(CNN) - He may not agree with the vote in New York to legalize gay marriage, but former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said the Republican Party should butt out of the bedroom and stick to fiscal policy.
"I think the Republican Party would be well advised to get the heck out of people's bedrooms and let these things get decided by states," Giuliani said Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." "We'd be a much more successful political party if we stuck to our economic, conservative roots."
Giuliani, who is considering a run for president in 2012, has long supported civil unions. Although he said he believes marriage is between a man and a woman, he can "live with" the legalization in New York.
"I think it's wrong, but there are other things that I think are wrong that get decided by democratic vote," Giuliani told CNN Chief Political Correspondent Candy Crowley. "I see more harm, however, by dwelling so much on this subject of gays and lesbians and whether it's right or wrong in politics."
Watch State of the Union with Candy Crowley Sundays at 9am ET. For the latest from State of the Union click here.
Finally, a smart, intelligent republican!
Wow! In early 1930s Germany the leading party said the same thing about its people who were gay or different. Wow! look what happened to Germany a few years later. I love how history seems to do itself over and over again.
I balk at the push to force me to ENDORSE homosexuality so, that means that I want to regulate what goes on in their bedrooms??? And Alice thought Wonderland made no sense.
The GOP has become the party of ignorance and intolerance. Therefore Mr noun-verb-911 has no chance of winning its nomination for president.
As a resident of NYC I am not a fan of Rudy G. Abrasive, divisive etc. but he is right on this one. The good old Republican party was all about being fiscally conservative (moderately of course, not wacko extremist) and staying out of the private lives of people/families (almost libertarian in that). This is the legacy of all the great New England and Northeast Republicans. There are still a few of those around. It was a party that didn't meddle. It kept away from putting religion in schools, and letting people live their lives and make their own choices and was against the gov't deciding personal choices.
I am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. I believe in living within our means and paying for things that are necessary. But I also believe that the government has no business in my private life as long as I am not hurting anyone. It is for the latter reason that I vote Democrat. I will vote Republican when they learn to mind their own business and stop trying to create a christian theocracy. I do not want big government but, unfortunately, I will take it over Big Brother and that is what the Republican party aspires to be.
"I think the Republican Party would be well advised to get the heck out of people's bedrooms and let these things get decided by states," Giuliani said.
First sensible thing Rudy has said in decades.
The so-called "social issues" are highly divisive, and if the GOP wants to save the country from Obama and the Dems next year, they need to quit driving off supporters with that kind of divisiveness.
The sad part of the story is that is makes one think there is only one tolerant Repub. in the country. The rest of them are too afraid of the extreme right to be open to other opinions. Grover Norquist has most of the Washington elected repubs. too paranoid to make necessary decisions or they get dumped on by this wacko and his minions. The ultra-right religious zealots hijacked the moral conscience of the party (thanks to George Bush) and dictate their every thought. There seems to be no compromise is this myopic group of people. Very sad for our country.
All Politicians must stay out of the Nations bedroom..! Washington must do more in the boardroom
to bring the financial house in order...nothing gets done because the politicians mind everbodys business
but their own.....!
I just wish Rudy would listen to his own advice and stay out of peoples's personal business. He did not do that as mayor of New York, he wanted to create a nanny state where the government knew better than us about how to cross a street, or which nighclub I could dance at if I wanted to, (remember his enforcement of the cabaret law)? If you got caught dancing you could get a summons. Also, he wanted to defund the Brooklyn Museum of Art because he, the great dictator, didn't agree with their taste in art so he wanted to stop funding. He could be a great leader but he has fascism and an, "I know better than you", mentality that's in his blood. He can't get rid of it no matter how hard he tries. He would have been a great leader in the former Soviet Union
@BJ: prop 8 should never have been on ballot. democrazy does not mean dictatorship by the majority, or else the minorities wud have no hope. No one should be asked/allowed to vote on how others live their private lives.
What is beyond hypocritical with the GOP is how they think the democrats want to control everyone with legislation (healthcare, car mileage) but it is totally ok for them to legislate the most private of private matters in a persons life... whom they choose to be with... jeez... how do they even get up the mental power to make their mouths move to complain about this....
Common sense advice for a party, Teapublicans included, that has become r-a-d-i-c-a-l with a capital R. They tout smaller or even no government yet want to intrude into and legislate everyone's personal matters. How do you spell this holier-than-thou attitude? H-y-p-o-c-r-i-s-y.
bj....the citizens should NEVER have a vote on civil rights. If that were the trend, slavery would still be alive and well in some parts of the South (S. Carolina, I am looking at you.). It is the job of the fed. gov't to speak for and protect the rights of minority groups. Leaving it "up the states" is ridiculous.
I partially agree with him, he is correct, the Republicans should stay out of the bedroom. I also believe he is mistaking as well. It shouldn't be a state issue, it should be a national, Civil Rights issue. There is no popular time to be right. This has nothing to do with religion, it has everything to do with Civil Rights and equality. Anything short of full marriage rights for those of us who are gay and lesbian is unequal, and therefore has no place in our political system.
A church is free to decide not to perform gay marriages, but no state should have the right to discriminate. Let's compare it to existing religious organizations and laws; a Muslim and a Baptist have every legal right to get married, no government institution has a right to say no. That being said, the Muslim Mosque or the Baptist Church have every right to decline to perform the ceremony, citing whatever reason they wish.
The same should apply for tea party members, or any religious institution that decides they don't want to perform gay marriages. But religious institutions that decide they do wish to perform them should be free to do so, and no government agency should have any say otherwise.
Kudos for Rudy, at least he acknowledges that the Republicans should drop this issue. It's a great start.
Thankfully someone is making the point. Outside of the Biblical/spiritual/scientific views many people have on same-sex issues or "marriage equality" this is the best point: the government has NO business in anyone's bedrooms. When the government takes on this role and becomes intrusive then people will counter. Honestly I think people really don't care if two men or women live together and get married. The problem is that it is being forced on people. Simply put: people do not like being told what to do. Gays/lesbians don't like being told they can't get married so they are doing what they do. People who opposed same-sex marriage don't like being told they have to recognize it. In either case both sides are "revolting" against the government because it is telling them something to do which the government really shouldn't be involved with anyway.
Keep the government out of everybody's bedroom.
"We'd be a much more successful political party if we stuck to our economic, conservative roots." Ha! That's a good one. The GOP has zero credibility on fiscal issues. They spend like drunken sailors, just like Dems. And they don't even tax and spend– they borrow and spend and protect the rich. That isn't "fiscal conservative" in my book. A fiscal conservative would know that the taxes on the rich are far too low– lower than they have ever been and lower than any other developed country. A fiscal conservative would know you must tax at least as much as you spend. A fiscal conservative would know that the Bush Tax Cuts have been in place for quite a few years and if they haven't trickled down by now, it isn't going to happen. The GOP has been calling themselves fiscally conservative for the whole 40 years I have been alive, but I haven't seen it yet.
I've been saying for awhile that if the republicans have one glaring weakness besides the tax pledges they blindly sign its the social issues.
Its a no win for them because the majority of the country either doesn't care about things like gay marriage or they're ok with and more and more people are looking at this type of discrimination as simple bigotry
Shoulda said that earlier. My State Legislature (headed by Repubs) already put it on the ballot (and put off the budget until now amidst a shutdown). If you'd said it earlier, the Repubs in our State Legislature might've refrained from their childhood mentalities, ergo, had a chance in the 2012 elections. They're screwed now (and good riddence).
Not to belittle anybody, but back in 1969, then Prime Minister, Pierre-Elliot Trudeau of Canada, publicly stated that the "Government has no place in the bedrooms of the people". And so it has mostly been since then in Canada.
Ron Paul has been saying the same thing for years. Glad to see his ideas are finally resonating with the republican party.
It's not the role of the people to decide civil rights. If the rights of a minority were decided by a majority then blacks and whites still wouldn't be able to marry, there would still be segregation, and women wouldn't be able to vote.
This is the 21st century. It's time to wake up.
You do not hold civil rights up to a vote. That's tyranny of the majority, and something the founding fathers structured the constitution to prevent. So long as marriage is a state run institution, with state issued marriage licenses, discrimination against gays is simply discrimination. Religion has no baring on the discussion. And people have no right to vote on the matter, otherwise civil rights would never progress.
I agree with him, but how many times has he been married? He is still personaly against gay marrige he says... But too marry 3, 4, 5 times is offcourse ok for this kind of person...
If the GOP does not talk about gays, abortion, less government, no tax etc. they have nothing else to talk about to get votes. Does he want GOPers to talk about taxing millionaires, doing away with tax incentives for oil companies, healthcare for all, no cut in social security, etc.? It is like asking a Martian to talk in English!