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.”
I hope my comments did not lead you to believe I thought Catholicism has any special defense from apostasy. My only point was that Catholics have no "well that's your interpretation" escape clause so prevalent among our Protestant Brethren.
No, our "tares" have no ad hoc or doctrinal defense.
I would not attend...out of love for them.
No Christian would be caught dead attending a PAGAN RITUAL. If they were caught dead there, they’d be on the expressway to Hell.
Exactly right.
If I am attending a religious ceremony or service of any sort, then it must be something that I believe to be valid and consistent with my beliefs.
Weddings ARE NOT entertainment, business or personal events, they are a religious ceremony.
Someone should call around to liberal synagogues and tell them that they have a 12 year old DAUGHTER who is just starting to take the hormonal treatments to become a boy and ask to schedule a bar mitzvah.
Not saying that the issue is irrelevant. I'm saying that the issue will be a moot point when the country is under Sharia Law.
Stupid is as stupid does.
Bring what?
I’m not Catholic. I’m Evangelical.
There is no interpretation that homosexuality is anything but an abomination.
Depends. As my Dad told my Mom, “Honey, you’re the mother of the groom. Your only job is to just shut up and wear beige.” :-)
You’re one of those?
I was asking Paradox what to bring? What does a beige dress have to do with anything.
Huh?
Sorry. Too quick on the draw. Meant it for 100.
I’m going back to sleep.
Are you really trying to make the argument that good economic policy is a better defense against encroaching islam than Christian Orthodoxy?
Your comment about being "embarrassed" reminds me of an incident in my early life.
When my wife was in college, we worked on a conservative newspaper in the Dartmouth Review tradition. There were all manner of conservatives on staff with the paper and one was even an atheist.
Once, we had a staff lunch at a restaurant and before we began to eat, many of us began to say "grace." The atheist did everything he could to interrupt us short of telling us to stop praying. We completed the prayer, and proceed with lunch.
My point is I have no doubt the atheist was genuinely embarrassed by our prayer before the meal. What he didn't seem to recognize was his own "over the top" behavior in trying to interrupt such an innocuous act.
I submit you may well suffer from the same myopia.
Do you really think anti-christians aren't resourceful enough to try to make their argument on grounds other than homosexuality?
That stuff is apostasy 101.
There was a time in ancient America when a “gay wedding” meant it was fun and well executed.
No problem
Second attempt to clarify from Paradox what to bring.
Ah, the proud defiance....
Bring the Zot, I guess.
This thread is bringing out the pro-gay marriage crowd like nothing I’ve seen in a long time.
Never mind.
I hate to think a class of '98er holds heterodox beliefs on family and marriage.
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.