You just posted an editorial from Raw Story, citing an editorial in the NY Sun.

This makes neither source automatically untrue, of course. However, before I decide what this really means, I would like to seen an actual article about this to see why he opposes this particular law.

The editorial from Raw Story says "New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani now opposes civil unions between same sex partners", citing the editorial in the Sun.

The Sun , however, does not state Rudy is against all civil unions. Instead, the editorial notes, Rudy is against the particular civil union law pending in New Hampshire:

    Mayor Giuliani came out ... yesterday evening in opposition to the civil union law just passed by the New Hampshire state Senate.

    "Mayor Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly," the Giuliani campaign said

    "In this specific case the law states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside states. This goes too far and Mayor Giuliani does not support it."


So, obviously, Raw Story was seemingly inaccurate (perhaps deliberately so, given their liberal bent) when it editorialized that Rudy "now opposes civil unions". He opposition was to a particular state law.

Furthermore, the Sun editorial does not really delve into why Rudy opposes the NH law. It is true that it quoted his campaign as stating "Giuliani believes marriage is between one man and one woman....In this specific case the law states same sex civil unions are the equivalent of marriage and recognizes same sex unions from outside states. This goes too far"

However, it also quotes the campaign as saying Rudy believes "Domestic partnerships are the appropriate way to ensure that people are treated fairly,"

So, taking the Sun editorial at its word, it seems as if the fact the NH law recognizes same sex unions from outside states" is the particular troubling aspect of the law to Rudy.

It is not uncommon for supporters of civil unions, domestic partnerships or even gay marriage to worry that laws that favor them run contrary to the notion of states' rights and federalism. This is why, for example, that Bill Clinton signed "the defense of marrage act" into law.

So, unless we see something that demonstrates a blanket opposition to all gay marriage or civil unions, as opposed to opposition to a particular law in a particular state, it is not yet accurate to call this a flip-flop.