The political website of the New York Sun will report tomorrow that in a major reversal from an earlier position, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani now opposes civil unions between same sex partners.
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.
The Sun notes that Giuliani had said in 2004 on Fox News, "I'm in favor of...civil unions."
Sager suggests that Giuliani is staking out the position in order to secure himself among charges that he's too liberal to win the Republican vote.
"Yesterday's statement is likely to lead many observers to question whether the former mayor is concerned that his socially liberal record and positions aren't flying in the Republican primary," he writes in a post tomorrow on the New York Sun's Politics website. "While he still holds a commanding lead in the national polls, he has taken a hit over the last month or so after reiterating his support for the public funding of abortion."
An additional excerpt from Sager's article is presented below. You can read the full article at the New York Sun Politics website.
Personally, I don't get why anyone would want to be married anyway, most of the time it doesn't work out.
Something tells me you won't have to worry about it.
As far as immigration goes, I don't think any of them have an acceptable policy, that wall on the Mexican border should span the whole length, and there should be soldiers at checkpoints along the way with orders to shoot on sight.
figures that would be your stance on it....doesnt suprise me...
Well if they dont do it who will???? Americans for the most part have to much pride to do those kind of jobs....but they must be done.....
People complain that they take all the work but then they get offered a job and they say "nahhh i dont want to do that".....so many (not all) are productive members to society....
for the most part mexicans and illegal immigrants are not getting the kind of jobs that most americans are trying to get.....once they become legal then its another story (if they have an education) because being educated and bilingual will get you picked quickly..
While I'm on the subject, what is your opinion on the Mexican Army crossing the US border (an act of war), to escort social undesirables and drug runners into Texas?
Many of the people where I live rather starve than bag groceries....myself included hence the reason im unemployed.....but i would settle for an office job which will be a lot easier once summer rolls around and i have a better schedule....my class hours suck this semester spread out through the whole day
but besides the fact there are PLENTY of jobs out there even though there are immigrants that do take some of the citizens jobs ...they are less attractive than grocery bagging jobs.....dont worry once the democrats come into office there will be plenty more jobs available...and i know your going to say "jobs that are a waste of money" ;D
I say bring the blow ;D
If they can get here then let them stay....It shows that they rather die trying to go somewhere else than live where they are at....in my opinion that takes strength, courage and character....
There are many nutjob cubans but more nutjob americans....Cubans are hard workers and can bring a lot of good to society...of course you have your bad "apples" but thats the case in many situations....If they can get here then they should be able to stay....In their country they cannot get ahead or prosper because they have to deal with what their goverment decides to give them...Why not give someone a chance to live there own life and make what they want of it?? its not their fault they were born in the wrong place at the wrong time....
Here in Puerto Rico there is a high influx of dominicans and cubans and people say bad shit about them also....people dont like anyone that is not of their own heritage and ideas....its sad really
-josh
(who is in the mood for a mojito right now)
So are you racist or what?...since you seem to have a distaste for latin people....
Oh yea you hate everyone including the US...
By responding you are playing right into his hands and I have my doubts he is who he says he is.
I NEED A JOB
I love Rudy! Our enemies will fear him, he has said as much. Course they also might fear Hillary, I would never want to cross that woman. She has an evil eye like no other person I have ever seen.
Yeah, I would say if you want to keep everyone in line, vote for either Rudy or Hill. HIll would def kick ass.
Also I restricted to 1 year experience, he seems to be a pretty good linux geek, maybe there is stuff out there for him, or remotely.lol Ubuntu is the only one that installed on my linux pc without zillions of errors, but no wonder why, it didn't install anything of value LOL
Bitch, puh-leeeeeeze! No self-respecting Linux Geek would even consider using Ubuntu. ::)
Gentoo, maybe. Debian, it's worth a shot. CentOS, now you're getting warm. But Ubuntu? Shudder!
MtD
(Who is Fedora Core all the way)
Actually I was referring to your reply in post #26 :-*Oh ;) :-*
there are times when I think maybe she is on the up and up and then she starts doing this southern accent thing again to african american audiences. What is this about? The first time she did it, she made a total fool of herself,but I guess she is now saying thats just the way she talks in the south. ...
Personally, I don't get why anyone would want to be married anyway, most of the time it doesn't work out.
If those are the reasons you use in entering marriage,your marriage will fail. I know of no man and women who got married because of those reasons. I guess some have, I just dpnt know of any.
You get married to someone cause they make you laugh or make you Happy. You marry someone because you think having them as a partner will make you a better or stronger person. You dont marry someone because of tax benefits(which are almost nil), or benefits, or money, if you do you will be miserable and your marriage will probably fail.
A successfull marriage means changing personal habits, which is a tough adjustment for all of us, a lot of compromising,which usually means doing what your wife wants to do. Personal benefits or tax treatments have nothing to do with it.
If it was just tax benefits wouldnt the gay side except something where they would have a union not called marriage but with all of marriages tax benifits and survivors rights? If it was really just a case of tax benefits and other crap why care what the union is called? The gay side wants their union to be called marriage because they believe they are no different than any one else, and that they are equals to heterosexuals. I think? If all humans are equal,why should their unions be called something different?
The argument that it would threaten male/female marriage is rather silly, unless you think everyone is homosexual but just chooses hetero for the financial benefits.
Name me one political candidate that hasn't done this in primaries. They all do it to romance their base. Yeah, it sucks, but its reality. Every single person running for president is doing it. Hillary changes her position on the war daily depending on who she is talking to. Her husband did the same thing. I will never forget billy coming to Houston when he was president and saying to a group of Democrats that he had screwed up by raising taxes so much. The next day in front of another group in another state he said he never said such a thing, and later that day he said he did say it but was caused by lack of sleep. Bush does it. Reagan did it. Carter did it. Obama does it.
The fucking media never takes any of them to task for it. Look at the answers to the questions in the last "debate". A joke, just like all the debates.
I am just saying my personal preference for Reps is Rudy and someone conservative from the west, that is not code for Christian Nazi. If the Reps picked someone like McCain I would vote for Dems only if Richardson was going for President. He is the only Democrat who appears not to be a frothing at the mouth socialist,but like I said most of them are putting on this act for the democrat base and like Clinton probably wont do much in that direction once elected.
I sure have had sex with a lot of married men! The gay bookstores and baths here in NYC are full of them. Not to mention the sauna\'s at the gym.
But for 9/11 Rudy would have gone down as one of the worst mayors in NY - he used strong arm tactics, gave the police free reign to do what ever they wanted (remember Abner Loumi (sp?).
As far as second class citizens, yes, we are treated and considered second class citizens - and marriage one of the ways that we are kept in a different, second, class. The same arguments about allowing gays the right to marry are being made by the same people who want to prevent women the right to have an abortion.
Frankly, with HIV added to the list I sometimes feel like a third class citizen - but thats another thread!
i know this will piss you off, but here goes, I dont think that article is brilliant, of course I dont think there should be hate crimes. When are we gonna stop trying to figure out why someone committed a crime and just use the laws on the books. Oh I know why, cause some crimes are ok if we feel sorry for the criminal or if he his parents abused him,but if hate is involved then he should be guilty of some far greater crime? WTF??? If someone murders a gay person or a non gay person, who cares, prosecute the fucker under the laws we have. Who is the judge of whether hate is involved?
This is just another assault on the first amendment like John McCains idiot finance bill that trashed freedom of speech for all but the very wealthy and very connected.
You do not have to convince me of the insaneness of the Christian Nazis, just like you dont have convince me of moron Warmer Nazis. They both want control. I fear the WArmers now more than I have ever feared the Christian Nazis. And what about the Atheist Nazis?
This talking point is a red herring. Let's be honest, people are against hate crime laws because they really see them as somehow "exalting" people of races, gender, sexual orientations, religions and cultures that are routinely looked down upon by society and targeted by some as objects for violence.
But leaving motive for being against hate crime laws aside for a moment, let's talk about....MOTIVE.
Motive is really what hate crimes laws are about. It's a distinction made on the reasons an act was committed. Leaving aside hate crime laws, the statutes are already crammed to the rafters with laws and rules concerning MOTIVE. And punishment is handed down based on MOTIVE of the crime committed.
For example:
1) A person walks in on his wife in bed with some other guy, goes off the deep end goes into the garage, gets his gun and kills both of them.
2) A person takes out an insurance policy on his wife and one night a few months later, takes her out somewhere and kills her.
Is there a difference in these two crimes? In both cases a person intentionally kills another. In both cases, we have a murder.
Why should a person get a heavier sentence for a premeditated act of murder than a person who snapped in a moment of emotional distress? Motive.
Hate crime laws are not about anything that doesn't already exist in the laws of most first world countries. We already deal with aggravating factors in the body of law. Why should hate crimes NOT be an aggravating factor?
And one has to ask oneself, is there really a difference between toilet papering someone's house as an ill thought out prank and painting a swastika on a synagogue door?
On the surface, they are really both acts of vandalism.
But are they really the same crime? I don't think they are. One is a crime that at best is meant to annoy someone or inconvenience them at worst, while the other is clearly an act that is meant terrorize an entire community.
Should the punishment be the same? I don't think so.
If we just treat all crimes as equal based on the deed itself and not consider any aggravating or mitigating factors, then we are setting ourselves up for a serious miscarriage of justice.
Should the punishment be the same?
First of all, I invoke Godwin's Law.
Second of all, hate crimes, which usually include murder, various acts of violence, and/or vandalism are already illegal.
If someone murdered you because you were gay, they would be tried for the crime of murder, what more do you want the legal system to do? Give the guy two death sentences/two lifetime inprisonments because you were gay?
How does being gay make you a special victim? What if instead of killing you, he went to rob a bank and shot a teller? Did the teller do something to make him/her less of a victim?
I'm interested in your input on this.