The Influence Peddler has more on Rudy’s opposition to the civil unions bill recently passed by the New Hampshire legislature:
I don’t think this represents a change in position – at least as far as I can see, based on what he said on the O’Reilly Factor. The key lies in the reason the Mayor gives for opposing the new statute – which I’ve italicized. Note the very significant and deliberate use of the phrase ‘in this specific case.’
First, the New Hampshire legislation (text here) seeks to establish civil unions as the ‘equivalent of marriage’ – whatever that means. Giuliani has said that he favors civil unions as an alternative to marriage. That’s a semantic difference, but words mean things. Giuliani may be clarifying his position here, against laws that claim to give civil unions the same status as marriages.
Perhaps more importantly, the New Hampshire legislation might be considered to encourage gay marriages elsewhere, by recognizing gay marriages performed in other states. This could easily justify Giuliani’s statement that ‘this goes too far.’
Like many other issues currently before the Presidential candidates, we’ll have to look for more clarification as to exactly what this means.
After reading through the legislation in question, I tend to agree that Rudy’s view on this issue is something other than a flip-flop. The New Hampshire legislation does not simply put into place a mechanism allowing same-sex partners to enjoy the legal benefits of couplehood. It also requires the Granite State to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Not just domestic partnerships or civil unions from other states, but same-sex marriages. Here’s the bill in its own words:
457-A:8 Other Jurisdictions. A civil union or a marriage between a man and another man or a woman and another woman legally contracted outside of New Hampshire shall be recognized as a civil union in this state, provided that the relationship does not violate the prohibitions of this chapter.
As Rudy is opposed to changing the definition of marriage, it makes sense that he wouldn’t support a bill that would basically endorse same-sex marriage in the various states where it is currently available. This does much to calm my fears that Team Rudy was prepared to start beating up on gays in order deflect so-con attention from abortion. Rudy’s better than that, and I’m glad to see that’s not the road he’s heading down. I hope he never does.
April 29th, 2007 at 8:11 pm
Except that it doesn’t endorse same-sex marriage in other states as marriage. It instead sees them as civil unions. This is fine if it’s just opposition to the way NH sees civil unions, and it’s fine if he doesn’t want anything to count as civil unions in that way. But I don’t see how it adds anything to the complaint to mention other states’ marriages or civil unions.
April 29th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
DaveG, what is the difference between a civil union and a marriage?
April 29th, 2007 at 9:02 pm
Not much, but I see civil unions as a way of letting same-sex couples take advantage of the legal protections that we as a society afford committed heterosexual couples without altering the defintion of a several-thousand-year-old institution.
April 29th, 2007 at 9:04 pm
I’m a NH voter and I’m glad to see near unanimous Republican opposition to this law. It’s gay marriage by another name.
As defined by this law the only difference between marriage and civil union is the name for it. It would be like a candidate who said they opposed giving citizenship to illegal aliens but instead proposed a law where they could gain permanent resident status and legally defined a permanent resident as having all the same rights and responsibilities as a citizen.
April 29th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
Whoa, Kevin W, I was about to type the same thing. Agreed.
April 30th, 2007 at 3:27 am
JF (in #2), I am pretty much with DaveG (in #3) on this, though I am opposed to the homosexual agenda and lifestyle (my religion informs me that homosexuality is a sin but that the sinner should be loved and treated with respect and dignity).
Where I think DaveG and I part is in whether this is a federal or state matter. I believe strenuously it is a federal matter for two reasons. First, under the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution, legal judgments in one state must be recognized in all the others (and the Defense of Marriage Act’s suspension of this clause for purposes of defining marriage is clearly unconstitutional). Thus, a common law marriage from another state must be recognized in my state even though my state will not enact common law marriages. And the same is going to occur if a rogue state recognizes homosexual marriage – all the rest of the states will have to recognize such marriages even if those states refuse to perform them. In addition, because the term “marriage” has legal significance under federal immigration and tax law, the federal government has every right – and indeed an obligation – to define it for those statutes. So, Mitt Romney is correct and a constitutional amendment recognizing and defining marriage as being a matter exclusively for heterosexual couples is needed; all the other GOP presidential candidates who want to leave this up to the states as a matter of federalism are dead wrong and are basically asking for homosexual marriage to become a reality.
Marriage should be for heterosexual couples, as it has been defined since inception, and have a religious connotation. In my faith, Roman Catholicism, marriage is a sacrament.
Civil unions should be legal statuses (and I would look askance at any organized religion that recognized them sacramentally) that recognize in law the inevitable relationships, like it or not, that occur among same sex couples.
Talk to lawyers and judges and they will tell you that a body of law is required to address issues of same sex couples passing on estates at death and sharing such things as job and tax and insurance benefits. Failure to enact such civil union statutes is only going to mire the legal system in chaos as gay couples sue over these issues. And I think, as a factual and legal matter, it is going to be very difficult for courts to rule against same sex partners who have lived with their significant other monogamously for many years, even in the absence of statutory authority (so a body of case law creating civil unions will ensue – and wouldn’t conservatives rather have legislatures enact these laws than judges?).
Kevin W (in #4), like it or not, we need a name for these same sex couple relationships that has legal import. Some states are already allowing gay adoption and some corporations are providing same sex couple benefits – so in many respects this train has already left the station. Marriage is and will be very different – it will be among heterosexual couples exclusively and pretty much have religious and sacramental value that civil unions will not.
As long as civil union statutes clearly define and differentiate civil unions and marriages separately, which the New Hampshire statute apparently does not (and thus I do agree with those who claim this is one area in which Mayor Giuliani has not flip-flopped), then I think they are inevitable and deserve support as a practical matter. They need not be the equivalent of support for or facilitation of the homosexual agenda or lifestyle, just as opposing them will never curtail the proliferation of such.
April 30th, 2007 at 7:22 am
Republius–I am also Catholic–doesn’t the church say something about the morality of homosexual acts? How does the morality issue fir your analysis?
April 30th, 2007 at 7:23 am
fit not fir
April 30th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Grant: I’d think the answer to that would be that we are not a theocracy.
The real question for Republius, is what about all those other things the Bible informs us is a sin, that we in the modern age no longer consider a sin? You know, the usual, embarrassing laundry list.
April 30th, 2007 at 12:48 pm
Grant (#7), I have already said that I consider the homosexual lifestyle a sin as a matter of my faith, but would respect such sinners and provide them as much dignity as possible as a civic matter. And obviously they are entitled to all the rights and privileges our system of government provides (though I would not support legislative or judicial efforts to carve out special rights for homosexuals).
But because many folks are not going to agree with me as to the morality of homosexuality, as opposed to the consensus on issues like the morality of murder, I don’t see that there is a critical mass of support to try and legislate against the homosexual lifestyle (and as Justice Scalia has opined, issues of morality are for the political system rather than the judicial system).
David B (in #9), as far as I know the Catholic church still considers homosexuality a sin and has not changed their position on this. How other religions and people look at the Bible is up to them.
April 30th, 2007 at 1:04 pm
Republius,
Here is some food for thought:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/denomchg2.htm
The same arguments were used by Christians to support the morality of slavery and the suppression of women.
If you existed 100 years ago, do you think you’d've been a radically liberal Christian opposing those dominant viewpoints?
April 30th, 2007 at 2:36 pm
David B (in #10), I am unaware of the Catholic church that I am a member of ever supporting slavery or the suppression of women, both of which I would oppose.
The Catholic church has apologized for the Crusades and for references to one true religion that imply other religions are inferior, which I think was the right thing to say.
So I am comfortable with where the Catholic church stands on homosexuals and all other issues. What other Christian religions have supported is not my problem or responsibility.
The Catholic church does not discriminate against homosexuals in any way, shape, or form. You mistake religious dogma for intolerance.