Marco Rubio says he will not vote to codify same-sex marriage into law. Calls it a "non-issue" & says "plenty of gay people are mad about gas prices".

Morrison71

HR Legend
Nov 10, 2006
15,545
12,355
113
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida told Insider on Wednesday that he would not vote to codify same-sex marriage at the federal level, calling it a "non-issue."

"I don't know why we're doing that bill, there's no threat to its status in America," he told Punchbowl News reporter Christian Hall when asked about the Respect for Marriage Act. "But I know plenty of gay people in Florida that are pissed off about gas prices."

Asked whether he supported same-sex marriage generally, Rubio punted again.

"States decide marriage laws, they always have," he said. "It's why you can get married in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator in two hours."

Insider then asked Rubio why he wouldn't say clearly which way he'd vote.

"I'm not voting for that bill, what do you mean I won't say how I'll vote?" he said, calling the bill a "waste of our time on a non-issue."

Asked for clarification on Rubio's comments, his communications director Dan Holler pointed out that the Florida Republican has been consistent in his position on the issue.

"I don't think the current Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage," Rubio said on "Meet The Press" in December 2015. "That belongs at the state and local level."
 

Fijimn

HR Legend
May 7, 2008
11,878
19,517
113
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida told Insider on Wednesday that he would not vote to codify same-sex marriage at the federal level, calling it a "non-issue."

"I don't know why we're doing that bill, there's no threat to its status in America," he told Punchbowl News reporter Christian Hall when asked about the Respect for Marriage Act. "But I know plenty of gay people in Florida that are pissed off about gas prices."

Asked whether he supported same-sex marriage generally, Rubio punted again.

"States decide marriage laws, they always have," he said. "It's why you can get married in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator in two hours."

Insider then asked Rubio why he wouldn't say clearly which way he'd vote.

"I'm not voting for that bill, what do you mean I won't say how I'll vote?" he said, calling the bill a "waste of our time on a non-issue."

Asked for clarification on Rubio's comments, his communications director Dan Holler pointed out that the Florida Republican has been consistent in his position on the issue.

"I don't think the current Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage," Rubio said on "Meet The Press" in December 2015. "That belongs at the state and local level."
This is silly. If the state government is going to license marriages and confer all the rights associated with marriage, then the needs to comply with the equal protection clause and the due process clause. Alito's BS that the 14th only applies to right deeply rooted in our traditions and history is wrong.
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
113,507
86,004
113
This is silly. If the state government is going to license marriages and confer all the rights associated with marriage, then the needs to comply with the equal protection clause and the due process clause. Alito's BS that the 14th only applies to right deeply rooted in our traditions and history is wrong.

So why have states, then? The all-powerful federal government decides what every state must do? What's the point?
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
113,507
86,004
113
This is silly and a poor understanding of the 14th amendment. States can do what they want within the limitations of the US Constitution and its amendments. Should a state be able to enact laws that restrict speech?

No, because there's an enumerated right to freedom of speech in the constitution.

There is no such enumerated right regarding gay marriage.

Therefore, the 10th amendment applies, not the 14th.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

Fijimn

HR Legend
May 7, 2008
11,878
19,517
113
No, because there's an enumerated right to freedom of speech in the constitution.

There is no such enumerated right regarding gay marriage.

Therefore, the 10th amendment applies, not the 14th.
There is the equal protection clause and the due process clause in the 14th amendment. Marriage is a substantive and fundamental rights. As such, the equal protection clause applies.
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
113,507
86,004
113
There is the equal protection clause and the due process clause in the 14th amendment. Marriage is a substantive and fundamental rights. As such, the equal protection clause applies.

Pass a constitutional amendment and then it's settled for good.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

Fijimn

HR Legend
May 7, 2008
11,878
19,517
113
Pass a constitutional amendment and then it's settled for good.
You don't need to pass a constitutional amendment. Marriage is a fundamental and substantive right. Loving v. Virginia. No state may deny a person equal protection under the law. Thus, if a state is going to confer marriage licenses and afford all the property, inheritance, medical decision rights associate with marriage--it needs to be applied equally and cannot discriminate; unless the is a compelling state interest that is done under the least restrictive means (strict scrutiny).
 

TJ8869

HR Legend
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2006
48,626
47,644
113
Pass a constitutional amendment and then it's settled for good.
No constitutional amendment is necessary. There is no constitutional right to marry, but the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment clearly states that all laws must apply equally to all citizens.

If any given state chooses to sanction marriage then they have to apply their marriage laws to same-sex couples exactly the way those laws apply to heterosexual couples.

I don’t know why this is even a debate. It’s Civics 101.
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
113,507
86,004
113
You don't need to pass a constitutional amendment. Marriage is a fundamental and substantive right. Loving v. Virginia. No state may deny a person equal protection under the law. Thus, if a state is going to confer marriage licenses and afford all the property, inheritance, medical decision rights associate with marriage--it needs to be applied equally and cannot discriminate; unless the is a compelling state interest that is done under the least restrictive means (strict scrutiny).

Much like Roe, Loving could be overturned as well.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: RileyHawk

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
113,507
86,004
113
No constitutional amendment is necessary. There is no constitutional right to marry, but the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment clearly states that all laws must apply equally to all citizens.

If any given state chooses to sanction marriage then they have to apply their marriage laws to same-sex couples exactly the way those laws apply to heterosexual couples.

I don’t know why this is even a debate. It’s Civics 101.

If you made that argument in any other time in our country's history you would have been laughed out of court.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: BelemNole

Keehawk

HR Heisman
May 24, 2011
5,311
5,001
113
You don't need to pass a constitutional amendment. Marriage is a fundamental and substantive right. Loving v. Virginia. No state may deny a person equal protection under the law. Thus, if a state is going to confer marriage licenses and afford all the property, inheritance, medical decision rights associate with marriage--it needs to be applied equally and cannot discriminate; unless the is a compelling state interest that is done under the least restrictive means (strict scrutiny).
I agree 100% which is why Rubio is not wasting his time on this. I agree.
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
113,507
86,004
113
I agree 100% which is why Rubio is not wasting his time on this. I agree.

The reason this bill is being put forward to is to codify gay marriage as a civil right in order to blunt the possibility of the court overturning Loving.

Which is the right way to go. Make it a law, don't rely on a tortured supreme court ruling that created a right out of thin air.
 

Fijimn

HR Legend
May 7, 2008
11,878
19,517
113
I agree 100% which is why Rubio is not wasting his time on this. I agree.
Unfortunately, the dicta in Thomas's and Alito's opinion suggests that the equal protection clause would not apply to homosexual couples and potentially mixed race couples because those relations are not deeply rooted in America's history and traditions ( a new standard created by the conservatives on the court). Accordingly, codifying gay marriage appears to be required to protect that right.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nelly02 and DFSNOLE

Keehawk

HR Heisman
May 24, 2011
5,311
5,001
113
Unfortunately, the dicta in Thomas's and Alito's opinion suggests that the equal protection clause would not apply to homosexual couples and potentially mixed race couples because those relations are not deeply rooted in America's history and traditions ( a new standard created by the conservatives on the court). Accordingly, codifying gay marriage appears to be required to protect that right.
I believe much of this is fear mongering.
 

CleteyColgate

HR Heisman
Nov 12, 2012
6,949
9,190
113
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida told Insider on Wednesday that he would not vote to codify same-sex marriage at the federal level, calling it a "non-issue."

"I don't know why we're doing that bill, there's no threat to its status in America," he told Punchbowl News reporter Christian Hall when asked about the Respect for Marriage Act. "But I know plenty of gay people in Florida that are pissed off about gas prices."

Asked whether he supported same-sex marriage generally, Rubio punted again.

"States decide marriage laws, they always have," he said. "It's why you can get married in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator in two hours."

Insider then asked Rubio why he wouldn't say clearly which way he'd vote.

"I'm not voting for that bill, what do you mean I won't say how I'll vote?" he said, calling the bill a "waste of our time on a non-issue."

Asked for clarification on Rubio's comments, his communications director Dan Holler pointed out that the Florida Republican has been consistent in his position on the issue.

"I don't think the current Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage," Rubio said on "Meet The Press" in December 2015. "That belongs at the state and local level."

I agree with Rubio. Gas stations should stop price gouging gay people.
 

Fijimn

HR Legend
May 7, 2008
11,878
19,517
113
I believe much of this is fear mongering.
I mean...it was Thomas's words in Dobbs. He clearly was sending a message to the anti-gay marriage constituents to send up a test case. Maybe the other justices won't go that far...but three of the dissenters (Alito, Roberts & Thomas) are still on the bench....only need two more.
 

TJ8869

HR Legend
Gold Member
Dec 7, 2006
48,626
47,644
113
It's like you work at being stupid.
He's actually not wrong on that point. Same-sex marriage wasn't the law of the land until 7 years ago, in part because even many prominent Democratic politicians were afraid of publicly supporting it. Until popular support crept above 50%, many of them who didn't represent solid blue states or districts were afraid it would be career suicide.
 

lucas80

HR King
Gold Member
Jan 30, 2008
97,394
127,496
113
1. Marco is clearly eyeing another run for president.
2. Is there a price floor for gas at which he would consider working on more than one thing at a time?
 
  • Like
Reactions: gohawks50

Keehawk

HR Heisman
May 24, 2011
5,311
5,001
113
While I agree, our opinion is not what matters.
Unfortunately that's true. This country is all sorts of messed up because people can't be reasonable as a whole.

For example, overturning Roe was a blessing on this world but there has to be common sense. Allow rape victims especially children to access abortions. Allow abortions in cases where the mothers life is in danger and if the fetus can never be viable. Allow all access to birth control including morning after pills.

Just doing that would shut up everyone and it would end the vast majority of abortions.
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
113,507
86,004
113
Unfortunately that's true. This country is all sorts of messed up because people can't be reasonable as a whole.

For example, overturning Roe was a blessing on this world but there has to be common sense. Allow rape victims especially children to access abortions. Allow abortions in cases where the mothers life is in danger and if the fetus can never be viable. Allow all access to birth control including morning after pills.

Just doing that would shut up everyone and it would end the vast majority of abortions.

It certainly wouldn't shut everyone up but I agree there needs to be some balance.
 

EasyHawk

HR Heisman
Gold Member
Jun 21, 2015
9,496
14,350
113
Unfortunately, the dicta in Thomas's and Alito's opinion suggests that the equal protection clause would not apply to homosexual couples and potentially mixed race couples because those relations are not deeply rooted in America's history and traditions ( a new standard created by the conservatives on the court). Accordingly, codifying gay marriage appears to be required to protect that right.
If those two are putting their dictas together, I say they are hypocrites.
 

Tom Paris

HR Legend
Gold Member
Oct 1, 2001
45,150
51,579
113
Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida told Insider on Wednesday that he would not vote to codify same-sex marriage at the federal level, calling it a "non-issue."

"I don't know why we're doing that bill, there's no threat to its status in America," he told Punchbowl News reporter Christian Hall when asked about the Respect for Marriage Act. "But I know plenty of gay people in Florida that are pissed off about gas prices."

Asked whether he supported same-sex marriage generally, Rubio punted again.

"States decide marriage laws, they always have," he said. "It's why you can get married in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator in two hours."

Insider then asked Rubio why he wouldn't say clearly which way he'd vote.

"I'm not voting for that bill, what do you mean I won't say how I'll vote?" he said, calling the bill a "waste of our time on a non-issue."

Asked for clarification on Rubio's comments, his communications director Dan Holler pointed out that the Florida Republican has been consistent in his position on the issue.

"I don't think the current Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage," Rubio said on "Meet The Press" in December 2015. "That belongs at the state and local level."
I can’t believe there was a day I could have voted for him.