Latest Politics  

Latest Posts  |  Archive  | 

Civil Union Flip Flops

by Ryan Sager
Mon, 30 Apr 2007 at 1:36 PM
updated Mon, 30 Apr 2007 at 1:49 PM

Print

Send

RSS

Share:

In the wake of NYSunPolitics.com's reporting on the civil-union positions of Rudy Giuliani and John McCain, some discussion is arising as to whether either or both candidates — both of whom oppose civil unions now — has (have) flip flopped on the issue.

Let me give you the short answer first, and then I'll take some time to break down what I mean. Short answer: Mr. McCain, no; Mr. Giuliani, yes in a literal sense, and it's murkier in a broader sense (but probably still yes)...

The first thing to keep in mind is that both candidates have avoided, rather carefully, taking any position on civil unions, as such. The New Hampshire civil-union bill forced their hands and made them give clear statements.

That said, Mr. McCain's is easily reconcilable with his previous comments on the issue. Mr. Giuliani's is far less so.

Mr. McCain, as mentioned in my initial post on his position, has gone so far as to say both that he doesn't support and doesn't oppose civil unions in the past (in fact, in the same interview). Given that, I suppose you could say he does not not oppose them now, and thus has flip flopped. I think that would be a substantial stretch. The truth is he's avoided having an opinion.

Now that he has one, the question is whether it's consistent with his past positions. And it clearly is (I've certainly never implied otherwise). He opposes gay marriage, considers civil unions and gay marriage state issues, and at least claims to hew to federalism as the general principle to follow here. He would oppose civil unions as a citizen, or presumably as a legislator or governor, of New Hampshire. But New Hampshire's made its decision, and that's fine with him.

Now, onto the question of Mr. Giuliani. As the Hotline blog argues here, in a thoughtful post, "The charitable explanation is that Giuliani was confused in 2004." I'm clearly not such a charitable soul.

Here's the transcript of the O'Reilly appearance I mentioned in my column Friday:

O'REILLY: Gay marriage? Are you up for that?

GIULIANI: No, but I'm in favor of...

O'REILLY: Partnerships.

GIULIANI: ... civil unions. I signed the two laws in New York that created domestic partnership.

O'REILLY: Why no gay marriage?

GIULIANI: Because it seems to me that's a fair -- that's a fair balance. Marriage should be reserved for a man and a woman, traditional, important to our future, important that we preserve...

O'REILLY: But they say -- they say that violates my rights as an American, I'm gay, and...

GIULIANI: Well, that's -- 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. At the same time, marriage has a whole history to it, including procreation and all of that.

O'REILLY: So you -- you come down on the traditional side there?

GIULIANI: Yes.

-- Fox News, "The O'Reilly Factor"

February 2, 2004

So, clearly, Mr. Giuliani's stated position on civil unions was that he supported them. Now, he's reversed that. The question, then, is whether Mr. Giuliani was confused about the difference between domestic partnerships and civil unions in 2004, or whether he didn't then consider the distinction very important and thus supported both.

If Mr. Giuliani was unclear as to what the term "civil union" meant, it's certainly not because the term's meaning was unclear at the time. After all, Vermont instituted the nation's first civil unions back in 2000. For a mayor who signed a very progressive domestic partnership law in 1998, it strains belief that he would not have had at least a vague idea what a civil union was by 2004 — and that means, essentially, a marriage-like arrangement in all but name.

And that 2004 appearance on O'Reilly certainly wasn't the only time he expressed support for civil unions. Note this audio clip dug up by Michelangelo Signorile, from his radio show in December of 2003. In it, he says: "I support domestic partnership, which I signed into law in New York City. ... I think that would be a good model for other states to have — some places call it domestic partnerships, some states call it civil unions. And I think that would be the best way to deal with it."

Again, he's making no distinction between domestic partnerships and civil unions — in fact, if the state he's referring to is Vermont (and no other state had civil unions in 2003), he's explicitly endorsing both.

The argument from Giuliani supporters is that he's been consistent, if unclear. He supports domestic partnerships — he did when he signed them into law in New York City, and he still does now (see under "Marriage"). If he's said he supports civil unions, it's because he didn't understand what they were.

I leave it up to the reader to determine if that's credible, because there's no way to know the inside of the mayor's mind — short of new evidence of previous public statements I might have missed.

But some questions remain for the mayor:

* What rights does a civil union confer that gay couples should be denied?

* How far would the New Hampshire bill (or the Connecticut, Vermont, and New Jersey laws) have to be watered down to be acceptable to the mayor?

* Do you believe, as Mr. McCain does, that this is ultimately a matter of federalism and a decision best left up to the states?

Latest Politics Homepage