Monday, March 12, 2007

Howey Politics On Guiliani's Position On Gay Rights And Abortion

Former New York Mayor Rudy Guiliani is not in favor of legally-recognizing gay marriages, but that is just a matter of semantics. He in fact supports civil unions, or domestic partner agreements as he describes them. Beverly Phillips reports for Howey Politics on what Guiliani had to say about gay marriage and abortion during his visit to Indianapolis last week:

Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani was asked how he will approach social issues such as gay marriage and abortion when he appeared at a a March 7 fundraiser at Obsidian Catering.

"My view on gay marriages is that, basically, marriage should be between a man and a woman," Giuliani said. "I did 220 weddings when I was mayor of New York and every single one was a man and a woman. I'm probably going to see one on a blog where somebody has fooled me wearing a suit or a dress and they've gone back the other way. It's New York City after all."

"But I believe the way to deal with it is to have domestic partnerships. If somebody is gay, somebody is lesbian, they want to protect their rights, they should be allowed to protect their rights and be protected against discrimination. America is better than that. And the Christian religion is better than that. We can take marriage and put it in a preserved position. I think government should stay out of that and let people live their lives."

Asked how he will deal with the Christian right, Giuliani said, "I will say the same things to them that I say to you. I tell them what my position is. I don't like abortion. I wish there were no abortions. To go through adoption. If it was somebody I knew or had a relationship with, I'd give them the money for it (adoption). I expressed that as mayor of New York City by dramatically increasing adoptions and decreasing abortions. But, ultimately, a woman has that right to make the choice that is different than one I think she should make. I don't think government should put you in jail for it."

Polls show Guiliani has been the front-runner for the 2008 GOP presidential nomination for the past three consecutive months, running well ahead of his nearest competitor, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ). Considering that the likely Democratic nominee will be either Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) or Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL), the prospects are looking good that the two major candidates for president in 2008 will not be using gay marriage as a wedge issue. It's still early though and a lot can change.


Wilson46201 said...

Sadly, the Anti-Marriage Amendment will likely be on the ballot here in Indiana during the Gubernatorial and Congressional races, not to mention General Assembly contests...

Wilson46201 said...

Rudy Giuliani has opened up a double-digit lead over Sen. John McCain, 34% to 18%, in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, a new CNN/Opinion Research poll finds.

Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney are each tied at nine percent in the poll.

Don Sherfick said...

Guiliani is far from alone among Republicans in his views on civil unions. Even President Bush wants state legislatures to retain the power to enact them.all Yet as a letter that went to 100 Representatives yesterday points out, Senator Hershman is refusing to acknowledge that language he chose to put in SJR-7, the so-called "Marriage Amendment" denies the legislature the ability to enact them or anything like them. But he continues to claim just the opposite, despite the legislative history the letter outlines. This dirty little secret about where he got SJR7 in the first place is his "smoking gun", if only the media would wake up, investigate, and stop letting him, Eric Miller, Jim Bopp, and Micah Clark get a free pass in just asking Hoosiers to to their elusive and ideological "legal scholars". Where is the Indiana State Bar Association on this one?

Anonymous 9:21 said...

The Indiana State Bar Association is mostly about cheap access to research materials and insurance. The ISBA is for all practical purposes irrelevant, particularly in any discussion that may involve taking an unpopular position. It has not and will not provide any moral leadership on this or any other matter of legal significance out of fear that someone might actually notice the association and cause it to have to defend its position. Maybe it's "legal scholar" section is headed by Miller and Bopp.