What does this mean...Rudy Giuliani??

So I've started researching 2008 presidential candidates (it'll be the first time I get to vote...I'm excited) and their views and editorials and praises (try to keep an open mind). Well I was on Rudy Giuliani's website and this is what he had to say on his view on gay marriage. "Rudy Giuliani believes marriage is between a man and a woman. He does not—and has never—supported gay marriage. But he believes in equal rights under law for all Americans. That’s why he supports domestic partnerships that provide stability for committed partners in important legal and personal matters, while preserving the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman." So does that mean that he would legalize gay marriage even though he doesn't personally agree with it because it's what the constitution allows? Is "domestic partnerships" the same as "gay marriage" or does that just mean that it would be legal for them to live together just not get married or what?

Public Comments

1. They all say that they are going to change the world and this and that but that doesn't mean it's going to happen, if he gets elected, which he wont... We will just have to wait and see whoever we elect and what they will do and what decisions they will make. Hopefully end this BS war... :-) Hopefully...
2. you got it
3. It means he's waffling.
4. It means, the name of the 107th mayor of New York City.
5. yes . . . although the President would have little influence over this . . . it's a moot answer to a moot question.
6. The domestic partnership word is used because gay marriage is not allowed at this time in all states, however I think that he is riding the line between gay marriage support and not gay marriage support by not answering the questions directly so it's hard to see where he really stands until the power is in his hands as president.
7. Ha ha ha. That's politician talk for, "On the one hand, I support my constituents who disagree with same-sex marriage. Vote for me. On the other hand, I support my constituents who approve of same-sex marriage. Vote for me." Who knows what he'll do if he gets into office? It's hard to pin any politician down on anything until they take office.
8. Sounds like he wants marriage defined between a man and woman and that gay people could have the same rights and partnerships but just don't call it marriage. It's a fine line with real religious people I think. Politicians have a certain way with words anyways don't they??
9. No, domestic partnerships and marriage are different. Here's an analogy: Blacks and Whites are equal, but we are going to seperate them. Whites get the good stuff, blacks, the crappy. Hetero's and Homo's are equal but were going to give them different "rights." Hetero's get to marry and benefit from the tax bracket, while Homo's well they don't. He's f'ed in the head, your crazy for even thinking about voting for him. I am glad that you are at least looking into politicians views. If you want a true republican, look into Ron Paul.
10. What he said is nothing but "political double-speak". He's trying to be everyone's hero, so he expresses his opinion in such a convoluted way, no one knows what he really thinks, and everyone hears him support their side. Rudy is full of bullshit. But so are the rest, so I guess that makes him as good as anyone else.
11. My interpretation would be that they are different. The word/term marriage is for man and woman, and Gulianni wants to preserve that. Domestic partnerships are b/w gay couples, and it would allow them to get the same rights/priveledges as a married couple, execpt being called "married".
12. The issue comes down to will they be able to get married in a church. Will the government force churches to recognize gay marriages. The domestic partnerships allow for gay couples to be able to have most of the benefits of a marriage. Like health benefits, insurance, estates, but on the negitive side what is to stop some government law from saying you do not have to cover domestic partnerships in health benefits.
13. Giuliani is a realist with a law basis of understanding. Marriage, historically,k has been a joining of opposites which can result in reproduction. Gay partnerships can not produce kids. Because homosexuality is not hidden and is acceptable now by the majority, people are trying to find a way to allow some sort of society sanctioned personal partnership between same sex couples. It is unfair that they can't share health insurance or if one is sick the other can't be a family member at the hospital, etc. Giuliani is trying to find that compromise. Again, in nature and human society, marriage is the joining of opposites. It can't be a joining of the same.
14. No, it's not the same as gay marriage. basically he is saying he would extend the same rights and privelages to gay partners. It's one step down from legalizing gay marriages. By doing this, employers would have to extend insurance and inheritence benefits to the partner, just like married people can add their spouse onto the insurance policy through their employer.
15. No, it wouldn't be marriage because that's between a man and a woman. The word marriage means something that does not apply to same sex partnerships. That isn't a marriage, but ir will be a legal equivalent. So it's basically the same as gay marriage, but it's not legally called marriage.
16. Domestic partnerships, ie Civil Unions, grant all of the legal privileges of a marriage couple while preserving the institution of marriage. Essentially a marriage in all of the social and legal sense except for the title. In any case though, Giuliani is a goon.
17. Sounds a little wishy-washy just like Rudy himself. All he knows is 9/11...9/11...9/11...Fvck Giuliani!!!
18. Domestic partnership grants the same rights, and responsibilities, as marriage, but without the word. Imagine a gay couple who have been together for 20 years. Bob is dying in a hospital, and his parents never liked Bob's lover, Fred. Under traditional law, Bob's parents have the right to keep Fred from visiting Bob in the hospital, or from attending the funeral. A married couple couldn't be kept apart like that, but a gay couple could. If you support the right of Bob's parents to keep Fred from visiting him, then you are against "domestic partnerships." Also, people complain about "promiscuity" within the gay community. Perhaps if they were legally allowed to formalize their relationship, there would be less promiscuity. Rudy doesn't think the word "marriage" is appropriate, and I agree. By the way, congratulations for a very mature attitude regarding the upcoming elections! I hope you vote for Rudy, but as long as you educate yourself first, vote for the person you think is best for the office!
19. It's an irrelevant question. These issues are decided in the judiciary. The president has NO input into this, abortion, or other issues we use as a litmus test.
20. These days, the state has no control over who loves whom, nor does it have control over who has sex with whom (other than those who are incompetent such as minors). However, it DOES control who has tax benefits, who automatically has the ability to make key medical decisions, etc. A "Domestic partnership" gives you all the rights that the state gives what we currently refer to as married couples. Personally, I think "marriage" is quickly turning into a religious term, where "domestic partnership" and "civil union" have become legal terms. This is a good thing. If your religion precludes homosexuals getting married, then you don't have to stay a member of that church. The state, however, does not prevent you from entering into a contract between the two of you and the state for tax purposes, etc. All that being said: Giuliani is an apalling choice because of his hideous stance on first amendment issues PRIOR to 9/11. Indeed he was soundly defeated in multiple courts over his concept that HE decided what was art in NYC. Giuliani really doesn't have much other than people's perception of him on 9/11. What did he do after 9/11 that was so special? I don't get it. He did his job. He happened to be at the right(wrong) place at the right(wrong) time to get a huge amount of press ... but what did he really do?
21. Giuliani is arrogant, a bully, bigoted, ill tempered and a womanizer. He divorced his 2nd wife, Donna Hanover, by announcing it at a press conference instead of telling her in person first. He was having an affair with an aide while living at Gracie Mansion & while still married and mayor of NYC while taking credit for all the good things that were done by others in “the city”. He fired William Bratton; the police commissioner in 1994 when he found out he made the cover of Time magazine because he (Giuliani) wanted to take the credit for the innovative crime fighting. Then he hired Kerik, and you know how that’s turned out. I lived in NY during Giuliani’s dictatorship, and believe me; I would not want him as president. His character is far worse than Bush & Clinton's worse faults rolled into one, if you can believe that's possible. Even his own kids don’t talk to him, now, what does that tell you? His name should be Mussoliani as he governs by spreading fear. As for 9/11…. he’s no hero, he just happened to be in the right place at the right time. The real heroes of 9/11 were the NYC firefighters & police plus all the other rescue workers from the surrounding tri-state areas who voluntarily came to pitch in & help us. However, he has no problem exploiting 9/11 with photo ops & speeches that have netted him millions and has allowed him to be a front-runner for the presidency. It has also been recently discovered that he had mob ties & that his father was a convicted felon. Furthermore, when he was prosecutor in NY, all his convictions were overturned. Why is that? I’m sure as time goes by more skeletons will come out of his closet. OK, here are some links: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17081159/sit... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17427328/site/newsweek/ http://bluetiderising.blogspot.com/2007/03/firefighters-turn-against-ruy-giuliani.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article1530535.ece YA: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070316145855AAMZam9 http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17439294/site/newsweek/ Slate: http://www.slate.com/id/2160285/ Giuliani warns about another 9/11 if a democrat wins the presidency http://today.reuters.com/News/ArticleBlog.aspx?type=politicsNews&w1=B7ovpm21IaDoL40ZFnNfGe&w2=B7tmRCRJt2YFzDsa7MJ1CblL&src=blogBurst_politicsNews&bbPostId=CzBhsi93ZandcCzE5hO3Df3AuBCzDMBNCSKApJUB1J7LQRD5OBM http://www.crooksandliars.com/media/down... http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292984,00.html http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292631,00.html http://rudy-urbanlegend.com/ The Wiz .
22. At first ,I think that because of modernism make every thing change ,one of the great changes is dispite of previous time in human life when people took care of the result of an action .nowadays people take care of the meaning of an action ,and because of this ,sometimes something seems to be wondering or not good .the best thing is try to find the relevant logic and feeling for new staff (some old things are interprated in new way) .