The left has, once again, subtly changed the discussion in order to trap republicans. The issue isn’t whether Rubio (or Cruz or Walker or even Jeb Freaking Bush) would attend a gay wedding. The issue is whether a florist or a baker or a pizza pie maker should be forced to go against his religious beliefs and supply goods for a gay wedding.
Since none of the putative republican candidates is in the business of providing goods or services to weddings, the entire discussion is moot. It’s a clever liberal device that, based on what I’ve seen on this thread, is working as planned. If Rubio says he would boycott a gay wedding, he is branded as a right-wing zealot and a homophobe. If he says he would go to such a wedding, he alienates Catholics and others of strong religious beliefs. The correct answer would be: “It’s my personal decision whether or not to attend, and, since it has no bearing on the way I would govern, I’m not going to answer it. Now, I will answer questions about whether or not religious beliefs, as promised in the First Amendment can be used as a reason for a business owner to not provide his services.”
Good observations. It’s a wedge question, designed to split the natural constituencies of the right. I am certain Team Cruz is watching this and evaluating a response that will keep him on message. He’s been good at that so far. The problem with your non-answer response is doubt or avoidance would be almost as good as a “wrong” answer, for the purpose of derailing his messaging. We should be praying God grants him special wisdom.
Peace,
SR
great point.
I am “almost” as dissapointed in Rubios inability to handle these type questions as I am his answer.
As you pointed out, the question was a clear “gotcha” trap.
If he had stood up for conservative principles (which he apparently doesn’t have), conservatives would have cheered, but the left would have used it has a way of labeling him a zealot. If he caved (which he did) then he alienates his base.
Ted Cruz NEVER falls for this!
He either refuses to answer all together with something along the lines of “The question at hand is not whether “I” would attend a gay wedding, but whether a fellow citizen should be forced by law to attend such an event!”
Or when the issue is more clear cut, he takes a strong conservative stand and is willing and able to defend his stand.
Rubio is proving himself to be not up to the task on multiple levels.
I’m hoping we get a moment during the debates where the moderator asks the panel to raise their hands if they’d go to a sex-sex “wedding.” This would be a chance for Cruz (and other conservatives) to pull the party back to the right position.
“The correct answer would be: “It’s my personal decision whether or not to attend, and, since it has no bearing on the way I would govern, I’m not going to answer it. Now, I will answer questions about whether or not religious beliefs, as promised in the First Amendment can be used as a reason for a business owner to not provide his services.”
Repeated for emphasis. This is exactly correct. Agree or disagree with Rubio, the question is entirely irrelevant to his qualifications to serve as President.