Giuliani Called 'Pro-Gay Marriage' by Romney

[Dos Equis]

The ongoing battle of "I'm more conservative than you," which only takes place in the primary.  I wonder why liberals don't have the "I'm more liberal than you" debates? 

Giuliani Smeared by '08 RivalG.O.P. Frontrunner Called 'Pro-Gay Marriage' by Romney
Showdown in Selma
State of Disunion: Republicans Beat Up on Bush After Speech

Talk Politics: Join the Debate

By TEDDY DAVIS

March 1, 2007— Rudy Giuliani is fast becoming the man to beat for the Republican presidential nomination and he's starting to feel the heat.

The former New York City mayor — who sits atop the Republican presidential field according to two recent national surveys — is wrongly labeled as being "pro-gay marriage" by former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., in a Christian Broadcasting Network interview which is set to air March 6 on the "700 Club."

"He is pro-choice, he is pro-gay marriage, and anti-gun," said former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., in an interview taped in Boston on Feb. 28. "That's a tough combination in a Republican primary."

Giuliani is often described as being "pro-gay rights" because he signed a 1997 bill creating domestic-partnership benefits in New York City. He has never, however, been "pro-gay marriage."

Romney Camp Can't Back Up Claim

When contacted by ABC News, the Romney campaign was not able to provide substantiation for the governor's claim that Giuliani is "pro-gay marriage".

"It is sad," a source close to the Giuliani campaign told ABC News, "but unfortunately not surprising, that Mitt Romney's flailing campaign has chosen to misrepresent Rudy's positions. He can't keep his own positions straight let alone Rudy's."

A Romney campaign spokesperson declined to offer a retraction of the former governor's "pro-gay marriage" claim, arguing that Romney is still the more socially conservative candidate because he is running for president as an opponent of the legal recognition of non-marital same-sex unions and because Romney has renounced his past support for abortion rights.

Giuliani discussed his opposition to same-sex marriage and his record on domestic partnership benefits during a Feb. 5 interview with Fox News' Sean Hannity.

. . .

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=2915659&page=1&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312

[240 is Back]

mccain, rudy, and mitt have all spent the last month changing positions and making fun of each other for it.

settle down, guys.

[ribonucleic]

New rule...

Any politician who treats banning gay marriage as one of the top 20 things we have to worry about no longer gets to be taken seriously.

OK?

[Dos Equis]

New rule...

Any politician who treats banning gay marriage as one of the top 20 things we have to worry about no longer gets to be taken seriously.

OK?

I don't know about that.  It is a major issue in states across the country.  It is the subject of an editorial in today's Honolulu Advertiser (one of our two majors on Oahu):

OUR OPINION


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Civil unions' quiet death an affront to gay couples
THE ISSUE
A proposal to allow civil unions was left dormant in the House Judiciary Committee.
 
MEMBERS of the state House Judiciary Committee heard five hours of impassioned testimony this week on a proposal to expand the rights of homosexual couples. At the end, the bill appears to have died without even a vote in the committee, displaying a deplorable absence of accountability.
Vermont, Connecticut and New Jersey allow civil unions, recognizing rights such as tax breaks, adoption and health benefits for gay couples. The proposal would grant similar rights in Hawaii, without recognizing gay unions as marriages, which are honored in Massachusetts.

More than 400 people submitted written or oral testimony on the bill and deserved the courtesy of a committee vote on the issue. Committee Chairman Tommy Waters' later said he chose not to call for a vote because most committee members opposed the bill, and he wanted to leave open the possibility of a compromise. That seems highly unlikely, given the strident polarization on the issue.

Hawaii was in the forefront of gay rights 14 years ago when the state Supreme Court required the state to explain why homosexual marriages should be forbidden. Hawaii voters proceeded to approve a state constitutional amendment that essentially ratified a ban on such marriages that had been approved by the Legislature.

Hawaii legislators have been progressive since then in allowing gay partners various rights such as family and bereavement leaves, probate rights and hospital visitation. Gay couples were hopeful that their partnerships would be recognized as civil unions not only in Hawaii but in New Hampshire, Oregon and Rhode Island, where similar legislation is pending.

The muzzling of the legislation by the Judiciary Committee was an affront to gay couples, who deserve a recorded vote and an explanation for the rejection of the measure. Future sessions should provide a more candid and respectful consideration of the issue.

http://starbulletin.com/2007/03/02/editorial/editorial02.html

[240 is Back]

New rule...

Any politician who treats banning gay marriage as one of the top 20 things we have to worry about no longer gets to be taken seriously.

OK?

In a sensible world, the issue is top 40, maybe.

in the world where a playmate getting buried takes news precedence over 200 mil being spent on a losing war today, then by all means, gay marriage matters big time.