April 30, 2007
Has Giuliani Really Flip-Flopped On Gay Rights?
Short answer: Maybe.
Ryan Sager is the author of a very admiring, very intelligent book about Republicans, and it silently argues for a Giuliani nomination. One can read the disappointment -- discovering a deity is human, almost -- in his choice of adjective. He uses the word "startling." Here's the rub:
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."
The charitable explanation is that Giuliani was confused in 2004. Civil unions, you'll recall, barely existed when Giuliani left the mayoralty. The government of Vermont coined the term to refer to a marriage-equivalent arrangement tasked to the state (and Gov.Howard Dean) to create. Actually, the court gave the government two options: marriage, or something like marriage but not called marriage. So -- "Civil Unions" went into effect in mid-2000.
Giuliani had no occasion to consider the merits of civil unions. As mayor he signed domestic partnerships into law. These grant to couples most of the same rights conferred upon married couples in a particular jurisidction. Of course, there are many rights that New York State confers on married couples -- rights Giuliani could not extend to gays. And gay couples do not find their unions recognized, sanctioned or in any way affirmed by federal law.
What's the difference between civil unions and domestic partnerships? Well, civil unions refer to the specific arrangements created in Vermont and elsewhere, like in Connecticut. Domestic parternship laws belong to a much broader class and can confer many fewer rights. They are not specially assigned to gay people, although most partnership laws were passed for the benefit of gay people. Interestingly, though, the words that the Vermont Supreme Court used to refer to the marriage-like option it gave to the state: "domestic partnerships." So -- basically the same thing.
Maybe in 2004, Giuliani was refering to civil unions that were marriage-lite,instead of marriage-like. He seems to object to New Hampshire's law because it is marriage under a different name -- "spousal unions" in this case.
USA Today picks up on the official Giuliani campaign website pronouncement:
Rudy Giuliani believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He does not -- and has never -- supported gay marriage. But he believes in equal rights under law for all Americans. That's why he supports domestic partnerships that provide stability for committed partners in important legal and personal matters, while preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.
That's a terribly pregnant statement. One can read the "never" parenthetical as a "perish-the-thought" aside. But legitimately, many Giuliani opponents assume he has favored gay marriage. He has not and does not. The paragraph does not mention gay people, and technically, as mentioned, there is no need for such partnerships to be for gay couples. But, really, people aren't dense. They understand what this means.
Giuliani likes gay people. He bunked with a domestically partnered man in the months after a divorce and presumably came to the view that the love between those two men was a good thing. His opponents, eager to paint him as gay-friendly (and one can, again, potentially question the ethics of that), have reams of direct evidence that Giuliani is comfortable with the notion that gay people are fledged members of society and ought not to be shunned, or suffer from job discrimination, or be able to be fired because they are gay.
Has Giuliani decided to pick on gay people in order to pander to those religious conservatives who strongly object to the notion that gay people are normal and should be welcomed in society?
The follow up questions for Mr. Giuliani: -- what rights should straight people have that gay people shouldn't? How much lighter do civil unions have to get before Giuliani believes they can be applied to gay people?
Perhaps Giuliani's staff didn't realize that their boss was contradicting himself. Or maybe they believe that, because he could never contradict himself, the O'Reilly transcript is wrong. Or maybe Giuliani has, over the past three years, engaged in a bit of silent soul searching on the issue of whether gay people should benefit from the joys and privileges of the union he now shares with Judith Guiliani.
Giuliani will be asked to talk about gay rights again. His answer(s) may answer some of these questions. [MARC AMBINDER]
Posted at 12:13 PM
Comments
Your defense of Guliani is like.. it depends on the meaning of the word "is" is. Giuliani is definitely a flipflopper. He has become a Bush/right wing sycophant like most of the republican field. He is realizing that he can't get the nomination unless he goes on his knees infront of the right wingers.
A question for Giuliani: Does he support a marriage between cousins?
rud | 04.30.07 01:32 PM
 |
"Maybe"?
Guiliani has taken a strained position on this that is pure Kerry. It really is a sign of how far he's fallen in the past month or so, and Romney and McCain, especially Romney, must be rubbing their hands in glee.
The problem with the "convince people who oppose gay rights that he doesn't love gays" argument is that people who vote based on those issues will NEVER support Guiliani. They will always see him as suspect.
Even if they do support him, what does that say about his appeal as a candidate that he has to run far to the right in order to even have a chance, when so much recent media attention has claimed he would be a new face of the GOP and would show they don't put social issues first, and all that? He's taking a position that is to the right of Bush on civil unions, and yet we're supposed to think "maybe" he isn't flip-flopping?
If he had no idea what civil unions were, then he is not showing enough mettle to be a worthy Presidential candidate. It's his job to know these things. Civil unions have been around for years and I have no idea why someone would support them one year and oppose them the next.
Most jarring of all is the "Guiliani likes gay people" defense. That's what the press used for President Bush for years and years. Is Guiliani going to be the same, where they have to qualify his anti-gay opinions with telling us how much he likes homosexuals? Gays can make a big difference in a Presidential election, especially a close one. Now that they know this is probably someone who is going to be just as committed to rolling back their rights - if not moreso - than Bush, they're going to take a long pause on supporting him.
He has handed Mitt Romney such a gift, if you ask me.
He should ask William Weld how it worked out for him when he blatantly flip-flopped on years of support for gay marriage.
Jon | 04.30.07 05:22 PM
|
Another question might be: How long will we allow ourselves to be manipulated by so-called wedge issues?
Taylor | 04.30.07 06:58 PM
|
There's no flip-flop here. Trying to make such a case is like splitting hairs as we see above.
I haven't checked up on Obama lately, but he had the same position when running for Senate.
Battletoad | 05.01.07 12:33 AM
|
I also stand by Guiliani in most of his views
Sean Taylor | 05.02.07 05:57 AM
|
Giuliani Is A Flip-flopper.
How does he explain his flip-flop to his gay roommates?
Rudy's roomies - New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani - Brief Article
Chris Bull
New York's mayor shacks up with a gay couple
It was a tabloid's dream story. New York City mayor Rudolph Giuliani, in the middle of a bitter public divorce from his wife, Donna Hanover, moved out of Gracie Mansion, where Hanover still lives, and into the posh upper east side apartment of his friend Howard Koeppel and Koeppers partner of 10 years, Mark Hsiao.
Throughout his mayoralty, Giuliani, though generally supportive of gay rights, has sparred with the city's large gay population on everything from the St. Patrick's Day parade to police brutality. But Giuliani has spoken appreciatively of Koeppel and Hsiao's support during his difficult time, in which he was also recovering from prostate cancer and preparing to leave office. Koeppel, 64, agreed to talk about living with the mayor from his Volkswagen showroom in Queens.
How did you get to know the mayor?
We've known each other for a dozen years now. I meet him during his campaign in '89, and we hit it off right away. In the car business you deal with thousands of people. You develop a pretty good perception of the difference between chicken salad and chickenshit. Rudy is the chicken salad. He respects you as a person and not as a member of a group whose vote he's seeking.
When did it dawn on him that you are gay?
To tell you the truth, we've never really discussed it on that level. He's just always known because we'd talk about Mark and our lives together. There's no way he could miss it. Mark and I double-dated with him and his wife, Donna, on New Year's Eve in '95 and '96. We spent the whole evening together, from dinner until 3 in the morning. It was as natural as if we had been an opposite-sex couple.
If the mayor is as comfortable with gay people as you say, why all the friction between the mayor and New York's gay community?
Rudy is a Republican in a gay environment. The Republican Party has earned a reputation for being antigay, and that reputation has rubbed off on him. The other thing people don't like is that he doesn't cater to minority groups, whether gays, Asians, or blacks. He does what's right, regardless. He's generally there with us on the issues.
What's your routine like, now that you have a roommate?
Before Rudy moved in, I didn't get to spend that much time with him. I'm on the invitation list, so I'd see him at Gracie Mansion and at other events. We'd go out to eat sometimes. But he's so bright and fascinating, I always wanted more. Now we can have breakfast together.
Why do straight people turn to their gay friends in times of crisis?
If I were living with a woman and had room for him, I would take him in. Our friendship is not about my being gay or Mark's being Asian or whatever. But it is true that I've never questioned him about his problems with Donna. It could be that after 30 years together it just wasn't working and he decided to end the relationship. It had nothing to do with meeting another woman. I know he's been a good father to Andrew, taking him to baseball games and playing golf. So I don't judge him. The other thing is that he knows that Mark and I are happy people and that we live comfortable lives together. It makes him happy to be around happy people.
Given the turmoil of his divorce, do you have second thoughts about same-sex marriage?
Well, it is true that with domestic partnership, breaking up is a lot simpler. Six months, and it's over. But if they would pass a law that marriage would become legal between same-sex couples, I would be the first in line. And if Rudy were still mayor, I know he'd perform the civil ceremony for me.
How does he feel about your talking to the press about your domestic arrangement?
He's fine with it. I think it's been good for his image, frankly. So many people, gay and straight, have come up to me and said, "You know, the mayor is a really good guy after all."
Is the mayor a good houseguest?
Yes. He even makes his own bed.
COPYRIGHT 2001 Liberation Publications, Inc.
COPYRIGHT 2001 Gale Group
Marvin | 08.13.07 01:46 PM
|
Post a comment
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
