Giuliani Sells Out on Gay Marriage

Nick Gillespie | April 27, 2007

Former Reason intern extraordianaire and Elephant in the Room author Ryan Sager, now the digital master of The New York Sun and just about the biggest booster among libertarian journalists for Rudy Giuliani in 2008, delivers an early sign that The Nation's Mayor is selling out his historically tolerant position on civil unions:

In a startling departure from his previously stated position on civil unions, Mayor Giuliani came out to The New York Sun yesterday evening in opposition to the civil union law just passed by the New Hampshire state Senate.

"Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly," the Giuliani campaign said in a written response to a question from the Sun. "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."

More here.

Giuliani's longstanding openness toward gays--he lived with a gay couple after separating from his second wife, Donna Hanover--was one of the things that set him apart from the rest of the GOP pack, who tend to hew close to the "ick" line generally espoused by the Party of Lincoln. As important, since the new attitude seems to be driven not by revelation from God but a felt need to suck up to socially conservative primary voters, it suggests that Rudy is not quite the 80 percenter he claims to be.

Tim Cavanaugh takes a long look at Prince Rudy's tenure as New York Mayor here.

Comments

|4.27.07 @ 8:54AM|#

It's Giuliani.

You got it right in the story but wrong in the head.

|4.27.07 @ 9:00AM|#

"Guiliani Sells Out on Gay Marriage" should read "The Guiliani CAMPAIGN Sells Out on Gay Marriage".

This is politics.

|4.27.07 @ 9:07AM|#

I suppose it's possible that Guiliani feels that his views of an issue can differ since if he becomes President, he'll have a different constituiency than he did as mayor of NYC.

And speaking of selling out, as I type this whose grinning mug do I see on the right side of the page?

I. Self. Divine.|4.27.07 @ 9:10AM|#

Holy Christ, Dan T. is back! Have you tired of your Hooked on Innuendo and Queen's Gambit Declined handles?

|4.27.07 @ 9:18AM|#

Don't forget Haywood's Proxy.

I had to resort to new handles because too much stuff was showing up here as being written by me that wasn't.

I'll try to stick with being Dan T. again, if my fellow H&R commenters are willing to let me speak for myself.

Nick Gillespie|4.27.07 @ 9:29AM|#

Headline typo fixed. My Italian mother rests easy now.

|4.27.07 @ 9:35AM|#

"I suppose it's possible that Guiliani feels that his views of an issue can differ since if he becomes President, he'll have a different constituiency than he did as mayor of NYC."

Actually, shouldn't his VIEWS remain the same? It's how he VOTES (or in the case of POTUS, how he promotes and approves legislation) that should change as a result of his constituency changing?

Not meaning to split hairs. Welcome back Dan T.

CB

|4.27.07 @ 10:01AM|#

I think Giuliani overestimates his dictator appeal. When he was a tough guy with a live and let live attitude, he was worth taking a look at. Now he says Dems are going to get us bombed, gays marriage is no longer a states rights issue, and his beak is growing.

|4.27.07 @ 10:08AM|#

Question:

What's the Cliff's Notes difference between a civil union and a marriage?

Chris|4.27.07 @ 10:16AM|#

"What's the Cliff's Notes difference between a civil union and a marriage?"

Depending on where you're at, civil unions and marriages usually have the same technical functions, but it's primarily about the social acceptance that actual marriage would bring, as opposed to the stigma that remains obviously attached to a civil union. There is no good argument for keeping the legal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, anyway - at least not one that doesn't involve the word "God."

Rhywun|4.27.07 @ 10:44AM|#

He stated what part of the new law he doesn't support ("In this specific case the law states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside states."). Not sure how this is a "startling departure"--it seems pretty consistent with his earlier views to me.

Lichtenberg|4.27.07 @ 10:46AM|#

The difference between civil union and marriage isn't just about terminology. It's about which box to check on federal tax forms, among other things. What a state calls it goes beyond the borders of the state.

|4.27.07 @ 11:32AM|#

I suppose you could say that marriage is a civil union but not all civil unions can be considered marriages.

KipEsquire|4.27.07 @ 11:33AM|#

Meanwhile, a big huge Rudy ad appears on your right sidebar.

So I guess he's not the only sellout.

LarryA|4.27.07 @ 12:08PM|#

Meanwhile, a big huge Rudy ad appears on your right sidebar. So I guess he's not the only sellout.

Reason sells ad space to Google. Google decides which ads to put in the space. The worst you can say is that Google needs to tweak its selection program.

Even if Rudy directly contracted with the magazine, how is it "selling out" to run an ad for the politician who may well turn out to be the most "Reasonable" of two viable candidates.

[shudder]

|4.27.07 @ 1:23PM|#

"Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly,"

In addition to the civil union vs. marriage question, I am curious as to where exactly "domestic partnership" fits in to the equation and how exactly is the "ensuring people are treated fairly" ?

What shitty double talk! Either you support the idea of same sex couples forming a familial union recognized by the state that is treated exactly the way "marriage" is treated or you do not.

Taking issue over the weasel words just comes off as pure pandering.

|4.27.07 @ 1:24PM|#

Fuck!!! Lets try this again:

"Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly,"

In addition to the civil union vs. marriage question, I am curious as to where exactly "domestic partnership" fits in to the equation and how exactly is the "ensuring people are treated fairly" ?

What shitty double talk! Either you support the idea of same sex couples forming a familial union recognized by the state that is treated exactly the way "marriage" is treated or you do not.

Taking issue over the weasel words just comes off as pure pandering.

|4.27.07 @ 2:11PM|#

I blame Eric Dondero.

John Moore|4.27.07 @ 2:26PM|#

There is no good argument for keeping the legal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman, anyway - at least not one that doesn't involve the word "God."

Wrong!

1) Children. While one can argue that gays can have children, there can be no doubt that the experience of growing up in a gay union is different that that of traditional marriage. There is good reason to believe that a functional conventional marriage provides the best environment for raising children - in spite of well intended *wishes* that it be otherwise.

2) Tradition. This is a value too easily thrown out by our arrogant moderns who believe that we know better than all the generations before us, including their greatest philosophers. This conceit has led to immense tragedies, as the same approach ignores hard learned lessons about human nature.

3) Precedent to more complex and problematic legal relationships: polygamy (frequently the core power mechanism of cult leaders), polyamory, and every other mix of people.

Given the long history of marriage, the burden is strongly on those who favor non-heterosexual marriage to show it is not damaging to the individuals involved, society, and children.

The increase in failed heterosexual marriages is not an argument against the value of that unique situation. The failures are instead an argument against the modern culture of irresponsibility and hyper-individualism in defiance of human experience.

|4.27.07 @ 3:31PM|#

Mr. Giuliani believes that a marriage should be between one man and one woman. A Giuliani marriage should be between one man and three women.

KipEsquire|4.27.07 @ 5:08PM|#

"Reason sells ad space to Google. Google decides which ads to put in the space. The worst you can say is that Google needs to tweak its selection program."

You either control what's on your blog or you whore it out.

I stand by my 11:33am comment.

Rhywun|4.27.07 @ 6:00PM|#

1) Children.

You admit that gays have children - so... is it better for those children to have unmarried or married parents? Or do you advocate taking such children away from their parents and giving them to heterosexuals?

2) Tradition.

"Tradition" is a weasel-word behind which all sorts of abhorrent practices have hidden throughout history.

3) Precedent

Another unrelated argument used to distract us from the real issue. Gays want to marry each other; they're not asking to marry dogs.

Given the long history of marriage, the burden is strongly on those who favor non-heterosexual marriage to show it is not damaging to the individuals involved, society, and children.

Ask yourself if two gays getting married down the street is going to affect you in any way whatsoever. Your arguments have been shot down over and over again on this website; I have nothing further to say. Do a search for articles mentioning "Stanley Kurtz".

Taktix®|4.27.07 @ 6:13PM|#

I just realized something about this whole Election-season-distraction issue...

When Christians say things like "marriage is between a man and a woman," aren't they going against the commonly held Christian dogma that marriage is between a man, a woman and God?

Either a really conveinient ommision or just really kinky...

|4.27.07 @ 7:40PM|#

You admit that gays have children - so... is it better for those children to have unmarried or married parents?

Well, more accurately, gays can have custody of children. At least at the current state of technology, there's no such thing as children produced by a gay relationship.

More compelling would be the argument as to how necessary gay relationships are to procreation. Any discussion of "equality" would be incomplete without a consideration of equality of consequences.

That is, if people failed to form gay relationships, what would be the consequences to the public at large? What would be the impact to the public 30 years hence?

Now, contrast that with the consequences of people failing to form straight relationships. What would be the consequences of that to the public in 30 years? "What public?" is a perfectly acceptable answer here.

In short, the question is why should relationships that are of no consequence to parties other than the participants, and no consequence to the public at large, be the subject of public law? And why should they be considered on equal footing with relationships that do (at least potentially) have an impact on the public at large?

|4.27.07 @ 7:54PM|#

When Christians say things like "marriage is between a man and a woman," aren't they going against the commonly held Christian dogma that marriage is between a man, a woman and God?

No more so than advocates for gay marriage that say things like "marriage is a contract between a couple" who manage to ignore that in it's current formulation, legal marriage is a contract between the two parties and the state.

I believe that except in the state of Virginia, two or more private parties are perfectly free to make any private legal contracts between themselves the see fit. The only thing missing are privileges and prerogatives granted specifically by the state.

Not that I have any problem with granting gays the right of legal marriage. It won't cost anything, and if it makes gay people happy, fine with me. Which doesn't make most of the other arguments I've heard advanced in favor of it any less asinine, unfortunately.

|4.27.07 @ 7:57PM|#

KipEsquire, do you know what an "advertisement" is? When you read the newspaper and there's a Macy's ad, do you think it means the newspaper is reporting on how great Macy's is?

|4.27.07 @ 10:19PM|#

highnumber | April 27, 2007, 2:11pm | #
I blame Eric Dondero.

Can we please refer to him as "He who must not be named"?