Posted on 04/16/2015 3:35:16 AM PDT by markomalley
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida), the newest and youngest official Republican candidate for president, has said he believes marriage should be “traditional”—between a man and a woman.
So Fusion’s Jorge Ramos asked him: If someone in his family or on his staff were gay and getting married, would he attend the wedding?
“If it’s somebody in my life that I care for, of course I would,” Rubio told Ramos in an interview on Wednesday.
“I’m not going to hurt them simply because I disagree with a choice they’ve made or because I disagree with a decision they’ve made, or whatever it may be,” he added. “Ultimately, if someone that you care for and is part of your family has decided to move in one direction or another or feels that way because of who they love, you respect that because you love them.”
Rubio spoke with Ramos about a variety of issues, including marriage equality, immigration reform, climate change, President Barack Obama’s move to normalize relations with Cuba, and which rapper or singer he’d like to perform at his potential 2017 inauguration.
In the early throes of his campaign, Rubio has positioned himself as the candidate of “tomorrow.” He has cast himself as a young, fresh alternative to other Republicans and to likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, who he referred to in his announcement speech as the candidate of “yesterday.”
But his stance on gay marriage has led to questions on whether he’s more out of touch than Clinton with young people on certain issues. According to a recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, 74 percent of 18-to-34-year-olds said they were in favor of allowing gay and lesbian couples to marry. On Tuesday, CNN anchor Jake Tapper called Rubio “the candidate of yesterday” on the issue of marriage equality.
Rubio said that while he personally opposes gay marriage, he would encourage people in favor to petition their state legislatures to permit same-sex marriages. He does not think the decision should be left up to courts, he said.
“I would point out that we live in a free society,” Rubio said. “If people want to change the definition of marriage, they should petition their state legislature, and they can have that debate in the political arena. Who I don’t think should be redefining marriage is the court system.”
Rubio, who is Catholic, noted that his faith also teaches that divorce is wrong, and he drew on that as a comparison to his personal feelings on gay marriage.
“But again, as I said, I’m a member of the Catholic faith that teaches, for example, that divorce is wrong,” Rubio said. “But if someone gets divorced, I’m not going to stop loving them or having them a part of our lives.”
But obviously not if the funeral was being presided over by a homosexual pastor.
Homosexuality is both unnatural & the cause of fatal diseases.
Comments?
1- Yes, 2 - "can lead to".. and sometimes.
And how is this carefully staged media question helpful in determining whether Rubio or any candidate is qualified to be the leader of what is left of America after 8 years of Obama tyranny?
Naturally, that wasn’t the purpose. The purpose was to put Rubio or any other republican candidate on the spot and split conservatives against him. Looks as if it’s working.
See post 158.
How would Rubio have responded if asked if he would attend a polygamous wedding?
So, you’d prefer he give the media their sound-byte and sink his campaign in the first week? That’s precisely what the media hoped.
I don’t completely disagree with you, BTW. This was a no-win for Rubio. The left enjoys that the queer movement has fractured the nation even further. He and the other pubs better get used to it.
It looks like Cruz isn’t going to get used to anything, but rather set the tone himself.
He is the only presidential candidate and one of only six senators who signed the Congressional Supreme Court Marriage Brief.
Rubio and Paul declined to do so.
He should have been prepared for a question like that and given a principled answer. But it is difficult for a man with flexible principles to take a principled stand.
Rubio has no business running for president. He is not a leader.
“Being in FL, he felt he had no alternative, as it is a liberal state now.”
And lacking the courage to do what’s right la Raza Rubio obeyed his feelings.
Rubio is comparing getting divorced and remarried to perverts getting “married”.
Doubly disgusting.
Rubio is a former Mormon; what was he before he was Mormon?
Gey Marco, lt all the ILLEGAL ALIENS and those promoting open wickedness and perversion, according to God's standards vote for you since THOSE are the "special interest" groups you are pandering to!
To quote Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon!"
For the third time I ask, bring what?
Indeed, disgusting. And a point that seems to be lost in the shuffle. Comparing someone divorced (like Ronald Reagan, I suppose) to a couple of sick perverts who play around in their own feces, and demand society regard them like an actual husband-and-wife.
Sick and twisted. But an apt example of how far into the sewer this country has descended that even such analogies are made with a straight face. I didn’t trust Rubio before, due to his amnesty duplicity, but now I think I can say he truly repels me.
“Marco Rubio:I’d attend a gay wedding”
As the bride or the groom?
“Limbaugh will devote a good deal of his program today trying to explain this away—if he’s even aware of it—as he’s spent a lot of time the last several days attempting to rehabilitate Rube’s amnesty antics.”
Glad to see the gop’s water boy of choice is on the case.
Thought I smelled ozone. Sorry I missed it.
Don-o. Perhaps I’m missing something here, but aren’t we implicitly assuming that these so-called marriages are being sanctioned and performed in Christian churches? Is that really the case?
Caesar can use his civil authority to call any ceremony anything he wants. He could call himself Pope if he wanted to. He could sell licenses for people to call themselves Cardinals if he wanted to. In the eyes of the church, it doesn’t make it so. If he wants to say that two men, three women, and a yak are “married” under his twisted definition of the term, it doesn’t make it so in the eyes of the church, either. So he collects his $100 and makes some grand prouncement about the men, women, and assorted beasts being civilly joined in eternal sodomy. That really has no bearing on the church. As far as the church is concerned, the ceremony has no sacramental value.
I wonder if we’re making a mountain out of Caesars molehill?
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.