As news of the United States Supreme Court officially legalizing same-sex marriage began to trickle in, Florida's biggest political figures put out statements stressing their views and opinions on the matter.
Jeb Bush talked about his faith. Pam Bondi was more pragmatic and spoke about the rule of law.
And then there's Marco Rubio.
Rubio, who has had a clear anti-same-sex-marriage agenda throughout his career — such as when he spoke to antigay groups, made antigay robocalls for antigay groups, and called same-sex marriage a "clear and present danger" to Christianity — held firm to his belief that gay marriage should be decided by local governments, while also repeating where he stands on marriage as a whole — which is to say, he's not about that gay life.
Here's what Rubio said today in a statement regarding SCOTUS' decision and why it's full of empty, meaningless rhetoric, which we suppose is par for the course for McThirsty:
“I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman. People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court. This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years."
Rubio believes that gay marriage should be decided by local governments and their people — such as was the case in 2008, when Florida voted to ban same-sex marriage. Since this was something Rubio agreed with, he didn't have much to say on the matter. And that's fine. But Rubio puts out the rhetoric that a decision like this is "not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court."
So basically, it's not OK for unelected justices to make this kind of decision, but God is everywhere, so gay marriage is bad, so any other argument is invalid.
"While I disagree with this decision, we live in a republic and must abide by the law. As we look ahead, it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood."
In other words, the next president (i.e., ME!!) will look to nominate justices that agree with my viewpoints, like Scalia, for example, who wrote this rather unhinged dissent over the ruling including this gem: "Really? Who ever thought that intimacy and spirituality [whatever that means] were freedoms? And if intimacy is, one would think Freedom of Intimacy is abridged rather than expanded by marriage. Ask the nearest hippie."
Should Rubio become president, he's going to look to appoint more justices like Scalia who agree with his viewpoint. Then it'll totally be OK for "unelected justices" to rule on things.
Also, NO GAY JUSTICES EVER. NOT ON PRESIDENT RUBIO'S WATCH.
"The next president and all in public office must strive to protect the First Amendment rights of religious institutions and millions of Americans whose faiths hold a traditional view of marriage. This is a constitutional duty, not a political opinion."
Rubio can go ahead and believe in traditional marriage. That does not, however, mean that just because someone wants to live a life not dictated by the Bible, that freedoms are suddenly being robbed from him.
And, really. We're going to argue rights and freedoms on behalf of Christians, who have been riding a wave of rights in America since after World War II, while the LBGT community continues to fight for the simplest of human rights, like being able to legally marry and being protected from getting fired just because of their sexual orientation? Christian rights are good. So are gay rights. The First Amendment covers everyone, even those you disagree with.
Of course, Rubio is all about protecting everyone's rights — except the gays. So presidential, this guy.
"Our nation was founded on the human right of religious freedom, and our elected leaders have a duty to protect that right by ensuring that no one is compelled by law to violate their conscience."
Again, Rubio manages to make this about religious rights. Such as the right to call people and tell them how much you hate all the gays and the right to be able to fire someone from their job just because he or she is gay.
"I firmly believe the question of same-sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court’s decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other.”
Rubio closes things out with a sort of "can't we all just get along?" kind of spin, which is weird, given everything he just said.
We Believe Local Journalism is Critical to the Life of a City
Engaging with our readers is essential to New Times Broward-Palm Beach's mission. Make a financial contribution or sign up for a newsletter, and help us keep telling South Florida's stories with no paywalls.
Support Our Journalism
Yet, just one month ago, Rubio was warning folks that all this gay coddling is going to lead to something of a snuffing out of Christianity in America. He channeled novelist Tom Clancy (who writes about war and CIA agents and America vs. the Bad Guys) and called it a "clear and present danger" to Christianity. Here's a man using war-like rhetoric to lather up even more contempt to a group of people who hate homosexuals anyway. Why not double down and make inane declarations like this?:
"We are at the water's edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech, because today we've reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage, you are labeled a homophobe and a hater. So what's the next step after that? After they're done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church, is hate speech. And that's a real and present danger."
That's right. All the gay married people are coming for your religion. They're a clear and present danger to you. Just like the Communists back in the day. We're at the water's edge here, people!
But, yeah, let's totally respect the dignity of those who believe something different from us.