The EFM Feature

ABC News is currently claiming that Governor Romney is “smearing” Mayor Giuliani:

The former New York City mayor — who sits atop the Republican presidential field according to two recent national surveys — is wrongly labeled as being “pro-gay marriage” by former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., in a Christian Broadcasting Network interview which is set to air March 6 on the “700 Club.”
“He is pro-choice, he is pro-gay marriage, and anti-gun,” said former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass., in an interview taped in Boston on Feb. 28. “That’s a tough combination in a Republican primary.”
Giuliani is often described as being “pro-gay rights” because he signed a 1997 bill creating domestic-partnership benefits in New York City. He has never, however, been “pro-gay marriage.”
When contacted by ABC News, the Romney campaign was not able to provide substantiation for the governor’s claim that Giuliani is “pro-gay marriage”.

I’m not sure why Governor Romney’s folks–of whom EFM is independent–responded the way they did, but in my humble opinion, all they needed was this New York Daily News item from March 8, 2004:

WASHINGTON – Rudy Giuliani came out yesterday against President Bush’s call for a ban on gay marriage.
The former mayor, who Vice President Cheney joked the other night is after his job, vigorously defended the President on his post-9/11 leadership but made clear he disagrees with Bush’s proposal to rewrite the Constitution to outlaw gays and lesbians from tying the knot.
“I don’t think it’s ripe for decision at this point,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“I certainly wouldn’t support [a ban] at this time,” added Giuliani, who lived with a gay Manhattan couple when he moved out of Gracie Mansion during his nasty divorce.

In this story and others, it’s been claimed that Mayor Giuliani is against “gay marriage.” We’ve been attacked over this–and written about it–before:

Giuliani Blog is upset with me, claiming that Rudy is against “gay marriage” because, um, well, he said so. Apparently the recent American Spectator cover story on him says the same (I don’t have a link to it). I’m not exactly sure what this means, since Rudy has also come out against the Federal Marriage Amendment. He’s against “gay marriage” but doesn’t want to do anything about it? What is that supposed to mean, especially coming from this so-called no-nonsense man of action? Being against something ought to mean more than “I don’t want to do it myself” (which Rudy’s marital adventures–with women–make amply clear). Especially in the political world, it ought to mean “I will do something about this.” I’m amenable to the idea that there are more ways to do that than a constitutional amendment, but I can’t find Rudy explaining anywhere exactly what that would be for him. I can, however, find him confessing to being “out of sync” with the GOP’s base and more on the same page with (perish the thought) George Pataki and Arnold Schwarzenegger. Couldn’t have said it better myself.

Memo to ABC: Your “story” is the smear here, and your pliant “reporter” ought to be ashamed of himself. What Governor Romney said is true–and so is what Rush Limbaugh said the other day about “news” outlets like you:

You take a look at who the media really goes after and you’ve gotta wonder whether there’s fear there, fear driving it. Well, they just want to destroy every conservative they can. It’s just part and parcel of the agenda that exists.

As for the good mayor–if he’s really so opposed to gay marriage, let’s hear what he proposes to do about it. We already know what Governor Romney has done.

About Charles Mitchell

EFM's resident Yankee, Charles Mitchell, works in the non-profit arena in his native Pennsylvania. He and his wife, Charissa, live near the state capital of Harrisburg with their daughter, Adeline, and are members of a congregation of the Presbyterian Church in America.

Comments and Discussion

Evangelicals for Mitt provides comments as a way to engage in a public and respectiful discussion about articles and issues. Any comment may be removed by the editors for violating common decency or tempting flames.

Comments are closed.