Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, October 26, 2016

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), Marco Rubio, GOP presidential candidate and senator from Florida, spoke to the ways in which his Catholic faith has informed his stance on social issues, including marriage equality.

It’s been a reliable tactic for opponents of same-sex marriage to reframe discrimination against LGBT couples as a matter of Christians’ right to freely practice their religion, as if withholding wedding cakes were a core tenet of their faith. And Rubio was no different, casting conservative Christians as the persecuted party:

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 are 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.

The complete interview, courtesy of CBNis below:

Rubio has previously expressed his belief that the legality of same-sex marriage should be left to the states to determine, and that he would not support a Supreme Court ruling that found state bans on same-sex marriage unconstitutional.

Via Bloomberg

Screenshot: CBN News/YouTube

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 The National Memo
  • Lynda Groom

    Tell it to Ireland friend. BTW, are you up to providing something in the way of evidence to back up your claim?

    • BJackson89

      Lynda, Ireland legalized gay marriage by way of democratic process. They did not have a 9 person Supreme Court decide for the entire country, which is a huge distinction. But apparently you don’t know much of anything. Rubio’s point, as well as the majority of conservatives and true libertarians, is that it should be left to the states to be decided on democratically, i.e., by vote. If that is what the majority of people desired then I would have no problem with that and a great deal of conservatives would have no problem with that. We care about the process and how our government is structured. We care about liberty. It is not liberty for a 9 person court to dictate policy to the entire country, particularly on matters that are left to the states under our constitution. The states have the police power, not the federal government, and the police power includes legislating with respect to the health and welfare of its citizens, which traditionally includes all matters of family law, such as the definition of the family, etc. The Supreme Court should not decide this as a practical matter, as a matter of Liberty. That is what Scalia, Thomas and the other conservatives say. It’s not that they necessarily disagree with it, though many do. Again, it is not Liberty for a court to dictate policy to a nation of over 300 million plus. As Juvenal says, who will guard the guards? The court is deemed a champion of freedom, of reinforcing our democracy, as free from public opinion, but that’s false. Contrary to popular belief, they are the most dangerous branch, not the least dangerous. Read Bickel’s book “The Least Dangerous Branch.” When you have a 9 person court dictating policy and creating rights on a whim, which is what they are doing with substantive due process under the 14th amendment, we are not free, but rather slaves to the passions of a majority of 9. I don’t disagree with gay marriage as such, but I disagree with countermajoritarian policy dictated by the Supreme Court. If we passed gay marriage in states by majority vote, i.e., democratically, then I fully support it.

      • Dominick Vila

        Are you proposing a constitutional amendment, or a realignment of our form of government? Lynda’s point, I believe, was to demonstrate the fact that most of the world, including deeply religious countries such as Ireland, is moving beyond the old religious prejudices that marginalized a segment of our societies. I suppose we could have special elections on issues important to us, as a society, but for better or worse, that’s not the way we handle matters like this.
        Sen. Rubio’s position is strictly political. I doubt he supports what he is saying, and I doubt his concern is influenced by legal or electioneering considerations.

      • charleo1

        Yes, we’ve got to be careful as a free country going around, allowing the Courts to expand Civil Rights! To just decide willy nilly, and hand down verdicts, on such matters as where, and under what circumstances equal protection under the law is to be applied. How completely un-American, and un-Constitutional! As we can see looking back as practical matter, on this expanding marriage equality concept. What a disaster the High Court’s ruling has been in the case of Loving Vs. the State of Virginia, And it’s unprecedented ruling in support of allowing racially mixed marriages in all 50 States. And we can see today how the liberty of freedom loving racists all across this great Nation has been absolutely ruined. In fact, in the interest of States Rights, there should be a lot of these so called, “Constitutional Rights,” put up for a referendum vote in the various States where they’re not so popular. Don’t you agree? For example, should non tax paying citizens be allowed to vote in the Great State of Mississippi? Maybe a “literacy test?” How about the children born here of parents who illegally came into the Country? Should the State of TX. for example, be required to follow the 14th Amendment? Even if the majority of Texan Citizens vote against doing so? Now we’re cooking! Maybe in the interest of practicality, we revisit the whole idea of a State’s Right to succession, as Governor Rick Perry alluded to? And what other so called liberties are being abridged by this overreaching, Civil Rights Happy, monstrosity After all, as the Reverend Mike Huckabee put it, “They’re the Supreme Court, not the Supreme Being!” Then by that criteria, The Bible, could a State by popular vote declare being Gay illegal, and be done with it? Using the same tenets of Bible Law, should we also enforce the same moral principle on straight couples disrespecting the sanctity of marriage and ignoring the Bible’s admonitions and “shacking up?” And should a marriage preformed down at the Court House, and not in a House of God, be recognized at all? If the people of Harlan Country KY. by popular vote say no? So many Religious Freedoms to, “protect,” and so little time! before Christ’s return!

        • Diane R

          Applause and a standing ovation, that was stellar, Charleo1. I have goose bumps just thinking that some people might think some of your points are valid. These people stand so close to forcing the United States to be a theocracy, they forget the religious intolerance of the past (i.e., Spanish Inquisition, Huguenot of France in the 16th century, etc). Theirs is a very slippery slope!

        • jmprint

          Loved your post.

          • charleo1

            Thanks friend. My daughter is openly Gay. So the issue is especially personal for me.

        • CPAinNewYork


          Hated your post. I hope that your typing hands and your testicles shrivel up into uselessness.

          • charleo1


          • jmprint

            What’s the matter CPA, too many question, blew your mine!

      • FireBaron

        So you are allowing for the tyranny of the majority to overcome the needs and rights of the minority? You do understand that is exactly what the function of the courts are – to determine whether a law meets constitutional challenges, including the right established by the 14th Amendment offering equal protection under the law for all persons (not just citizens) within the country.
        Then again, many conservatives have also expressed a desire to overturn the clause of the 14th Amendment that guarantees US Citizenship to all persons born in the United States and its overseas territories, because it creates “Anchor Babies”, like Presidential Candidate Bobby Jindal! (Check it out – Jindal was born about 5 or 6 months after his parents arrived here from India.)

      • Lynda Groom

        The Court does not make laws, or dictate policy. They consider legal challenges made to law and determine if they meet the requirements of the Constitution. The Court will be making a ruling based upon the case, or cases, brought before them.

        • Michael P

          They are actually supposed to INTERPRET the laws. That’s all. Not this crap they are doing now.

          • Lynda Groom

            It would be helpful if you would, or could, expand on ‘crap’ and explain just what you are referring to. Just asking.

          • Michael P

            Crap=giving all the rights to the billionaires and large corporations. Taking away individual rights.

          • Lynda Groom

            I’m sure all of us understand Citizens United and how it has given an unfair advantage to big money, but what individual rights has the Court taken away from you? Just asking.

          • Michael P

            The same right that it has taken away from you: FOR YOUR VOTE TO COUNT. Just sayin’.

          • Lynda Groom

            My franchise is still in place and I’ve not missed a vote since 1964.

          • Robert Eckert

            What does “equal protection of the laws” mean to you?

      • jmprint

        “It is not liberty for a 9 person court to dictate policy to the entire country, particularly on matters that are left to the states under our constitution.” But they can convert corporations to people, that in turn can dictate if you can buy birth control with your insurance.” I don’t think it is right for the state to dictate either.

      • Michael P

        Just a reminder BJ, we are supposed to be the “UNITED” States of America. We should have one law for all and it should be voted on by the people, not the corporations or congress. We The People!!

      • Robert Eckert

        What Ireland did was to write a guarantee of equality into their constitution. The US already has one, supposedly.

        “We care about liberty.” Liberty means that individuals get to decide most things for themselves. The majority is only allowed to impose its will on the minority if there is reason to. Nobody is dictating to you that you have to marry a man if you don’t want to.

  • Dominick Vila

    Is Sen. Rubio running for President, or is he determined to become the Rick Santorum of the 2016 campaign? His opposition to diplomatic and trade rapprochement with Cuba takes a back seat to his position on LGBT marriage. What people like him do not understand, or ignore in favor of appealing to the most rabid members of the GOP, is that proponents of same-sex marriage are not demanding Church weddings or asking anyone to abandon their religious values and traditions. They simply want society to treat them the same way they treat everyone else, and have the same rights under the law as everyone else.
    I suspect that Rubio, like Cruz, Huckabee, Santorum, and others are simply trying to score political points, not because they believe they have a chance at winning the nomination, but because they are hoping to be the VP choice or, as a minimum, get a Cabinet post. In the interim, they are destroying whatever little chances the GOP has of winning the 2016 election.

    • FireBaron

      Dominick, there is a difference between Santorum and Rubio. Rubio doesn’t rub his self-righteousness in everyone’s face and then allows his own hypocrisy to let him do the opposite of what he preaches – as Santorum did regularly.

      • Dominick Vila

        I don’t have a problem with people with strong spiritual convictions, whether they are interpreted correctly or not. I have a problem with those who want to impose their beliefs on everyone else, and those who use emotional issues for political advantage.
        I do agree with you that Marco Rubio has not exhibited the same ideological extremism as Rick Santorum has, and that he seems to live his life in accordance with what he believes is right.

    • Michael P

      They are trying to keep our eyes off the real raison d’etre which is to give everything to the rich, keep the poor down and eliminate the middle class entirely (bring it down to the poor). We need to keep our eye on the REAL prize here, not the bs that they bring to the media to infuriate the liberals and inflame their repub base.

    • CPAinNewYork

      To answer your question: Santorum is running for Pope. I think that the GOP has a good chance of winning in 2016 if the Democrats nominate Hillary Clinton.

      Her sleazy history makes her poison to any campaign.

  • rednekokie

    Well, he is partially right. If he means by “mainstream” the term “fundamentalist” Christian speech — is indeed, for the most part, hate speech.

    Christianity and speech about it is an idea which a lot of people think well of– but it is far from the law of the land.

    When this nut job and others like him finally figure out that we have had enough of hate, of fear mongering, of suppression of others and their thoughts, simply because they don’t agree with you, perhaps he will get the real picture of Americans.

    Ever since the bare-faced lying of G. W. Bush and his cronies, we have been put upon with the fear mongering and hate of those who wish to distort what America is all about.
    This yo-yo is simply prolonging the process.

  • Diane R

    Does this mean that the United States is a Christian nation? Gee, and here I always thought and was taught that we were an attempt to flee the theocracies of Europe and previous generations. Better watch out, Mr. Candidate(s), appealing to what is becoming an increasing minority could backfire on obvious delusions of grandeur. Statistics show that “Christianity” is becoming a minority in our country, probably in part
    due to this sort of rhetoric.

    • FireBaron

      Ah, but his fellow Conservatives – especially the Cuban/Roman Catholic voters in Florida who keep returning him to whatever he runs for – love crap like that.

      • Michael P

        I certainly know one Cuban who does not believe any of this rhetoric. I think it is just the uneducated one who cater to his crap.

  • bhndr

    If Rubio or any other refuses to obey the Constitution, they should be removed from office and charged with violating the oath of office. Maybe his citizenship should be stripped since he doesn’t believe in the Constitution.

  • jebediah123

    Aside from whether you agree or disagree with same sex marriage, Rubio’s claim that christianity in this country is “under fire” is partially true. As well it should be! In the minds of many, christianity (and it’s cohort, islam) HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO CREDIBILITY. Both “religions” are where they are today because they tortured and murdered anyone who would dare disagree with their dogma

    • Michael P

      Today’s religion is rooted in the Greek gods. Just a continuation of that in fact. We certainly don’t believe in Zeus, Athena or Poseidon any longer. To believe in any god today is just the same as believing in the Greek gods. It certainly shows at the very least a lack of intelligence.

      • Paul Neuwirth

        EXACTLY! By the time I was in 5th grade, I had read most of my elementary school library’s books, and loved the Greek and Norse myths. They were so much more interesting that the crap I was being forcefed in sunday school. Let’s see…Zeus, turning into some animal, coming down from Mt Olympus, and having sex with girls AND boys, or (BORING!!) Daniel in the lion’s den? (YAWN) That’s when I came to the realization that the gods that were being forced onto my “impressionable” mind were, literally, at the bottom of the gawd totem pole. It was when I discovered the joys of masturbation when I suddenly came to the realization that some invisible spook in the sky was supposedly watching what I was up to, and, that I was supposedly “sinning,” doing something that felt so good, it was mindblowing. Locked in the bathroom, wacking away, my mom fixing dinner, my dad watching Mickey Mantle and Roger Maris in a Sunday afternoon Yankee game, and my 2 younger brothers playing in the backyard, I thought, “IS there something watching me pleasure myself??” paused, and, just like Steve Martin said…..NAAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!, and have been enjoying it, ever since!

  • KathyKursh

    I am still perplexed on how the gay couple down the street getting married affects my marriage. I am not gay and believe they should be allowed to marry just like a hetero couple. My belief in Christ or not is NOT affected by a gay marriage. My church here in the upper Midwest is not in danger of being abandoned by anyone’s marriage – gay or straight.
    If you want to obey the Bible word for word then let’s stone all those who commit adultery- male and female. Even thinking of it is committing adultery so every male needs to be stoned? Or how about shunning those who adorn themselves! Or last – those pesky rich people will never make it into Heaven they have to give all their money to the poor so they can get in.
    See you can change lots of things!

    • Michael P

      I really want to give you 1000 up arrows. Nicely stated.

  • Joseph Simmons

    Gay marriage is just the latest Republican scare tactic. The GOP tries to hide or deny the damage done by their mistakes, misallocation of resources and failed social interventions by finding new threats and phony scandals. Christianity has been under attack in Islamic states for years, but it was never a concern to the GOP or professional evangelicals who only find threats when it can bring donations or divert attention from their luxurious lifestyles! I will find Rubio more believable when he can show what he has done to make real, constructive change. What has he proposed to prevent the spread of militant Islam to our shores? How is gay marriage a more pressing threat than the growth of terrorist states? How can he propose sending US troops into hostile territory even more treacherous than Viet Nam, where at least we had a government that supported us? Don’t expect to hear any answers from Rubio on these matters, though. They can’t be answered by easy slogans or glittering generalities!

  • splicernyc

    I suppose Christians don’t realize that one can get a marriage license without needing a religion.

  • jmprint

    So if the Justice approves, religion doesn’t matter! Faith is in the heart, if they can’t have faith without prejudice then they didn’t have faith at all.

  • Robert Cruder

    This is about how using Caesar’s power to do what Jesus would not have done is a required element of christianity.

    The truth is that christian faith is so weak that they and their children cannot tolerate the existence of a happy non-believer.

    The plan is not working because over 60% of millennials do not identify with a religion.

    One day, politicians who use doctrine as a justification for law will be ridiculed in the U.S. as they are in the rest of the First World.

  • Michael P

    This guy is an idiot. Gays are NOT trying to turn Christians into gays, but Christians only want to ban gays. Why? A normal Christian could care less if someone is gay or not. But this HOMOPHOBE want to make it his mission to turn all Christians against gays. It is a sad day and people like him will burn in HELL for what he is doing. Also note, he is AGAINST equal pay for women. That is true Christianity right there.

  • Elliot J. Stamler

    Rubio is just a hispanic version of Santorum and Huckabee. Always was; always will be.

  • dwolfcoach

    Ha, Marco if your myth dance can’t survive the criticism, it’s the dance that’s weak, not the critic. CBN…really. Placate much??

  • ps0rjl

    I do not care if your church does not support gay marriage. I don’t care if you as a person oppose same sex marriage. I do care if our government doesn’t support same sex marriage. As for businesses not catering to same sex couples, I only want them to have to post a sign in their establishment stating such. That also goes for any other issues such as opposing a woman’s right to choose or choosing to carry a weapon. That way they are free to run their business as they see fit and I as a person who supports same sex marriage and a woman’s right to choose and am opposed to any type of handgun carrying, has the right to not patronize their business. By the way, I am a happily married heterosexual who has been married over 33 years and am a Vietnam veteran.

  • Thomas Rex

    What I find most interesting about Rubio, et al and their screeching about Christians & homosexuals is that every Christian doesn’t feel the same way as Evangelicals & uber-Conservatives like Rubio.

    The Episcopalian Church has a lesbian bishop. This is a message from the church’s webpage:

    “In 2003, the first openly gay bishop was consecrated; in 2009,
    General Convention resolved that God’s call is open to all; and in 2012,
    a provisional rite of blessing for same-gender relationships was
    authorized, and discrimination against transgender persons in the
    ordination process was officially prohibited.
    To our lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender brothers and sisters: “The Episcopal Church welcomes you!””

    The last time I checked, Episcopalians were Christian.

  • Dayversity

    My best guess says that MOST U.S. Christians (including many Catholics) support marriage equality; if I’m wrong, I’d like to see some valid stats. At the same time, Rubio’s religious leader, Pope Francis, has declared that Catholics should not judge LGBT people; although the Catholic church would not allow same-sex marriage within its ranks, I think Francis is trying to tell adherents not to oppose the legal right of marriage in the civil/political arena.