GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
Ryan Sager is less than thrilled. That makes two of us.
In a shocking 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.”
Despite Mr. Giuliani’s long history of supporting gay rights or rather, because of it yesterday’s statement is likely to lead many observers to question whether the former mayor is concerned that his socially liberal record and positions aren’t flying in the Republican primary. While he still holds a commanding lead in the national polls, he has taken a hit over the last month or so after reiterating his support for the public funding of abortion.
“Why would you want to take a position where you are splitting hairs, when you have been so consistently on the record as for civil unions?” a Republican pollster reached for comment yesterday evening by the Sun, Tony Fabrizio, asked. “You can’t turn around at the eleventh hour and say this comes a little too close to marriage and then not support it.”
New Hampshire, home to the first-in-the-nation primary, is the second state after Connecticut to adopt civil unions strictly through its Legislature, without any order from its courts.
The New Hampshire law is titled, “An act permitting same gender couples to enter civil unions and have the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations as married couples.” It specifies that New Hampshire will recognize civil unions from other states.
The Connecticut law is structured similarly, equating civil unions to marriages and recognizing civil unions from other states. The Vermont and New Jersey civil union laws are also similar.
Mr. Giuliani’s position on the New Hampshire law puts him in the company of the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, the only other major presidential candidate from either party who opposes the New Hampshire law.
“Governor Romney opposes the New Hampshire bill,” Mr. Romney’s campaign said yesterday. “He is a champion of traditional marriage. As governor of Massachusetts, he has a clear record opposing same sex marriage and civil unions.”
Senator McCain of Arizona said the issue was one of states’ rights and took no position on the New Hampshire law specifically. “While, as a federalist, John McCain recognizes the right of the state of New Hampshire to regulate the institution of marriage and to pass civil union laws, he strongly believes in the current law that declares that no other state should be legally bound to recognize same sex marriages or unions that might be legal in other places,” Mr. McCain’s campaign said in a statement.
Senator Clinton, Senator Obama of Illinois, and a former senator from North Carolina, John Edwards, all support the New Hampshire law but oppose gay marriage.
Kudos to Sen. McCain for reacting to this issue in both a politically smart way and in a way that emphasizes a respect for separation of powers and federalism. McCain’s response was the best one a Republican presidential candidate could give due to the current composition of the GOP as well as the trajectory of the western world on the legal status of same-sex unions. While the public both in our country and in the West as a whole continue to become far more willing to provide same-sex couples with many of the benefits of marriage, most GOP primary voters are still opposed to such changes in the law. That means that each GOP candidate for president finds himself in a no-win situation when asked to address the issue of civil unions, with support for such arrangements ticking off a good number of primary voters and opposition to civil unions reeking of a futile attempt to stand athwart history yelling, “stop!”
Unlike in many cases, where the GOP field could simply decry judicial activism to get around addressing the substance of the issue, New Hampshire has gone about changing the law the correct way: via the political process. As such, this was a tricky issue for the Republican presidential candidates to address, but I believe McCain came out shining while Rudy unfortunately seems to be overcompensating for his recent abortion gaffes. McCain is correct that what the people of New Hampshire choose to do with their marriage laws is the business of one and only one entity: the people of New Hampshire. Considering that Sen. McCain is running for President of the United States, his view on this particular piece of legislation is irrelevant to the job for which he is applying. That’s because the presidency is a constitutional office and not the seat of an omnipotent god-king charged with using all means necessary to exercise his divine will. Such notions were supposedly buried many centuries ago.
Supposedly.
In any case, I believe Rudy’s response will simply yield another YouTube firestorm which will draw attention both to past positions that many GOP primary voters won’t like, as well as perhaps convince some other young idealist not yet mugged by reality to don a dolphin suit and start following the Mayor around to various campaign stops. If I were advising Rudy, I’d suggest that he support social conservatives on issues where the public is generally in agreement with them, such as abortion funding, while being more of a big-tent guy on issues like gays in the military or civil unions, where public sentiment is increasingly at odds with the views of so-cons. The abortion gaffes of early 2007 were unfortunate, but the way to correct them is to continue to make concessions on the specific issue of abortion, where the pro-life/pro-choice divide in this country is pretty much stagnant, where there are more single-issue pro-lifers than pro-choicers, and where pro-life candidates have won the last 5 of 7 presidential elections. Team Rudy should never begin to think that the answer to liberal views on abortion is a hardline agenda on gay issues. Such a move will only turn off gay-friendly libertarian-conservatives and moderates while doing little to move pro-life social conservatives.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Rudy isn’t thinking this through. For the sake of you Rudy supporters I hope he can get some help in getting ready for prime time.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:53 pm
“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”
What a crock of crap this all is.. Marriage licenses in all 50 states will be denied to siblings and cousins. Are their civil rights being violated also? At what point does the liberalism end?
“Kudos to Sen. McCain for reacting to this issue in both a politically smart way and in a way that emphasizes a respect for separation of powers and federalism.”
I disagree; McCain’s position is both spineless as well as incorrect. This seems uncharacteristic of McCain to wimp out like this.
Also, I’m surprised Rudy would waffle like this. It seems to me that he has been consistently pro-civil union. It does sound very opportunistic. Now, I don’t know what to think.
Romney’s position is the correct position, and he shows backbone in the defense of traditional marriage at this time as he did when he was also governor.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:03 pm
I do agree with DaveG’s comments as to how this will affect the Rudy campaign. I never agreed with Rudy 100% on this issue, but I could respect his differing opinion, and his willingness to buck the trend some. That showed spine & some character. This all calls into question too many of Rudy’s earlier statements.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:05 pm
“McCain’s position is both spineless as well as incorrect.”
Why is it spineless to refrain from taking a position on an issue that has no relevance to the job you’re applying for? If I’m on an interview at a law firm and I am asked what sort of beer I prefer, unless said interviewer is planning to stock the fridge full of my favorite beer (Blue Moon, just in case you were wondering), I would see no reason to answer the question.
How is a state law passed by the New Hampshire legislature pertinent to the job these guys are applying for? If the question was about federal civil unions, that would be an entirely different issue.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
Boy oh boy. I now disagree with Rudy on every single, solitary social issue. Every single one. Stunning. Not to mention, yet another flipped position for Rudy. I’m ok with it though. The more Rudy flips, the less Romney flops. If everyone’s a “flip-flopper”, then no one is.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Oh, this is rich.
After all the ribbing Romney supporters have taken over the last year for Romney’s flip on abortion, and all the hubris about Rudy being the tough guy who doesn’t care what voters think, he’s flipping on social issues like there’s no tomorrow!
Kudos to DaveG for posting on this and voicing his criticisms of his candidate. I absolutely disagree that McCain’s stance is the correct one, but that’s another issue.
Yet another week goes by where we see the fallout from Rudy not hiring Dave and Kavon as consultants.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
Hummm,sort of ironic to see Rudy slammed on here just a week or so a go for defering to states rights on abortion and a couple of other issues, but when Mc Cain does it on civil unions, it’s “Kudos for Sen McCain”.
When Romney modifies his stand on abortions and gays ,he is appladed for coming around to the “true” conservative positions, but Rudy needs help in “getting ready for prime time”.
Rudy’s position is far from anti-gay and only a slight move to the right since domestic partners are given all the same rights as a Civil Union without the appearence of putting gay partnerships on a equal footing with marriage.
Real native New Hampshireites, not the liberal Mass. transplants who are responsible for electing this leftist legislature and Govenor, will be on Rudy’s side.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:12 pm
LOL, murphy.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:18 pm
You may want to check out this post whose award-winning blogger lives in New Hamisphere.
http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/content/?p=2094
The comments in above post are worth your time to read…
So, has it been done the right way? Well, we will have to wait and see how these legislatives fare at the next election, and whether this legislation would stand afterward.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:22 pm
We’ll see who’s “ready for prime time” next week.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
DaveG:
“Why is it spineless to refrain from taking a position on an issue that has no relevance to the job you’re applying for?”
I think we all can agree that this is a very hot topic - it is a controversial topic. How can someone who has been involved in politics for 20 years not have an opinion on this. I agree that state issues may have little relevancy to the presidency as you pointed out. However, I do maintain that it was spineless of McCain not to offer his opinion on such a controversial state issue as this.
Perhaps you are right in suggesting that this may be the smart thing politically. Nonetheless, I still don’t like his response.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:33 pm
SGS:
First, lots of legislation is passed with little public fanfare the way this bill was. Are those bills also illegitimate? If not, why is this one? Because it deals with homosexuals?
I highly doubt voters are going to revolt over the tyranny of allowing committed same-sex couples to have benefits and hospital-visitation rights. Especially given that this is a northeastern state we’re talking about. The West is on a certain trajectory in this regard and there is a generational shift going on regarding attitudes towards homosexuals. I would be very surprised if 50 years from now, same-sex unions of some sort aren’t instituted in nearly every state.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Oh Matt, you now disagree with Rudy on “every single social issue”. So you must be pro gay unions , for sucking babies brains out, spreading porn,putting people back on welfare and funding pornographic and anti Christian art!
Whop De Dooo!!!
April 26th, 2007 at 11:41 pm
Oh yes DaveG. And I wouldn’t be surprised if in 50 years the USA suffers the same fate as achient Rome. There still is a God in Heaven weather you believe it or not.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Yes DaveG. And I won’t be surprised if in 50 years or so the US will suffer the same fate as achient Rome!
April 26th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
I am “pro-gay unions” and I still count Rudy as pro-partial birth abortion as he hasn’t even attempted to justify his position switch (whaddya bet he doesn’t try on this one either?). “Spreading Porn” shouldn’t be an issue. Adults have every right to view whatever they’d like, as long as it involves consenting adults. And I don’t consider welfare, and other primarily economic issues, as “social issues”. I’m talking about abortion, gay issues, the death penalty, gun control, immigration. Those are the major social issues. Rudy’s now “conservative” on two of them, both of which I’m moderate on liberal on.
April 26th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
Matt,
Like you, I am also in favor of civil unions. I’m continually surprised by the fact that so many are adamantly against them. I’m curious as to how you reconcile your support for them with Romney’s opposition?
April 27th, 2007 at 12:02 am
Matt,then you disagree with almost all the GOP candidates on those issues.
What’s not moderate in supporting domestic partnerships?
April 27th, 2007 at 12:07 am
A nation cannot remain great when it allows itself to go morally into the sewer.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:14 am
LJ,
I don’t think th federal government has any role in marriage or civil unions whatsoever. I may even go as far as to say I’d consider the DOMA unconstitutional or at least borderline unconstitutional. I think these are states issues. And while I’m practically pro-gay marriage whole hog (though still conflicted), I’d adamantly oppose any attempts to implement that on the national level, either through legislation, or through the courts. I feel the same way on the death penalty. Adamantly opposed to it, but A.) Think it’s a state issue, and B.) Think it’s perfectly constitutional.
That brings me to true “functional social conservatism”. Because my unyielding belief in originalism, basically aligns me with social conservatives on every national issue. Now, if I thought there was any chance whatsoever of a Federal Marriage Amendment ever passing, I’d probably take that into consideration when selecting my candidate (I’d be in favor of a DOMA like amendment). But right now, it’s irrelevant. But, I think really beyond that, I can absolutely respect the arguments of those who oppose gay marriage or civil unions. I think Romney’s in particular are sophisticated, and convincing. Until a month or so ago, I’d been fully in the gay marriage camp, but find myself conflicted now.
Basically, though, I just don’t think it’s the “great moral issue” of our time, or anything like it. I think abortion is. And I think that basic concerns for homosexuals, like how we as society view and treat them, are the real concerns. I may be pro-civil union, or possibly even pro-gay marriage, but it doesn’t animate me.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:18 am
TennJoe,
I didn’t say supporting domestic partnerships wasn’t “moderate”. I think it’s perfectly moderate. I mean, ultimately though, it’s not an issue that I care terribly much about either way. Except, where who’s setting the policy is concerned (the Courts, the federal government, the states?). I was just pointing out that it was fascinating that on a whole chunk of the issue spectrum, I had absolutely nothing in common with our front-runner.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:15 am
Tennjoe, you just said “A nation cannot remain great when it allows itself to go morally into the sewer.” Yet your candidate supports public funding of abortions. But hey, your a free and intelligent person capable of deciding which issues are important to you; Gay unions - important issue; killing babies - mmm, not so much.
I couldn’t care less if gays have unions or marriage or whatever…why should only straight people suffer?
April 27th, 2007 at 2:03 am
Matt,
“Boy oh boy. I now disagree with Rudy on every single, solitary social issue. Every single one. Stunning. Not to mention, yet another flipped position for Rudy. I’m ok with it though. The more Rudy flips, the less Romney flops.”
If you would take the time to read through the piece, you would find that there is no logical inconsistency with his past positions, and therefore, no flip:
“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.”
This legislation would make same sex civil unions and regular heterosexual marriage legal equivalents. The Mayor has said repeatedly that he supports civil unions but that marriage is between a man and a woman. If, like this state law would codify, there is no legal distinction between the two, then the Mayor is absolutely right, and consistent, in his disapproval of such a law.
And this idea that because “everyone’s a “flip-flopper”, then no one is”, is just a way for some individuals to right off the lack of core values and beliefs of their candidate. If everyone’s a flip flopper, then no one is, is just like saying, “Everybody’s doing it, that makes it okay.” And, in my opinion, that is a horrible argument.
April 27th, 2007 at 5:02 am
Rudy is dangerous he must be stopped!
April 27th, 2007 at 8:56 am
McCain’s response was the best one a Republican presidential candidate could give due to the current composition of the GOP as well as the trajectory of the western world on the legal status of same-sex unions.
Right. Because conservatives stand athwart history yelling ‘its inevitable, we just have to go along with it.” If you’re trying to persuade me to support McCain, telling me that he’s preemptively surrendered on marriage isn’t exactly the profile in courage I’m looking for.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:08 am
JL,
I think most Democrats would agree with you, because they know that Rudy is the only candidate that can win 08.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:09 am
“And this idea that because “everyone’s a “flip-flopper”, then no one is”,”
Bunk. Flip-flopping is going back and forth, which no one in the race has. Its about whether its acceptable for our candidates to have ever changed their minds. And there’s a real double standard going there. If Romney changes his mind about something, then it means he has “no core beliefs and values”. If Giuliani is a strong advocate of public funding of abortions and partial birth abortion one year and against them the next,
it means . . . nothing. If Thompson used to be mildly pro-choice but is now pro-life, it means . . . that he’s never changed his mind!
Try to justify that, Smokey. Its like supporting Giuliani over McCain because you don’t like McCain’s stance on immigration.
If you want to attack Romney without being such an obvious hypocrite, use the same strategy that anti-Mormon bigots use. Say that while you personally don’t have a double standard, there’s a “perception” out there and this makes Romney unelectable, which is why you are vociferously opposed to him.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:10 am
I think most Democrats would agree with you, because they know that Rudy is the only candidate that can win 08.
Anyone who thinks they can predict the future like that is living in the land of Nod. Have polls this far out ever predicted the resulting election accurately? History says no. History says that when you pick your candidate based on electability, you get John Kerry.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Rudy is not flipping here. The law being discussed here is to make civil unions equal to marraige in every way. That is not the type of civil union Rudy has supported in the past. He was saying this law went too far. Whats wrong with that?
April 27th, 2007 at 9:15 am
“I may even go as far as to say I’d consider the DOMA unconstitutional or at least borderline unconstitutional.”
Huh? Ever heard of the Full Faith and Credit clause?
Anyway, if you can’t support federalism and oppose DOMA. DOMA means that one state can’t decide on gay marriage for the whole country. Each state gets to make its own call. Thats federalism.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:22 am
Dave,
I agree with your analysis, but I hate to tell you, you’re living in a conservative Internet bubble.
Rudy’s support is based on his 911-hero status. This support is very deep and emotional. The Democrats may try to discredit his leadership, but if the debate centers on 911 we win and we win big.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:40 am
What is the justification for civil unions? I never understood why it’s such a moral imperative to allow civil unions. How is it discriminatory?
April 27th, 2007 at 9:46 am
My main concern with Rudy is that he seems, so far, to be the candidate that will most likely be ’swiftboated’ come the generals. I mean, I’m believe he is a good man, but really need to be assured that there’s not even more skeletons that have yet to be uncovered. I can already see the Dems going after the 9/11 mayor tag just like they went after Bush as the 9/11 President. I’m not trying to make anybody mad, but have some serious concerns that must be addressed, just like some of you have some serious concerns about other candidates. How much can I trust Rudy? Why are the firemen against him now? Why have they lost their trust in Rudy What about the Diallo shootings? Rudy was awfully quick to jump to the officers defense, and then went on to badmouth an artist who raised some valid points about the tragedy. I’m not saying he’s right or wrong, but I’m concerned. These are things that would be used b the Dems every day until the election.
I guess it’s safe to say that I like Rudy, but I just have concerns that he couldn’t survive without being tarred and feathered come generals. I need to be convinced that I have nothing to worry about, from somebody besides KT, since he has no respect for any of the candidates but Rudy. Not to bash on you KT, but when you’ve openly said that you don’t respect my candidate, FDT, and bash a lot of others, I can’t trust you to have the obectivity I need.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:48 am
I’ll be back this afternoon
April 27th, 2007 at 9:55 am
JF,
Civil Unions are justified, because whatever the moral position you have, they shouldn’t be denied the basic human rights afforded to partners. I think they should keep ‘marriages’ to the churches because I don’t think the federal government should have the authority to impose an a church based ceremony.
However, I’m not one to judge people for their sexual preferences, and do come to the conclusion that they deserve the same basic protections as the rest of us. To me, the federalgovernment has no place in it one way or the other, except for harmful discrimination, and withholding of rights that are afforded to couples. The federal government should protect and defend.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:04 am
and not impose, when possible.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:08 am
Tommy, I think it’s debatable that there are “basic human rights afforded to partners.” Marriage is fundamentally a religious institution, but it’s been bolstered by civil incentives in the US. My understanding is that civil unions provide all the financial benefits of marriage, but simply don’t call it marriage. In that sense, financial benefits for marriage are social engineering, just like subsidies for using hybrid cars or tax deductions for giving money to charities. What’s wrong with that? The government is rewarding behavior that it prefers. As a single individual, I don’t enjoy the financial benefits of marriage, so should I feel discriminated against, too?
April 27th, 2007 at 10:09 am
Tommy,
marriage benefits aren’t “basic human rights.” They’re societal incentives to encourage heterosexual pair-bonding. Do you think that childless couples shouldn’t be denied the “basic human right” of getting a child tax credit.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:32 am
No JB, I just think more babies will be killed by abortion and terrorism if we loose this election to Clinton or Obama than if we elect Rudy.
As I stated in an earlier post,I put the welfare of my country above one or two personal views. Rudy has stated he will not promote abortion as Pres. I believe him ,you don’t . Thats your perogative. If someone else proves to be a stronger candidate and I can agree with him 100% fine, but like Reagan said if someone agrees with you 80% he is not your enemy
April 27th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Tommy ,your concern about Rudy is ligit if the Dems nominate Obama or Edwards,but if they nominate Hillary(which it looks they will)we have less to worry about. She has enough skelletons in her closet to fill a grave yard.( Lets see how Rudy holds up in the GOP debates first)
Only concern I have is it will be a down and dirty campaign for sure.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:40 am
Henry Heavner,
I’m against DOMA more, on the grounding for the law, then for the federalism principles it establishes. I believe DOMA was passed under Congress’s interstate commerce clause. And I think it certainly doesn’t have much to do, in any real way, with interstate commerce. I admit, I don’t know the full grounding for DOMA, but my understanding is that most people believe, if the court actually decided to rule on a challenge to the law (which they’ve been scrupulously declining to do), they’d overturn it. Like I said, I’d be in favor of an amendment like DOMA. Because I think A). Some court is going to eventually legalize same-sex marriage, nationwide, citing either Equal Protection or the full faith and credit clause, and B). It’s an issue that states should be able to decide.
I agree with both JF and Henry Heavner on marriage and civil unions. They’re fundamentally government incentivizing behavior it prefers, or behavior it has an interest in promoting. And it’s perfectly plausible to be primarily concerned with procreation, when choosing whom to give those incentives to. That’s not necessarily what I’d be attempting to promote with marriage or civil unions, but I think it’s perfectly consistent with historical standards, and general governmental power. In short it’s perfectly rational, even if you don’t happen to agree with it. Which is why my opinion on the issue, doesn’t really animate me. Because it’s really not about rights, but rather about priorities.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:47 am
So Matt, if you agree, then there’s nothing moderate about supporting civil unions. It’s a liberal stance, meant to promote an alternative lifestyle with no basis in logic. Moderate is saying “I don’t care what is done in private.” But civil unions are public in nature, and simply not calling it “marriage” only alleviates the concerns of those who fundamentally support civil unions, not those who recognize that it’s already marriage in everything but name.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:49 am
By the way guys, Sam Brownback just flipped on the Immigration bill, now saying after more carefull study, it will allow too many illegals to get citizenship and he would not vote for a similar bill again!
Welcome to the club, Sam!!!
April 27th, 2007 at 10:53 am
Matt,
If DOMA is based on the commerce clause, then I think you’re right. My impression is that DOMA relied on Congress’ power under the full faith and credit clause:
Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect there of.
I would support a DOMA-style constitutional amendment, one that says that marriage is a man-woman t hing for purposes of the federal tax code and that states can do what they want but that it has to be by direct action of their legislature.
April 27th, 2007 at 10:56 am
JF,
I don’t know whether civil unions are moderate or liberal. I’m supportive of them, because I think it’s a positive thing for society to promote committed, and monogamous relationships, especially among a group of society (the gay community), that often declines to adopt that type of lifestyle. I think it’s probably both beneficial socially, and in terms of the general health of society. Monogamy leads to, for instance, less spread of disease. I think there’s all sorts of reasonable reasons to oppose them as well. Heterosexual marriages produce offspring far more often then homosexual marriages, etc. For me it’s a policy preference that people can legitimately disagree on.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:03 am
After reading some of these posts ,it looks like we have a lot of Liberterians on here rather than traditional conservative Republicans or at least conflicted conservatives: liberterian on some social issues, conservative on others.
Just shows you how liberal educators, Hollywood and the music industry have undermined the traditional Judeo- Christian moral underpinnings of our society.
Our Founding Fathers must be turning in their graves!
April 27th, 2007 at 11:09 am
TennJoe, that’s what being a big tent party is all about. If the Republican party became a Paleoconservative-only club, I would be out. When it comes down to the most important issues of the day (GWOT and defense, strong economy), I think we’re united, and that’s paramount.
I’m sure our founding fathers, some of whom fathered illegitimate children with their slaves, wouldn’t be as outraged as you imagine.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:35 am
Tommy,
If you’re looking for evidence a smear campaign against Rudy won’t work in the general, you should read “Prince of the City” by Fred Siegel, and Rudy’s own book, “Leadership.” The man does not abide by smears, and when he defends himself he does it in a way that wins admiration. Yes, even when he’s brash–people love straight talk, and Rudy puts McCain to shame when it comes to that term.
Most importantly, Americans view Rudy as the man who demonstrated the greatest character they have witnessed in a leader in their lifetimes. Given they KNOW that, nothing will stick. And a lot of it will backfire.
P.S. The stuff the Dems will throw at him in the general is precisely the stuff that would cause more conservatives to support him now, stuff concerning his scorched-earth war against the liberal NYC establishment. It will also increase conservative turnout in the general. Not that it’s needed: current head-to-head polls prove there is no large contingent of conservatives willing to torpedo his general election.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:40 am
TennJoe,
There’s a 5% chance every kid in your family and community will be gay. Do you want him to deal with that in a healthy way, have good role models, and seek a life partner? Or do you want him to suffer from depression and consider suicide explicitly or implicitly via promiscuity and drugs? Because that’s the real choice here. The bad parts of gay culture are mostly kids from socially conservative families who were brought up believing they’ll go to hell and were kicked out of the house for being gay. You condemn your own.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:58 am
Hey ,David B, take it up with GOD. I’m just supporting what He says in His word.
I personally have no objection to domestic partnerships that protect people that choose to live together. That’s their choice.Don’t harass them and leave them alone. God will judge their lifestyle. But I don’t think, as a nation, we should recognize every form of lifestyle as equal to every other.
April 27th, 2007 at 11:59 am
Murphy is right. Dave and Kavon, do a better job selling Rudy’s position on social issues than Rudy does. BTW, I’m giving Rudy the benefit of the doubt on this alleged “flip-flop.” He pointed out the the NH law said that the civil unions were the equivalent of marriage. Rudy doesn’t support that. If he wins the primary, though and begins trumpeting his support for civil unions…that will be a flip-flop.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Just an observation JF. I realize we are a political party not a church. Like I said if you agree with me 80%, your not my enemy.
Point I was making was how much the moral center of our nation has shifted. When I grew up during the 50’s, both Democrats and Republicans held similar views on moral issues. Question is , has the shift been for the better or for the worse. And that ,of course , will depend on the core beliefs you were raised with.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
And yes David B, what about single people who never find a life partner. Are they all suisidal ,promiscuous, and on drugs?
Again, the politically correct crowd tendency to make gays and all minorities victims.
April 27th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
TennJoe,
You make a good point. I enjoy the discussions here very much. Frequently, I marvel at how much less the Republican party is conservative, and even more so on how liberal the Democrat party is .
I view myself as more conservative than most on this site. However, I recognize that it is healthy to hear differing viewpoints from fellow “conservatives” every now & then.
Regards..
April 27th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Here is what I don’t understand - if gay marriage is allowed, why shouldn’t marriage between one woman with two or more men or one man with two or more women be allowed? It seems that the latter type of marriages have a much stronger reason to be recognized than gay marriages since they can have children.
April 27th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
Two things. David ensley #51. I said the same thing, in so many words, and nobody gives me credit. See - - I state facts and nobody talks, but when I speak from the heart everybody jumps
The other thing I say is that RUDY IS ABSOLUTELY BRILLIANT!!! Don’t you all see that what he is doing is bringing himself a notch closer - - or safer - - to a conservative platform, because he is ALREADY KNOWN as a more moderate candidate on social issues. THE MAN IS UNBEATABLE.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:03 pm
So you’re saying this is intentional KT? This haphazard zig-zagging from liberal to conservative?
April 27th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
Kt,
we don’t jump. We just start getting the feeling that you would rather kiss Rudy’s feet than objectively look at his stances on the issues. Your second paragraph certainly says that to me.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:12 pm
David B.: I have Giuliani’s book, ‘Leadership’, and will read it. It’s a very long book, so I haven’t gotten around to reading it yet. I tried to give up on reading exclusively non-fiction political, and philosophical material because I seemed to find “more truth” in fiction lately, and I read quite a bit, so long books on or by politicians have generally ended up on my read when I get the time lately. I’ll give Rudy’s book a go, however.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
Check out the crosstabs on the Pew poll: Rudy leads in every single socio-economic group within the GOP:
http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?ReportID=323
April 27th, 2007 at 2:39 pm
TennJoe: Leave it to God? OK. Does that mean in the space of a few hours you’ve decided to be against legislating Judeo-Christian morality? We welcome you to the libertarian Republican camp! Yet you dodged the non-political issue, and that’s the grave damage social conservatives are doing to the 5% of their kids who are gay.
April 27th, 2007 at 2:46 pm
More on the crosstabs: Of the 28 categories of GOP voters, Rudy doesn’t fall below 25% in any single category! By contrast, McCain is below 25% in 20 of the 28 categories of GOP voters.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
I think one important part of Giuliani’s strategy is that he’s already taking on the Dems as if he were already the nominee, as if it’s a foregone conclusion - and doing so on the big issues like the war and health care, not the relatively minor social issues.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
This is a good move on Rudy’s part. I’m a Romney backer, but I take this
as good news, because I will have fewer nightmares in case Rudy wins. This
is important to me and many other voters who feel that civilization
hangs in the balance on this issue.
April 27th, 2007 at 3:53 pm
According to Ryan Sagar in today’s New York Sun, MaCain has now stated his opposition to the NH Civil Unions bill as well:
In the past, Mr. McCain has been very hard to pin down on civil unions. But today, he was clear: “I am opposed to that legislation.”
While he reiterated his commitment to federalism, Mr. McCain further stated, “If I were a citizen of New Hampshire, I would oppose it. … Anything that impinges or impacts the sanctity of the marriage between men and women, I’m opposed to it.”
While both Rudy and and McCain have stated their opposition to the NH legislation, I do not believe that either one has advocated Federal action to overturn it. So, unless I have missed something, they both are holding to their over-arching position which is that this is an issue that should be decided by invididual states–which also happens to be my personal view.
April 27th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Keven: I have noticed non-Rudy supporters on other blogs praising him lately, too. The thing is, none of this is a surprise. We’ve been trying to tell you what he’s been saying on these things! Nobody wanted to listen. I guess we’ll just have to let Rudy do the work himself.
April 28th, 2007 at 2:15 am
Federalism is a crock when it comes to this issue.
As with common law marriage, because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, those states who fail to allow common law or gay marriage to be performed in their jurisdictions would have to never-the-less recognize those marriages executed in other states who do allow them.
While I do believe civil union statutes are necessary to allow the courts to adjudicate cases where same sex couples want to share benefits, etc., though I strongly support traditional marriage, I think federalism arguments in this area are designed to either have it both ways or to advocate gay marriage.
April 28th, 2007 at 11:16 pm
[...] Jump to Comments http://race42008.com/2007/04/26/rudy-opposes-granite-state-civil-unions-legislation/ [...]
May 1st, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Rudy seems to balk at giving same-sex couples the right to procreate together, using genetic engineering. That is the ethical and practical position. It says that marriages should be allowed to conceive children together, but same sex couples should not be allowed to. There is a specific right of marriage that same-sex couples should not have.
Perhaps he saw the story in the Independent recently on same-sex conception research using stem cells. It is foolish and should not be allowed. People should have to conceive with someone of the other sex.