Posted on 07/08/2015 5:06:55 PM PDT by markomalley
Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio said Wednesday he would oppose a constitutional amendment allowing states to ban same-sex marriage after the Supreme legalized it nationwide, even though he disagrees with the landmark 5-4 decision.
“I don’t support a constitutional amendment. I don’t believe the federal government should be in the marriage regulation business,” the Florida senator told reporters after a speech the Cedar Rapids Country Club in Iowa.
“We can continue to disagree with it. Perhaps a future court will change that decision, in much the same way as it’s changed other decisions in the past. But my opinion is unchanged, that marriage should continue to be defined as one man and one woman. The decision is what it is, and that’s what we’ll live under,” he said.
He said after the Obergefell decision came down that it should be respected as the law of the land, an orthodox position on a Supreme Court ruling but one which got him smacked around by social cons who accused him of caving too quickly to judicial tyranny. The solution to that political problem was obvious: He could endorse a constitutional amendment to overturn the decision, which would itself become the superseding law of the land. His friends in the donor class might grumble at an amendment that would seek to ban SSM outright but they’d surely be okay with one that proposed letting states define marriage within their own borders. It’s a federalist compromise on the issue, one that would allow state majorities to legalize gay marriage on their own without Republicans standing in their way. And it has zero chance of being ratified given the Democratic numbers in Congress so there’s no real political cost for someone who’s on record as backing traditional marriage to support it. Scott Walker and Ted Cruz have already endorsed the idea. All Rubio would be doing would be joining them.
Yet he refuses. I could understand if he justified his position by saying “an amendment will never pass” — that would at least be true, if not politically astute — but he’s not saying that. Instead he gives the bizarro reason that “the federal government should [not] be in the marriage regulation business,” which is … exactly what many conservatives have said in criticizing the Supreme Court’s decision. The Court’s part of the federal government and they’ve now imposed a coast-to-coast regulation on marriage. If you don’t believe the feds should be messing around with this subject, you should support returning the matter to the states, no? Rubio’s tactics are usually lucid but I don’t get why he’d go this route, unless he thinks that mere rhetorical support for a longshot amendment will be such a liability in the general election that he’d rather stay away from it in the primary. And if he feels that strongly, why continue to defend traditional marriage at all? Why not just “evolve” and be done with it?
In lieu of an exit question, on a semi-related note, enjoy the tweet of the day from Slate’s Will Saletan:
So Rubio opposes the 10th Amendment.
Nice/s
F him.
Sure you would.........
FUMR!!
Well there you have it. He is self serving and dishonest. Won’t get my vote, ever
If the states are allowed to decide, the federal government would not be involved in this issue.
So where is Rubio going in the polls?
Down down and down.
Isn’t he supposedly Catholic? Or did he stay Mormon or Jehovah’s Witness or whatever?
“I don’t support a constitutional amendment. I don’t believe the federal government should be in the marriage regulation business,” the Florida senator told reporters after a speech the Cedar Rapids Country Club in Iowa.
Tell that to the Supreme Court Marco! Wow, he’s gone full tilt RINO.
Amendments to the Federal Constitution are acts of the states, and the people.
They do not constitute "federal government involvement" in anything.
Actually the amendment should not give the States any leway. It should outlaw it in the USA altogether, and without exception. Why should we kowtow to freaks in California and New York. Let them deal with our rules for a change.
Rubio is a nothing. I liked him once but with more exposure it’s clear he has nothing for America.
Yes.
What a nothingburger this clown is.
Rubio is not ready for prime time.
So...couples who adopt children aren't a family?
Then he can go home.
A Constitutional Amendment always sounds like a cool idea, but don’t forget a couple of things: first of all, it’s not likely that it would pass, but would suck up everybody’s energy pointlessly for years, during which time Christians will still be getting sued and persecuted for failure to go along with the program. Second, once you open the door to a Constitutional Convention, all sorts of things can crawl in.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.