Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
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.
Comments
Don't forget, we must make it as difficult as possible for gay couples to move from one state with civil unions/DPs/whatever to another. How dare NH give full faith and credit to such unions from other states!
Posted by: AnneS | April 29, 2007 11:26 AM
I'm just wondering why every Republican candidate is pandering to the religious right and the neocons when it has become quite clear that the vast majority of America hates them. Are they really that much in control of the Republican party right now? I just hope the Democrats get their act together enough to actually win an election.
Posted by: Stuart Coleman | April 29, 2007 12:48 PM
I have to assume these politicans have much better access to demographical information than I do. So apparently, there is indeed a huge religious right base. Or perhaps, the candidates assume they can pander to moderates and the right by saying different things in different states. But anyway, there goes the last Republican candidate I might have considered voting for.
Posted by: Brandon | April 29, 2007 12:59 PM
The Religious Right & Neocon's make up 30% of the general electorate (see Bush's approval rating), and therefore about 60% of the R party -- probably an even greater percentage of primary voters. Winning the primary's is about winning the base -- it has nothing to do with the electorate as a whole.
Posted by: Dan R. | April 29, 2007 1:43 PM
If Giuliani wants to win the GOP nomination, he has no choice but to suck up to the born agains. Those folks have hijacked the Rethuglican party and are in a position to dictate its nominee. One only need look at Senator McCain, who disdained the born agains in 2000 and lost out. Because of that disdain, his pandering to them subsequently has failed to pay off.
Posted by: SLC | April 29, 2007 6:54 PM
Its also possible that the religious right are more political than average, making them a larger proportion of the voting population, than the population generally.
Posted by: James | April 30, 2007 1:19 AM
Re James
More importantly, they constitute a larger proportion of the voters in Rethuglican primaries then their numbers would indicate.
Posted by: SLC | April 30, 2007 8:35 AM
The "vast majority" of Americans may hate the Xian right, but this majority does nothing to stop them out of fear of being seen as "intolerant." Yes. Tolerate the intolerant, that's good civil manners.
Posted by: Will E. | April 30, 2007 9:52 AM