Deal Breakers on Rudy Giuliani

I actually had a very good time researching the convictions and campaign pillars of Mitt Romney. So I am going through other candidates as well. I don't intend to deal with the presidential contenders whose views are so far removed from mine that I would never consider voting for them.

The following information is taken from Rudy Giuliani's website.

"Rudy Giuliani supports reasonable restrictions on abortion such as parental notification with a judicial bypass and a ban on partial birth abortion – except when the life of the mother is at stake... But Rudy understands that this is a deeply personal moral dilemma, and people of good conscience can disagree respectfully. Ultimately he believes that it is a decision between a woman, her doctor, her family, and her God." (emphasis mine) I suppose he decides what is reasonable. I believe that allowing abortion at all is unreasonable and very wrong. Again, there are no exceptions in my take on abortion. You won't convince me that partial-birth abortions are ever more safe for the life of the mother than delivering the baby. People cannot murder innocent children in good conscience. Is the deeply personal choice of murdering your spouse also a choice between a person and their God?

The former mayor of New York, an admittedly liberal city, also has a wishy-washy stand on marriage. Perhaps that is the only way for a semi-conservative to be elected in a liberal town: talk out of both sides of your mouth. It is, however, more often a tactic employed by democrats (as in the last mid-term election). First he says he believes in a traditional view of marriage. Then he says he supports domestic partnerships involving important legal and personal matters. Why? "...he believes in equal rights under law for all Americans." Believe it or not, all Americans have the equal right to, when they are of age, marry one consenting person of the opposite gender. Those are equal rights. The site goes on to say that domestic partnerships would preserve the "sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman." I think sanctity has become a code word for patronizing religious people. We all *know* that religion is irrelevant in law and politics, and sanctity is such a pious word.

In case there is any doubt, I believe that marriage and all its benefits: emotional, physical, economic, legal, familial - is between one man and one woman. God made us. He defines the institutions He created. He also defines what is right and wrong. In Romans and other places the Bible warns us that those given unrepentantly to disobeying God in some ways are likely to rebel in many ways, their consciences being hardened. I don't have to trust such people with responsibility or special "rights" in my country. The US Constitution does not demand any such gifts of the law.

Rudy's website doesn't have a whole lot else. Most of it is positive stuff. He reformed welfare in New York, cut taxes and destroyed the budget deficit while he was mayor using supply-side economics. He says he believes in school choice. The Iraq policy described on his site is limited on details, but hard-line against terrorism and American weakness abroad.

In all, he has a record to prove his statements. He doesn't seem to change his mind (except on wives, which is a matter intentionally unreported on his website; another of his beliefs is that politics should focus on the job he would do, not the life he has led). But a consistent record consistently wrong on some big points still makes him ineligible for my vote.

I am still committed to voting for a servant of God who values life, love, and liberty for the highest office of our constitutional republic.

To God be all glory.