Rudy flip-flops on civil unions?

posted at 4:15 pm on April 27, 2007 by Allahpundit

Well, no. He’s gone on record too many times affirming his support for them to credibly oppose them now. But he does seem to have a problem with the particular civil union law that just passed the senate in New Hampshire, for reasons that aren’t clear to Ryan Sager or myself:

In a startling departure from his previously stated position on civil unions, Mayor Giuliani came out to The New York Sun yesterday evening [Cute. -- ed.] 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.”

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.

I flatly don’t get that second boldfaced objection. If Rudy supports civil unions, why would he have a problem with recognizing civil unions from out of state? Opponents of gay marriage have raised the out-of-state objection before in a constitutional context, worrying that states that don’t recognize gay marriage or civil unions might be forced to by a federal court under the Full Faith and Credit clause. But that’s not what’s going on here; New Hampshire, in a perfectly federalist manner, is going to recognize them voluntarily. So what’s Rudy’s beef?

As for the first objection, that the law allegedly states that civil unions are “equivalent” to marriage, here’s the text of the bill. The relevant section is section six:

Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, the parties who enter into a civil union pursuant to this chapter shall be entitled to all the rights and subject to all the obligations and responsibilities provided for in state law that apply to parties who are joined together pursuant to RSA 457 [i.e., the state marriage law].

Same rights and responsibilities, but … isn’t that exactly the reason why Rudy supports civil unions? Presumably he wants gay couples to have the same benefits and duties as married couples, but without the privilege of being able to call themselves “married.” That’s the upshot of the domestic partnership law he signed in New York City in 1998. For his spokesman to say that the NH bill goes too far implies that there are some benefits/duties that should be reserved for married people. In which case, what are they?

For the record, here’s Rudy chatting with Sean Hannity about his position on the issue back on February 5th. The part about civil unions comes right at the very beginning, after the short aside about the Brady bill:

FYI, this is the second time recently that Sager, an avowed libertarian, has rattled Rudy’s cage for what he clearly perceives as pandering to social conservatives. The first was a few weeks ago when Giuliani declared his support for state intervention in the Schiavo matter. He’d better ask any other questions he has soon because I’ve got a feeling the campaign’s not going to respond to him for much longer.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

If I am correct his problem is that it puts civil unions on an equal status with marriage, and defines it as so.

Rudy is okay with civil unions as a form of domestic partnership for legal reasons, but not as an equal with conventional marriage, in its religious and social sense.

That’s the point he’s making. Rudy is a lawyer by trade, and becomes very specific and defining at times. It’s actually a positive trait.

Vincenzo on April 27, 2007 at 4:17 PM

He’s just trying to play both sides of the fence. I’m sure he notices that Fred! is catching up with him, and is trying to throw a bone to evangelicals. So, he says he supports civil unions, but doesn’t support extreme civil unions.

What’s the difference? If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it’s still a duck even if not recognized in other states.

mojojojo on April 27, 2007 at 4:21 PM

Rudy is okay with civil unions as a form of domestic partnership for legal reasons, but not as an equal with conventional marriage, in its religious and social sense.

But the bill doesn’t do that. That’s my whole point. It doesn’t say that civil unions are metaphysically or morally or spiritually, etc, equivalent to marriages. It says that civil unions grant the same legal rights and obligations as marriage does. So if Rudy disagrees with that, presumably he has certain rights and obligations in mind that he doesn’t want gay couples to have. If so, what are they?

Allahpundit on April 27, 2007 at 4:22 PM

Another example of reading a poll, listening to an ‘adviser’, massaging the numbers, and making a statement for the moment. Tomorrow another poll, another ‘adviser, another number crunch, and another statement. Not just Rudy…..they whole damn genome.

Limerick on April 27, 2007 at 4:35 PM

I just wish politicians would quit looking at polls and just tell us in plain damn language what they are for and against.

djohn669 on April 27, 2007 at 4:39 PM

djohn… the truth is, most politicians are for whatever the polls tell them the most potential voters want them to be for. Maybe that is not such a bad idea. But it seems pretty slimy to this conservative. I prefer leaders to lead, rather than follow.

huckleberry on April 27, 2007 at 4:53 PM

what a mess, modern homosexuality is a philosophy that keeps trying to out do itself

Some forms of homosexuality are of a similar nature, in that they are not just homosexuality but a philosophic problem. One must have understanding for the real homophile’s problem. But much modem homosexuality is an expression of the current denial of antithesis. It has led in this case to an obliteration of the distinction between man and woman. So the male and the female as complementary partners are finished…. In much modern thinking, all antithesis and all of the order of God’s creation is to be fought against – including the male-female distinctions. The pressure toward uni-sex is largely rooted here. But this is not an isolated problem; it is a part of the world-spirit of the generation that surrounds us. It is imperative that Christians realize the conclusions that are being drawn as a result of the death of absolutes. ~Francis Schaeffer

I want to vote for you Rudy if I have to, but what do you think about that? If the pro-gay marriage crowd wants to understand why it is the “christian right” takes issue with this issue, you should learn what the above really means and the shift in thought thats taken place since our founders days.

jp on April 27, 2007 at 4:54 PM

This is clearly a sop to social conservatives, most of whom probably don’t understand the NH bill. They probably just see “civil unions” and “marriage” too close to each other in the same sentence and it sets off their “Jesus wouldn’t approve” alarm.

Enrique on April 27, 2007 at 5:17 PM

At least I assume that’s what Rudy thinks.

Enrique on April 27, 2007 at 5:18 PM

Rudy, Rudy, Rudy. Got too many calls from Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell, eh? Had to be all conservative looking, eh? Shame! Shame, shame, shame. Be yourself, tell us what you REALLY think, and let the political cards fall where they may. As for JP’s vague assertion that pro-gay is somehow equivalent to pro-unisex: you, my friend, are a moron!
I am sorry. I had to revert to calling people names. There is no other retort to such dogmatic nonsense. If an individual’s homosexual activity somehow negates your sexuality, then you, sir, were never straight to begin with.

shackler on April 27, 2007 at 5:21 PM

As for JP’s vague assertion that pro-gay is somehow equivalent to pro-unisex: you, my friend, are a moron!

and you obviously do not understand what the quote from the famous philosopher actual says. not suprising.

jp on April 27, 2007 at 5:26 PM

Part of RSA 457 says that if two people cohabit for three years or more, they’re considered legally married. Could that be it?

If he was getting lawyery, that seems like it would be really easy to fake for benefits, especially if they could grandfather in.

Tanya on April 27, 2007 at 5:29 PM

I’m glad he believes that marriage is between a man and women, and that the sky is blue and the Earth is round.

Seems to me that Rudy revels in God’s design. Amen

Hening on April 27, 2007 at 5:34 PM

No, I get it just fine. And I still think you are a moron.

shackler on April 27, 2007 at 5:37 PM

How dare those civil unions be equal to marriages! I worked too hard to get married so that some gay couple could come along and get the same rights as me!

Nonfactor on April 27, 2007 at 5:39 PM

Part of RSA 457 says that if two people cohabit for three years or more, they’re considered legally married. Could that be it?

Hmmm, maybe, although it would be weird for him to object on such technical grounds to a hot-button social issue without specifying his reasoning.

Allahpundit on April 27, 2007 at 5:39 PM

really, well what does the “denial of antithesis” mean then…just trying to enlighten some closed minds on why some find this issue to be such a repugnant thing, the anti-gay marriage crowd understand perfectly the other side of the debate and where they are coming from.

jp on April 27, 2007 at 5:41 PM

It really sounds like he’s just splitting hairs over the phrase “and have the same rights, responsibilities, and obligations as married couples,” even thought that was the spirit of his 1998 NYC law. He might insist that the NYC law only recognized domestic partnerships and enumerated the rights thereof, in order to give same-sex couples legal protections they’d lacked–but DIDN’T say they had the same rights as married people, or were in any way, shape, or form equivalent to married people. I think he’s trying to create a distinction where there is none.

The opposition to recognizing civil unions from out of state is odd since the 2002 expansion of the NYC domestic partner law apparently did just that, recognized civil unions from other jurisdictions. I’d be curious if Rudy opposed the 2002 law.

ThanksMo on April 27, 2007 at 5:54 PM

Hmmm, maybe, although it would be weird for him to object on such technical grounds to a hot-button social issue without specifying his reasoning.

Allahpundit on April 27, 2007 at 5:39 PM

Shh. I’m telling myself he’s not smooching the social cons. 457:39. Lalalala.

Tanya on April 27, 2007 at 5:55 PM

Oh, you Randians.

Allahpundit on April 27, 2007 at 5:57 PM

All I have to say???

Run FRED Run!!!

Romeo13 on April 27, 2007 at 5:57 PM

“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.”

Why does he object to this particular case? Because he doesn’t agree that gay couples can get married. He only approves of civil unions, without the same rights or meaning of marriage. This particular case equates them, which he disagrees with. He doesn’t agree that civil unions and marriage should be equal.

amerpundit on April 27, 2007 at 6:40 PM

Allahpundit on April 27, 2007 at 4:22 PM

He disagrees that they should have the same holding, including legally. Instead of automatically saying he’s attempting to flip flop, or immediately counting him out, let’s find out which part exactly he’s opposed to.

amerpundit on April 27, 2007 at 6:43 PM

He only approves of civil unions, without the same rights or meaning of marriage.

I keep trying to explain that civil unions do have the same rights as marriage. That’s why Rudy favors them. What he wants is a semantic distinction between CUs and marriage to preserve the special sacredness or whatever of the latter.

Allahpundit on April 27, 2007 at 6:43 PM

to preserve the special sacredness or whatever of the latter.

Allahpundit on April 27, 2007 at 6:43 PM

That’s correct. Just like President Bush and the former Congress wanted to “defend marriage”. Just as the church is opposed because God didn’t intend for two people of the same sex to get married. That’s what would be “sacred” about it.

In that case, he’d have the same opinion as most Conservatives I’ve heard, that marriage is sacred. He’s in favor of civil unions, as they only represent some legal sense of the gist.

amerpundit on April 27, 2007 at 6:54 PM

If having a union between and man and woman is no longer sacred, what is so sacred about the number 2?

pedestrian on April 27, 2007 at 6:55 PM

He’s in favor of civil unions, as they only represent some legal sense of the gist.

Yes. Which brings me back to my question: since New Hampshire maintains the all-important semantic distinction between marriage and civil unions, what exactly is Rudy’s problem with their bill?

Allahpundit on April 27, 2007 at 6:55 PM

The article says:

Sponsors of the civil unions bill called it a door to marriage in all aspects but name. Opponents argued it would lead to the collapse of traditional values.

“Let’s just call it what it really is, no sugarcoating,” said Republican Sen. Robert Letourneau. “This creates same-sex marriage. There is no right to marriage in either the New Hampshire Constitution or the federal Constitution.”

Rudy’s obviously not the only one who doesn’t like it. Reading the text, all it does is change the name. It gives the same exact rights as marriage does. The Episcopal Bishop says he can’t wait:

“My partner and I look forward to taking full advantage of the new law,” said Episcopal Bishop V. Gene Robinson of New Hampshire, whose 2003 consecration shook up the Episcopal Church and the worldwide Anglican Communion of which it is part.

Apparently, all 10 Republicans in the State Senate thought it equated them as well.

amerpundit on April 27, 2007 at 7:06 PM

Basically, this legislation does everything but actually say “We are allowing gay marriage”. It doesn’t differentiate the two, in anyway, shape or form, either legally or religiously.

amerpundit on April 27, 2007 at 7:08 PM

Reading the text, all it does is change the name. It gives the same exact rights as marriage does.

Right, but most supporters of civil unions think the name is the whole ballgame. They want to strip away the “sacredness” of “marriage” and leave what’s left — i.e., the legal rights and duties — for gays as civil unions. You can’t say “all it does” is change the name when that’s the whole point of having civil unions in the first place.

As I said in the post, if Rudy wants to go beyond that and designate certain rights and benefits that should also be off-limit to gays because they’re somehow uniquely inherent to “marriage,” let him say what those rights are. Otherwise he’s just jerking us around.

Allahpundit on April 27, 2007 at 7:09 PM

*Yawn* He’s pandering to people who have hangups about gay marriage/civil unions/whatevah. I’m Christian, but I could care less about the gay marriage thing (yeah yeah I fail at Christianity).

Ah, I see Enrique has came in and tookhis obligatory swipe at Christians, glad to see our resident Atheist Evangelist is on his toes.

Tell you what, call me when Rudy flipflops and starts supporting 2nd Amendment rights, I’m more worried about the Constitution than this gay marriage crap…

Bad Candy on April 27, 2007 at 7:17 PM

Right, but most supporters of civil unions think the name is the whole ballgame.

So if I called it a bloobyblob, then said it has the same religious standing as a marriage, that’d be ok?

amerpundit on April 27, 2007 at 7:27 PM

*Yawn* He’s pandering to people who have hangups about gay marriage/civil unions/whatevah. I’m Christian, but I could care less about the gay marriage thing (yeah yeah I fail at Christianity).

I’m with you, at least on the first part. I’m a little more concerned with Constitutional rights, and whether they have experience, than if 2 people I’ve never met get married somewhere.

amerpundit on April 27, 2007 at 7:29 PM

This is just another breakdown in our overall system here in NH. Our state has been going blue for the past few years and this is just a result of having the gays in governemtn ,tied in with the lib’s here pushing thier adgenda. I see Nh going to full taxes soon with the lib’spushing thier adgendas since taking over control of all the branches of this state this past election. It is a sad time in NH history and not the “Live Free Or Die State” I have known for all the past 50 yrs.

bones47 on April 27, 2007 at 7:36 PM

Isn’t NH more liberatarian than conservative bonesy? I would think gay marriage would be reasonable, or is NH being invaded by socialist Massholes(that’s what you guys call them I hear)too?

Bad Candy on April 27, 2007 at 7:48 PM

This is ultimately to prevent polygamy, incest and bestiality, by trying to preserve the foundational (biological-psychological-traditional) bedrock system of Civilization that has worked for the 10,000 years of known (written) history to preserve the species from chaos.

Turning humanity into an experiment for a noisy minority always guarantees an interesting time.

“Soviet Man”, “Year Zero”, etc.

“Civil unions” are a miraculous advance over 20 years ago, and those who push too hard against the norms may hurt their case.

Let the world absorb the tectonic cultural shifts before you start shaking things up further… just to gain a word.

profitsbeard on April 27, 2007 at 7:54 PM

“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 law apparently does nothing to distinguish traditional marriage from civil unions, even going so far as to come out and say it’s not doing anything to make a distinction. It’s de facto marriage. Heck, it’s de jure marriage. If we take Rudy at his word that he only supports a limited type of same-sex union, why shouldn’t he object to the law?

I don’t see it as pandering. It’s entirely consistent with his long-held position. I’d think it was strange if he didn’t object to it.

RightOFLeft on April 27, 2007 at 8:20 PM

if Rudy wants to go beyond that and designate certain rights and benefits that should also be off-limit to gays because they’re somehow uniquely inherent to “marriage,” let him say what those rights are.

Didn’t he do this already by supporting a domestic partnership law in NYC? IOW, look at the limits of the domestic partnership law, that should clarify his position.

RightOFLeft on April 27, 2007 at 8:23 PM

Part of RSA 457 says that if two people cohabit for three years or more, they’re considered legally married. Could that be it?

Tanya on April 27, 2007 at 5:29 PM

Does that mean that Joey and Chandler are married?

- The Cat

MirCat on April 27, 2007 at 10:22 PM

RightOfLeft has a point there about the domestic partnership legislation that Giuliani negotiated and signed into law in 1998.

Allahpundit here is a hyperlink to the transcript of the February 2004 interview in which Giuliani answer O’Reilly’s questions regarding gay “marriage”:

[LINK]

O’REILLY: Gay marriage? Are you up for that?

GIULIANI: No, but I’m in favor of…

O’REILLY: Partnerships.

GIULIANI: … civil unions. I signed the two laws in New York that created domestic partnership.

O’REILLY: Why no gay marriage?

GIULIANI: Because it seems to me that’s a fair — that’s a fair balance. Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman, traditional, important to our future, important that we preserve…

O’REILLY: But they say — they say that violates my rights as an American, I’m gay, and…

GIULIANI: Well, that’s — 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. At the same time, marriage has a whole history to it, including procreation and all of that.

O’REILLY: So you — you come down on the traditional side there?

GIULIANI: Yes.

Domestic partnership is not civil union, according to a reasonable comparison of the DP law (that Guillani says still reflects his position) and CU in New Hampshire (which merges same-sex partnership with marriage recognition).

A big part of the socio-political problem is that the words are being bandied about as if they mean the same thing.

For the pro-SSM campaign, sure, they’d refer to any same-sex partnership as “marriage” because anything short of the merger is a stepping stone to their objective. The name is veyr important because it signifies stuff that is extrinsic to the one-sexed relationship type. It is this that the SSM campaign wants to abolish — most of all — and it is not really about “rights” for gays and lesbians. The campaign is about imposing a false equivalency.

I think your starting point — there is list wack of legal stuff that applies to marriage and if civil union should be less than that wack of stuff, then, what should be taken out? — is the wrong approach to this issue. It is the right approach, mind, to pressing Guilliani for more clarity on his political position, I agree on that point.

But marriage is recognized for what it is. Its nature is two-sexed and it arises from the nature of humankind (two-sexed), of human generativity (both-sexed), and of human community (also both-sexed). The family is the first community — it exists apart from the state authorities lawmaking capabilities — and marriage is the foundational social institution of society. The state recognizes marriage and does not create or define marriage through its gatekeeping function.

People will describe the nature of marriage in various ways which say the same thing differently. In my own words, and the words of my fellow contributors at The Opine Editorials, we sum it up as follows: Marriage is a vital social institution. As such it is the basic organic cell of society. The nature of marriage, the social institution (as opposed to each instance of married coupledom), is the 1) contingency for responsible procreation, 2) integration of the sexes (i.e. man and woman, husband and wife, fatherhood and motherhood), 3) the first two features combined. It is a coherent whole and not merely the sum of its parts, as per the deconstruction of marriage by the SSM campaign.

The nature of marriage is not the nature of the one-sexed arrangement (homosexual or not) which is sex-segregative and, where children are attained, depends on parental relinquishment or loss (i.e. third party procreation or adtopion). That is not the nature of marriage where the first principle of responsible procreation is that each of us, as one in a procreative duo, is directly responsible for the children we create. Marriage comes with the reasonable presumption, and the rational aspirational goal, that children’s biological parents will stick around to be the social parents — and stick around together to provide integration of motherhood with fatherhood. Gay “marriage” is really about the adults, first and foremost, and its nature is nonmarital — even where children are concerned because gay “marriage” segregates motherhood from fatherhood.

Marriage and nonmarriage have long coexisted, but merged. I think that designated beneficiaries has been available, in various forms both tied to and unconnected with special relationship status, throughout our country and has worked very well. If those provisions could be improved — made more affordable or more accessible — terrific. But that sort of change does not need to touch marriage recognition, at all. In fact, it does not need to be based on a presumptively sexualized relaitionship and thus can be far more inclusive of a wide range of families and caretaking arrangments than even “gay marriage” as imposed in Massachusetts or Canada or Holland.

The starting point should not be, here’s marriage and what should be removed in recognition of nonmarital relationships, but rather, what is the real problem being solved?

Marriage is a preferential status, far different than a merely protective or tolerating status. Guilliani may see this distinction as well (some must press him on this) and so he may oppose demoting marriage to a subset of arrangements that have protective status.

On the other hand, if gay “marriage” is to gain more than mere protection, but also preference, along the lines of marital status, then, it must be established based on the nature of the thing being recognized. What is the nature of the one-sexed arrangement that differs from other nonmarital arrangements? The SSM campaign seems to make a great deal of gay and lesbian identity — that the same-sex sexual behavior is the key feature of what they wish to see preferred in society. That doesn’t fit with the nature of marriage, but if it has merit it ought to be discussed along with the demerits.

In Hawaii they passed both a state marriage amendment which affirmed marriage as both-sexed — and at the same time they passed an enhancement of designated beneficiaries without presuming a homosexual relationship and without touching marriage law.

In my view, hopefully Guilliani sees that it does not make much sense to treat the conjugal union of husband and wife as if it lacked one of the sexes and was not the most pro-child social institution in our society. But maybe he is, as you say, jerking us all around.

I do think that most people who say they support Civil Union, and no change to marriage recognition, seek a middle ground, a compromise, and this merging of nonmarriage with marriage through a semantic distinction seems like a deal. But it is not. It is a merger. And that merger would detract from marriage its preferential status based on its nature. Instead we’d get a new thing recognized, based on the limitations of the one-sexed arrangement, but excluding many types of nonmarital arrangements that are not presumptively sexualized. It is unjust to do this, as far as I can see, for it pushes to the sidelines the very thing that makes marriage, the social instituiton, special and deserving of more than mere protection — preference.

As for Guilliani’s actual position, he does need to explain much more how is support for DP is reconciled with his claim to be for marriage, as traditionally recognized. I’m with you on that line of questioning. He should be pressed further.

—————–

I usually just read your blog, which is excellent by the way, but this particular issue is very dear to me. I am one of a small group of contributors to The Opine Editorials. We come from a range of political, philosophical, and religious/irreligious backgrounds, but we mostly agree on the marriage issue and its related issues.

Thanks for reading.

F. Rottles on April 28, 2007 at 1:30 AM

Typo correction: Marriage and nonmarriage have long coexisted, but NOT merged.

F. Rottles on April 28, 2007 at 1:33 AM

Apologies, another typo correction: As for Guilliani’s actual position, he does need to explain much more how HIS support for DP is reconciled with HIS claim to be for marriage, as traditionally recognized. I’m with you on that line of questioning. He should be pressed further.

F. Rottles on April 28, 2007 at 1:42 AM

An interesting question to pose to folks about gay marriage/civil union/domestic partnerships is why have them at all? After all, I’m penalized for being married. I pay higher taxes than if my wife an I were shacking up. She would garner welfare benefits if we weren’t married.

Most of the time people give some trite answer about hospital visitation and end of life decisions. The strange thing about that is that I’ve visited friends in the hospital without marrying them, even after visiting hours. End of life decisions can be made by anybody if you put it in a living will, which is easier to make than getting married.

How about adoption then? Most states allow gay and single people to adopt. So that’s just another red herring.

The real purpose of gay marriage (by whatever name you call it) is to deconstruct the notion of marriage in the first place. F Rottles is right in that marriage and nonmarriage have not been merged. That is what this is about. It’s also a way of gaining the state’s imprimatur on their lifestyle.

So why is that bad? The smallest unit of a society is not the individual, but the family. The family is the first place that social bonds are developed and nurtured. If you screw with the molecular form of society, you will screw up society.

cmay on April 28, 2007 at 7:49 AM

Rudy did NOTHING for his 8 years leading up to 9/11 and he is the security expert. No updated high-rise fire plan or joint department drills, NOTHING!!! Fireman and Policeman died because Rudy decided 8 years earlier to never replace the same old radios that where recommended to be replaced. He took office 8 years early, 8 months after the first WTC attack, when the radios where recommend to be replaced! Rudy was told NOT to put the cities Control and Command center in the WTC. HE DID ANY WAY (sounds like Bush). He thinks Bernard Kerik is great, his former police chief, with KNOWN MOB TIES, who also used 9/11 assets for personal use (getting some from his mistress in an apartments paid for by the government). Rudy wanted to just IGNORE the law and extend his term after 9/11 despite his term limits and an elected mayor ready to take office. Hummm ignore law? Sounds like Bush. NOT once was Rudy needed in NY after he left office on Jan 1, 2002. He is going to ride the 9/11 expert, Mr. 9/11 mayor as long as he can. Besides being a serial adulterer, married 6 times between him and his third wife and dressing like a woman, he is GREAT!!!!!!

This is THE BEST the GOP has and all you care about is if he wants GAYS to have civil unions. THIS IS WHY CONSERVATIVES SHOULD NOT RUN THE GOVERNMENT. We have all these problems and you CARE soooo much about what homosexuals do and if they can have a legal union? YOU ALL ARE FOOLS AND IDITOTS. Bin Laden is Laughing at you idiots.

gmcjetpilot on April 28, 2007 at 5:22 PM

gmcjetpilot, it is not all that one might care about, however, it is the topic of the post under which you and I and others have commented. Kinda foolish of you to complain about that.

If you feel the way you do about civil unions, then, vent your feelings at the SSM campaign which has been pushing it to the top of the nation’s domestic agenda.

The SSM campaign — especially the goofy Goodridge imposition in Massachusetts — has been a huge distraction from the real marriage issues.

cmay, I agree, the marriage issue is not about marriage, from the SSM campaign’s perspective, but about promoting false equivalencies to promote gay and lesbian identity politics.

F. Rottles on April 29, 2007 at 3:02 AM