2012 Election | Gay Marriage | Marco Rubio | Mitt Romney | News

Marco Rubio: The Gay Marriage Debate 'is About What Society Should Tolerate'

Yesterday, after ABC News reported that Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) was not being vetted as a potential pick for Romney's running mate, the Romney campaign made a rare disclosure that Rubio was, in fact, being vetted for the job.

RubioChristianity Today later in the day posted a long interview with Rubio about his faith and issues related to it. One of them was same-sex marriage:

The debate is about what society should tolerate, and what society should allow our laws to be. I believe marriage is a unique and specific institution that is the result of thousands of years of wisdom, which concluded that the ideal — not the only way but certainly the ideal — situation to raise children to become productive and healthy humans is in a home with a father and mother married to each other. Does that mean people who are not in that circumstance cannot be successful? Of course not.

It’s not a discriminatory thing. I’m not angry at anyone because of it, but I also have to be honest about what I believe marriage should be in our laws.

In May, Rubio reiterated that he opposes gay marriage for religious reasons, but that the decision should be left to the states. He also knocked Obama for using the issue as a political tool.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. So if he believes marriage should be left to the states then he should agree that DOMA is unconstitutional right?

    Posted by: Marc | Jun 20, 2012 8:15:37 AM

  2. Fence sitting is so uncomfortable! Which side will Rubio fall on?

    I suspect Rubio is trying to decide whether to load himself down with Romney's baggage as a short cut to future political office or to avoid Romney and keep his own options open four years from now.

    It is hard to run on just having a pretty face without much experience but that works more often than not in politics. Just look at Scott Brown. Republican voters seem to like that, superficial appearances over substance.

    Posted by: A sign of the times | Jun 20, 2012 8:17:39 AM

  3. What a lot of doublespeak. It's not discrimination - I just want to enshrine it in law that my relationship is better than yours. That's the definition of discrimination, idiot.

    Posted by: Eddie | Jun 20, 2012 8:20:35 AM

  4. I say we draw the line at the over-ambitious children of illegal immigrants. After all, if we're going to make discrimination a 'what society should tolerate' issue, then we should not even consider illegals rights. After all, that is the law as well.

    Posted by: Robert | Jun 20, 2012 8:21:28 AM

  5. I really can't believe that I thought him attractive at one point. Anyway, he is harking back to the Bush years with talk of the "ideal" marriage and the "ideal" situation to raise children. Bush was allowed to get away with this garbage, and here we go again. I suppose that there exists an "ideal" citizen also that should be protected with special rights.

    Posted by: niles | Jun 20, 2012 8:22:54 AM

  6. What do we expect from a guy who was Mormon for a few teen years and currently attends BOTH Roman Catholic Mass and a Baptist church. (I don't know how you balance those different theologies in you head)

    Posted by: Gus | Jun 20, 2012 8:29:57 AM

  7. Rubio criticizes President Obama for "politicizing" the issue. And what is he, Rubio, doing by his speech? Ah... the mote in my brother's eye, and the plank in mine.

    Posted by: Reggie777 | Jun 20, 2012 8:30:04 AM

  8. How dare Obama politicize the issue! That should be solely left to the Rove-inspired tactics of the GOP!

    Posted by: meijay | Jun 20, 2012 8:32:37 AM

  9. I suppose it's also ideal that every child have a stay at home mom who cleans the house, cooks the meals and sews buttons on Wally & Beaver's shirts. I guess society shouldn't tolerate women who work outside her husbands house.

    Posted by: Eddie | Jun 20, 2012 8:33:23 AM

  10. I saw an MSN story yesterday about several possible VP choices. what struck me was how uniformly photogenic they are, conforming to a Romney Male template. Any of them would look good in a photo with Mittens. They also struck me as fitting the category that Arnold the Austrian described a few years ago as "girlymen".

    Are the Republican spin doctors trying to set up a tem that would appeal to both white women and gay men with a suits fetish?

    Posted by: gregory brown | Jun 20, 2012 8:37:53 AM

  11. Tell you what, if you don't want gays to be married, then remove the word and definition from your states laws.

    Posted by: 99% | Jun 20, 2012 8:42:36 AM

  12. Rubio is such a shame for the latin community!
    ...or at least the part of the Latin community I belong to...
    It is a pity he is the face of latinos for many in the US...

    Posted by: George F | Jun 20, 2012 8:50:05 AM

  13. Every time I read or hear one of the opponents of marriage equality voice their supposed concern about marriage based on it being limited to straights because it's the ideal for raising kids, I don't know whether to rage against the discrimination and small mindedness, or be thankful for the opportunity to say:

    Then it's a damned good thing we aren't trying to restrict or any way affect their marriage rights and responsibilities with marriage equality, isn't it!

    Because NO ONE wants to change how marriage works for them or make it unavailable somehow through allowing same gender couples to get married!

    I remember that the lady from Sex and The City, she played Miranda, said: allowing women to vote did NOT change the definition of "voting" (for men!). Allowing interracial marriage didn't change the existing institution's authority or effect under the law at all for other couples...not one bit.

    So, if those opponents keep harping on their main/only/focused reason for restricting marriage rights for gays and lesbians is this one reason, they don't have a leg to stand on...not really. So good for us they still rely on it.

    It's easy to counter in the dialogue, if we could just get our talking points down pat, and out in the public constantly, clearly, and concisely...

    Posted by: Robert in SF | Jun 20, 2012 8:51:17 AM

  14. So his family comes to America to escape persecution and now he wants to persecute other people because of their religious beliefs. Nice.

    Posted by: homer | Jun 20, 2012 8:56:11 AM

  15. He's going to sit on the fence until someone decides he is worth paying attention to, then he'll adopt that person's viewpoints.

    Posted by: Jack M | Jun 20, 2012 8:57:39 AM

  16. Saying something is not discriminatory, does not make it so...

    No matter how many bobble-heads in the audience lack the ability to discern the difference.

    Soon your position will be eclipsed by even Cuba.

    Posted by: Pete N SFO | Jun 20, 2012 9:04:55 AM

  17. it doesn't matter

    -he was mormon when young and repub base will never tolerate 2 affiliated with mormonism cult (in base's eyes) on the ticket

    -he is too brown for the repub base

    - already has scandal of misused funds and had to pay a fine

    - lied about history

    rubio will never be romney vp and most likely will loose his re-election bid for senate so why even care what he says

    Posted by: say what | Jun 20, 2012 9:19:01 AM

  18. PS


    Rubios family left cuba years before castro came to power

    that is part of his scandal. he lied about family history to get votes from fellow cuban americans

    Posted by: say what | Jun 20, 2012 9:19:50 AM

  19. This is another example of the common failure of the right to pragmatic rather than "idealistic" in their legislation. Even if Rubio were correct, and mother/father homes are "ideal" compared to mother/mother and father/father homes, his argument hinges on the assumption that marriage recognition for same sex couples means less straights marrying. It does not. Instead, the same number of straight couples will marry, while children of same-sex couples will be harmed by the failure of the nation to legally recognize their parents' marriage. The Right, wrapped up in its own "ideal" world, tries to pass laws to create effects that realistically will never be. Along the way, Americans are suffering.

    I say this is the common failure because it's the same issue with abortion -- the Right thinks that, by banning abortion, abortions won't occur; in reality, many women will choose unsafe alternatives. The fact that the Republicans are supposed to be the party of small government only compounds the illogical nature of their stance on these issues.

    Posted by: Mike8787 | Jun 20, 2012 9:26:03 AM

  20. If anyone should know about "political tools," it's Marco Rubio. He's a tool, all right.

    Posted by: Rich F. | Jun 20, 2012 9:29:04 AM

  21. Don't count on Rubio being VP pick. The last thing Romney wants is someone to over shadow him. ANY VP pick will be a middle of the road, "good," quiet, white, middle aged but telegenic Republican man who's policies parrot Romney while not making waves. He has enough of a likability factor without a VP who outshines him on many levels. Romney's ego can't take it and the media would eat it up.

    As for his religious opinions on marriage. What's the line about opinions and assholes.....

    Posted by: Michaelandfred | Jun 20, 2012 9:49:48 AM

  22. All the bad things commentators have already said about him, plus he's pretty short. He and Romney look ridiculous on TV standing next to each other.

    Posted by: Fahd | Jun 20, 2012 9:49:49 AM

  23. No, it's not Mark. It's leveraging the flock and their hate agenda for your political gain. The actual issue if gay rights is Constitutionally enshrined. So-called Christians can 'tolerate' whatever they like (often with the usual extreme hypocrisy), but it has no real bearing on the coming legal establishment of gay equality.

    Posted by: Tarc | Jun 20, 2012 10:09:41 AM

  24. "marriage is such a unique and specific institution"


    That must be why so few people in history EVER got married! Somebody should teach the moron right the meaning of "unique."

    Posted by: KevinVT | Jun 20, 2012 10:24:43 AM

  25. @ Say What, many Cubans came to this country before Fidel's rise to power, because Batista was ruthless as well. For many years, there was a schism in the Cuban community between those who came here early on and those who came later via the Mariel boat lift which was allowed by Castro. Many, though certainly not all, of the "Marielitos" as they were called, were prisoners and mental patients, and were considered a liability to the growing strength of the CUban-American community. That his family immigrated pre-Castro does not mean they weren't fleeing persecution, it just adds to the hypocrisy because his family would most likely have been just as discriminatory towards the Cubans who came after them.

    Posted by: Kenneth | Jun 20, 2012 11:04:39 AM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Two Guys Read Fred Karger's Anti-Gay Emails: VIDEO« «