am not trying to mince anything. I am not interested in gotcha politics. You should know that about me by now. I am trying to understand where Giuliani is at on this issue.
So is official? Rudy does not support Gay Marriage, and does not support a ban on it — constitutional or otherwise? Is that his stance?
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:09 pm
Mark,
By qualifying his statement with “at this time”, I take it to mean that Giuliani wouldn’t see amending the US Constitution as necessary until the Defense of Marriage Act has been successfully challenged in court.
That said, Rudy the federalist believes if a liberal state wants to allow gays to marry, then that is their right; provided it expresses the will of the state’s voters or the elected legislature, and is not forced into law by unelected judges (as was the case in Massachusetts).
March 3rd, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Thank-you, Argo. I disagree with him on that, but at least now I understand where he is coming from.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:32 pm
I think all contributors on this site who post negative articles on 2008 GOP presidential contenders ought to let the rest of us know, in the interest of full disclosure, which candidate they are supporting. When a contributor is going to engage in negative campaigning, we ought to know on which candidate’s behalf they are doing it in order to take the information in full context.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Oh, I don’t know. I was hoping to keep my preference a secret for as long as possible.
March 3rd, 2007 at 7:40 pm
I’ve heard Romney discuss the marriage issue, in detail, frequently. And he makes just about the best case I’ve ever heard not only defending traditional marriage, but insisting that it can only reasonably be dealt with at the national level, via constitutional amendment. As someone who essentially supports civil unions at the state level, I think Romney is going to take McCain and Giuliani to pieces on this issue, arguing that refusing to ban gay marriage nationally amounts to defacto support of it. He has a huge list of the sorts of problems Massachusetts and other states are starting to deal with in terms of gay marriage. For instance, if a person marries in Massachusetts, and moves out of state, then wants a divorce, can the state be required, in any reasonable fashion, to grant a divorce for a marriage it doesn’t recognize? The courts are dealing with these things already and they’re playing a substantial part in the pre-liminary decisions being handed down on the issue. I think its an open question as to whether o not the full faith and credit clause will essentially cause the Supreme Court to mandate nationwide gay-marriage, but I think its clear with all the bureacratic difficulties intendent with federalism marriage, a fair number of state courts are going to alter those state’s marriage laws in substantial ways in the coming years. I’m a big fan of federalism, but I think Romney makes a more then convincing case that marriage must be dealt with by constitutional amendment, something sure to hurt McCain (who even voted against cloture twice on the marriage amendments) and Giuliani significantly.
March 3rd, 2007 at 8:16 pm
I agree with Matt that the Romney position on traditional marriage makes complete sense. Say what you want about Mitt, but clearly he is now a solid advocate for protecting traditional marriage, regardless of when he saw the light.
March 3rd, 2007 at 9:59 pm
That’s the thing Republius. Romney never had to “see the light” on gay marriage, because he’s always seen it. In 1994 Romney said, and I quote, “I do not believe same-sex marriage is appropriate”. In 2002 Romney said, “Call me old fashioned, but I don’t support gay marriage or civil union”. As far as gay rights go, in 1994 Romney supported ENDA (not unreasonable in goal), made ambiguous statements about gays in the Boy Scouts (was he referring to the leaders, or the kids?) and suggested that eventually we ought to allow homosexuals to serve openly in our military. He’s “seen the light” as you say on those issues, but lets not suggest things that aren’t true. Unless you reject the sovereignty of the judiciary, Romney’s not only been consistent on marriage, but he’s been its number 1 defender bar-none. If they vote to place it the ban on the 2008 ballot (which is looking increasingly likely), it will have been accomplished largely because of Romney. And that’s simply HUGE for a Republican candidate trying to sell himself as “the conservative” in the race. Indeed, I can’t think of a better event heading into Iowa then the January 2, 2008 vote to place the amendment on the ballot. It’s something I’ve been thinking about for awhile, but no matter which direction the vote goes, it’ll almost assuredly provide a huge bump to his candidacy, at precisely the moment he most needs it. Incidentally, Hugh Hewitt’s book on Romney has somehow shown up in my local bookstore 10 days early and I read it. Romney gives a more full, and perfectly well-thought out explanation for his actions in regard to marriage. Some, who have little respect for the judiciary as an institution, wanted him to pull a Roy Moore moment and ignore the decision. When Hugh asked him about it, he said something like “so lets say I ignore it? You have to realize I’m only going to be governor for so long, and then what? It just becomes legal and we haven’t gone through any of the processes needed to repeal the decision. The only long-term way to preserve traditional marriage, was to go through the proper legal channels.”
March 4th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
Rudy:
“I’m pro-gay, and pro-civil unions.”
“But I’m not anti-family or anti-marriage.”
REALLY!!!
March 5th, 2007 at 1:36 am
Mitt has gone to bat to protect marriage and called for FMA, Federal Marriage Amendment.
Rudy opposes FMA. Further, Rudy is pro-gay rights and in favor of civil unions.
So Rudy will actually not do *anything* to stop the creeping advance of gay marriage-in-all-but-name,
but will rhetorically oppose ‘gay marriage’. Same position as Hillary.
“There is a difference between being against Gay Marriage and not supporting a constitutional ban.”
Yes, there is…. but if you wonder what the consequences of 50 divergent states on this, you get …
”
I’ve heard Romney discuss the marriage issue, in detail, frequently. And he makes just about the best case I’ve ever heard not only defending traditional marriage, but insisting that it can only reasonably be dealt with at the national level, via constitutional amendment. As someone who essentially supports civil unions at the state level, I think Romney is going to take McCain and Giuliani to pieces on this issue, arguing that refusing to ban gay marriage nationally amounts to defacto support of it. He has a huge list of the sorts of problems Massachusetts and other states are starting to deal with in terms of gay marriage. For instance, if a person marries in Massachusetts, and moves out of state, then wants a divorce, can the state be required, in any reasonable fashion, to grant a divorce for a marriage it doesn’t recognize? The courts are dealing with these things already and they’re playing a substantial part in the pre-liminary decisions being handed down on the issue. ”
As for
“So when he said last year, “everything should be done to make sure that that’s the case”, does that mean he will support a ban now? There is, after all, 22 months of difference between the two statements. People do change their minds.”
I hope Guliani does change his mind. He is currently wrong on the issue, and
I care enough about the sanctity of traditional marriage that I cannot support Rudy … ‘at this time’.
If Rudy or Hillary is elected, we will have the same slippery slope to de facto nationwide gay marriage,
despite numerous state attempts to stop it.
March 6th, 2007 at 6:28 am
[...] Second, he’s going to make sure that he attacks John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. That’s news? These are the nasty, negative guys. They’ve been attacking Rudy for his family life. Mitt Romney will even personally lie about his opponents. [...]
March 6th, 2007 at 6:53 am
[...] Second, he’s going to make sure that he attacks John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. That’s news? These are the nasty, negative guys. They’ve been attacking Rudy for his family life. Mitt Romney will even personally lie about his opponents. [...]