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.”
Wow. Thanks for the information.
I don’t know what it is about Rubio. I really don’t see it. Last night on Fox, Rudy Giuliani was swooning over him.
I agree with you, though. Rubio’s long, hard push for amnesty coupled with his Univision duplicity removed him from my list. This latest statement cements it.
Regardless of ones Christian tradition, all have to come to grips with Ephesians Chapter 5.
That said, If my son or daughter were to invite me to such an affair, I would attend out of my love for them - not to condone the "union".
If I was still a part of the Catholic Church - born into it but never "got it" and wandered from age 14 to age 50 before hearing the message of Christ's Love and Sacrifice and turned myself over to Him as my Savior - I couldn't imagine not attending a traditional marriage of someone I loved because they were divorced. I can see not condoning it, but have a bit of trouble with shunning the relationship, even if only for the ceremony vs. everyday life.
My attitude is that God's Laws trump our laws and He defined marriage and we can pervert the concept at the human level, but we cannot pervert what He has wrought and decreed. Ergo, there is really no such thing as gay/homosexual marriage - it all becomes a human-defined construct and with no real meaning.
At any rate, I appreciate the response and the Catholic point of view - while I don't have much use for religions, I understand that even the parts I disagree with have some potential value as far as getting the Good News of the Gospels out and most of the souls saved since His sacrifice have been under the aegis of religion.
Nevertheless, you have derived the Catholic argument by your own lights. That is why I made the assumption I did.
Evidence should be on his website. IIRC, it was sometime in mid-to-late October 2001 or even early November that he said this. Very shortly after the attack.
I still listen to Rush but, I take religious statements and assessments with a doublyserious grain-of-salt. He was not brought up in strict XPian household and, as a result, has a very shallow understanding of Christ’s will and desire for the world (AKA, Scripture).
The above is my ^personal^ opinion of Mr. Limbaugh’s understanding of the XPian religion in America.
another reason not to vote for him
Pander bare.
Sen. Marco Rubio’s religious journey: Catholic to Mormon to Catholic to Baptist and Catholic
Tell that to the Supreme Court.
Cordially,
I don't think I have to tell you that there is no lack of "Christians" more concerned with their social standing than their orthodoxy. I have never met one who would admit to that fact. Instead, they will contrive an alternative rationale that allows them to "have their cake, and eat it too."
At least for Catholics, there is no retreat to biblical ambiguity for cover.
The "gay marriage" question is only important to the left because it allows them to distract from real issues that matter for which they have no credible candidate. Holier-than-thou Conservatives are so easily played. It's embarrassing...
But only if I were a pizza wedding caterer. Big bucks are in that industry right now. I’m not missing out on my windfall. And really, what’s a mere pizza between 2 gay partners....holey pizza, Fudgeman!
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
That you are insensate to the issue does not mean the issue is irrelevant. Conceit is not a winning argument.
You’re absolutely right with your observations about quotation-mark Christians. But, as I stated, there’s no Biblical ambiguity for Catholics, Evangelicals, or anyone else. There’s only self-deception and attempts at justification.
I know only one person who has ever attending a homo wedding. She’s a good friend, and she is Catholic.
Sometimes we have to disappoint our children and even do things that, on the surface, might appear unloving. This is known from experience.
I do wonder what Rush thinks of his brother’s open and fervent born-again Christianity. We can always hope he will be influenced.
I attended one before I was enlightened. Thought at the time that it was kinda weird how overly nice the couple was to me. Now I know why - what they seek at the core is acceptance. That’s the entire goal of the LGBT movement - legitimized perversion.
Humbled everyday that I have been forgiven.
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.
