Mitt Romney isn’t the only Republican presidential candidate snuggling up to the religious right and pretending to be against gay rights to win the nomination; Rudy Giuliani, who has a long track record of support for gay rights, is now in full pander mode as well. Pam Spaulding is on the case. This post reports on his new position on civil unions:
An advanced copy of an article sent to RAW STORY shows that the New York Republican has backed off his earlier support for civil unions, prompted by the passage of a law in New Hampshire’s State Senate.
“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 Giuliani campaign said in a written response sent to the Sun’s Ryan Sager.
And offers a few choice quotes from years past, when Rudy didn’t need to pander to the Dobson wing of the Republican party. Like this one:
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.”
And this one:
“Marriage should be a man and a woman…I think that the domestic partnership legislation in NY has worked very, very well. I think that’s a good way to deal with it, and I think that would be a good model for other states to have. Some places call them domestic partnerships, some states call it civil unions, and I think that would be the best way to deal with it.”
So not only do we now get to watch this serial adulterer tell gays that they can’t even have civil union protections, much less marriage, but we get to watch him contradict his own previous positions on the matter. And of course, when called on it, he’ll react with feigned outrage over the personal attack on his character. All he has shown, of course, is that character is precisely what he does not have.