“Rubio is further to the ideological left on gay marriage than his rhetoric would suggest.” -OnTheIssues.org
OnTheIssues.org may have said it best, but whether or not such an assertion is correct or fair, one thing is certain; the mainstream media has complained consistently over the years that getting a straight (no pun intended) answer on the issue of “gay marriage” from Florida Senator Marco Rubio is difficult.
The lead from a recent article by Politifact.com reads: “Sen. Marco Rubio’s fledgling 2016 campaign got a lesson in presidential politics when he drew fire for potentially contradicting himself on whether he had ever supported a nationwide ban on gay marriage.”
Likewise, Buzzfeed writes: “In extensive comments on lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights, Sen. Marco Rubio on Tuesday avoided taking strong positions for or against — leaving his view on federal legislation unclear…”
Back in 2010, when Rubio was battling Charlie Christ for the United States Senate seat he presently holds, the Christian Coalition’s Voter Guide listed him as supporting a Constitutional amendment to define marriage as being between one man and one woman.
Likewise, VoteSmart.org lists, as an “inferred position,” that Rubio supports the view that marriage is between one man and one woman.
However, during an April 11 interview with MSNBC’s Kasie Hunt, Rubio emphatically stated: “I’ve never supported a federal constitutional amendment on marriage.”
What is clear, at present, is that Rubio, like Jeb Bush and a handful of others, is now content to say that it’s “the law of the land,” (it’s not) now that the Supreme Court has issued what many critics have called a lawless ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges.
What is unclear is how his recently stated positions can change present political reality.
Rubio claims that while he personally believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, he has always held the view that the issue of defining marriage should be left up to the individual States.
Such a statement appears redeeming on the surface; however, when one considers that the voters in 31 states proclaimed at the ballot box that marriage is between one man and one women (and a total of 38 states prohibited so-called “same-sex marriage” until recently), before activist courts stripped that decision from the people, one would be hard pressed to understand the practical application of Rubio’s statement.
Saying, for instance, that the legalization of abortion is a decision that should be left up to the states is not going to change our present-day political reality; just as saying, after the Supreme Court rendered the Dred Scott decision, that the question as to whether or not Blacks should be considered property should have been left to the states did not change the political reality over a century ago.
When the horses escape, some are only willing to preach on the importance of keeping the barn doors shut; while men of action go out into the field to retrieve the horses.
Some would say that such empty statements of principle are simply attempts to avoid an issue; and such sentiments appear to be well-placed when one considers Rubio’s latest answer to the query of what can be done to reverse “same-sex” marriage: “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.”
Translation: I’m totally content to express outrage on this issue, but I plan to do nothing to resolve the issue.