Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Marco Rubio on the gay marriage ruling: We live in a republic and must abide by the law
Hotair ^ | June 26, 2015 | Allahpundit

Posted on 06/26/2015 5:32:37 PM PDT by C19fan

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last
To: Jim Robinson

He certainly has turned into a big disappointment from when he first hit the political scene.


41 posted on 06/26/2015 6:16:28 PM PDT by MagnoliaB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe

The False Bush’s fidelity to the law does not seem to apply to illegal immigrants.

Add Rubio to that list of Rinos who find crossing the border and working without papers just peachie

Cruz in the end had 2 issues added to his campaign issues.

Obamacare and Religious Freedom. Ted will make this campaign on these issues.


42 posted on 06/26/2015 6:17:01 PM PDT by Zenjitsuman (New Boss Nancy Pelosi)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

The GOP-E-Lib clowns running for POTUS are going to trip over themselves bowing in surrender to the Lavender Mafia’s Supreme Gay Court victory.


43 posted on 06/26/2015 6:17:31 PM PDT by cva66snipe ((Two Choices left for U.S. One Nation Under GOD or One Nation Under Judgment? Which one say ye?))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Rubberio


44 posted on 06/26/2015 6:17:51 PM PDT by Lurkinanloomin (Know Islam, No Peace - No Islam, Know Peace)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mad Dawgg

Next will be forcing churches to perform same sex ceremonies or give up their tax free status.

And those that pay full fare will probably face some sort of punitive ‘sin tax’/jiza tax for not bowing down to liberalism. Just as strip joint taxes fund rape prosecutions (indicting all adult entertainment observers as potential rapists) I could see them establishing a ‘GBLT’ fund from the additional taxes reaped from ‘corporate for profit’ churches (those without tax free status).

Goodbye freedom of religion.


45 posted on 06/26/2015 6:19:08 PM PDT by a fool in paradise ("Psychopathia Sexualis, I'm in love with a horse that comes from Dallas" - Lenny Bruce (1958))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Rubio needs to run on the dimmy ticket


46 posted on 06/26/2015 6:22:34 PM PDT by Figment
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
"Next will be forcing churches to perform same sex ceremonies or give up their tax free status."

That was always part of the plan. Before the end of the year I figure.

47 posted on 06/26/2015 6:24:20 PM PDT by Mad Dawgg (If you're going to deny my 1st Amendment rights then I must proceed to the 2nd one...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

and I as my family will always correct them.


48 posted on 06/26/2015 6:27:04 PM PDT by manc (Marriage =1 man + 1 woman,when they say marriage equality then they should support polygamy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise

I’m not extraordinarily surprised by the decision but I am somewhat saddened by it.

On a similar note... just the other day... I overheard a couple of young girls saying how weird it must be to marry a man who ends up wanting to become a woman


49 posted on 06/26/2015 6:36:05 PM PDT by MeshugeMikey ("Never, Never, Never, Give Up," Winston Churchill ><>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

I live in the Republic of Texas. Those laws I follow.


50 posted on 06/26/2015 6:40:14 PM PDT by justa-hairyape (The user name is sarcastic. Although at times it may not appear that way.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan
Lincoln on the Dred Scott decision. Though it was admittedly an attempt by a minority to force a policy on the majority, while the SSM decision today was in agreement with a present and growing majority. That I recognize they're a majority doesn't mean I agree with them. Majorities can be, and often are, wrong.

We believe, as much as Judge Douglas, (perhaps more) in obedience to, and respect for the judicial department of government. We think its decisions on Constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control, not only the particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as provided in that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But we think the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made it, has often over-ruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to have it to over-rule this. We offer no resistance to it.

Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedents, according to circumstances. That this should be so, accords both with common sense, and the customary understanding of the legal profession.

If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent.

But when, as it is true we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country.

51 posted on 06/26/2015 6:41:42 PM PDT by Sherman Logan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

That is a good point.


52 posted on 06/26/2015 6:43:26 PM PDT by odawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Rubio: “We live in a republic. Submit to your rulers.”


53 posted on 06/26/2015 6:46:20 PM PDT by odawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

Except when it comes to amnesty, ey Rubio?


54 posted on 06/26/2015 6:52:05 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Carter...Reagan...Bush...Clinton....Bush....Carter....BUSH? / CLINTON? STOP THE INSANITY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justa-hairyape
With regard to Texas, I am less than impressed with Governor Abbott and the rest of the state leaders, who are only good for strongly worded statements, about like Obama does with Muslim terrorists. Several weeks ago, Governor Abbott said he would not call for a special session of the Legislature. Coward!
55 posted on 06/26/2015 6:52:49 PM PDT by Wallace T.
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
Does he really not understand — the rulings yesterday and today have NOTHING to do with law.

Exactly. States were voting this down in ballot measures, then their courts were implementing it anyway. Not the SC has shoved it down the entire country's throat, against the will of the people.

56 posted on 06/26/2015 6:58:55 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Jim Robinson

Ditto!
States prohibiting gay marriage must act uniformly and join to defy this “Dred Scott’ decision of our times, a constitutional Putsch.


57 posted on 06/26/2015 7:00:11 PM PDT by Steelfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: OpusatFR

They know that.

Their fight is against God, but not being able to reach Him, they attack us, His witnesses.

Their goal is to get us to accept their “marriages” as the equivalent as our marriages.

We need to continually make the point, it is nothing more than a civil union contracted by the State.

Even if they find some leftist church that will perform the ceremony, it is not a marriage in the eyes of God.

And God will not be mocked.


58 posted on 06/26/2015 7:00:35 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Carter...Reagan...Bush...Clinton....Bush....Carter....BUSH? / CLINTON? STOP THE INSANITY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: C19fan

It’s actually NOT the law.

What the libs want, and what most Americans believe, is that USSC decisions are PART of the Constitution. They’re not.


59 posted on 06/26/2015 7:00:44 PM PDT by Jim Noble (If you can't discriminate, you are not free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RginTN

As well as Dred Scott

and Rov v. Wade.


60 posted on 06/26/2015 7:02:02 PM PDT by Ghost of Philip Marlowe (Carter...Reagan...Bush...Clinton....Bush....Carter....BUSH? / CLINTON? STOP THE INSANITY!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-95 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson