Many Republican candidates have been dancing around this issue while some have tried to avoid it entirely. Marco Rubio was put on the spot recently and stated that, in his opinion, there is nothing in the United States Constitution which guarantees a right to same-sex marriage. Rubio was asked in the context of the upcoming Supreme Court case which may decide the matter and either leave the issue to the states, or legalize same-sex marriage nationwide.

Report from The Daily Caller:

In an interview with the Christian Broadcasting Network’s “The Brody File,” Republican Florida senator and 2016 presidential candidate Marco Rubio said that it was “ridiculous and absurd” to believe there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

HOST DAVID BRODY: Marriage in the Supreme Court — a big case coming this week to be argued. Where are you on this whole idea of a constitutional right that many people think…”

RUBIO: It doesn’t exist.

BRODY: It doesn’t exist?

RUBIO: There is no federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage.

BRODY: That’s what they’re going to argue.

RUBIO: And there isn’t such a right. You would have to really have a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex. There is no such constitutional right. Can a state decide to change their laws? Yes, but only through the political process, not through the court system.

And that’s what’s happening now. The advocates of same-sex marriage refuse to go through the legislatures, because they can’t win that debate. They don’t want a debate in society; they want courts to impose it on people. And they’re not even satisfied with that. They’ve now gone further; they want to stigmatize, they want to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them as haters. It’s very simple.

This is not a policy against anyone. This is what I believe — as do a significant percentage of Americans — that the institution of marriage, an institution that existed before government, that existed before laws, that that institution should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman.

This is a fairly bold stance to take when the winds seem to be shifting hard in the other direction. Rubio will need to court the evangelical vote to become viable in Iowa and he can’t risk being totally undercut by Cruz or Huckabee. One way to do that is to equivocally come out in opposition to the yet-to-be-decided Supreme Court decision that, according to some observers, has a good chance of legalizing same-sex marriage in all fifty states.


  1. Truth be told, there’s no mention in the Constitution viz marriage at all.

    There is, however, some bit in there somewhere about equal protection under the law, or something to that effect…

  2. This is really the thorniest of issues. Those who are against marriage, point to tradition–“it’s never been that way.” But we never used to be able to fly, and there are still people who think God created the races and we shouldn’t allow them to intermarry.

    There’s the “states’ rights” issue, which claims that since the Constitution doesn’t mention marriage, the issue should be left to the states.

    And finally, individuals have voted for marriage prohibition. The Supreme Court didn’t repeal alcohol prohibition, the people did. So the argument is that the people should repeal DOMA laws at the ballot box. And since something like 70% of the people are now in favor of gay marriage, that seems like the reasonable path: have the Supreme Court refuse to rule, and then, let the people vote DOMA down. Then the DOMA fans won’t be able to say the court overruled the voters.

    But the reason public opinion changed is that people saw that the sky didn’t fall in states where gay marriage was allowed–it gave new rights to some, and did not harm the rest. And the only reason that was possible is that courts knocked down the laws, and gave people the opportunity to see that it didn’t hurt them, personally, to let gay people adopt their own kids, help each other in the hospital, and other rights the rest of us take for granted.

    Marriage is the initial “building block” on which the organization of society rests. Many of our societal problems are due to the breakdown of marriage. Instead of forbidding marriage, maybe we should try to find ways to encourage people to make better choices in marriage partners, help them get over the rough spots in the middle, and counsel them to try to find a way to make it work when they are ready to give up.

  3. As for Rubio, his argument is dangerous. He is saying if you are not guaranteed a right in the Constitution, you have NO rights.

    The traditional view is that you have rights unless they are forbidden, just as you’re supposed to be viewed as innocent until proven guilty.

    Rubio is not ready for prime time.

  4. Our founding documents seek to protect the entitlements of “…the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God.” If children were born of same sex marriage, I would have to consider it natural… But it is neither natural nor of nature’s God. Why do we try so hard to make it difficult for families? It is no surprise we raise children without goals or sense-of-purpose (other than to hurt others).

    • That is an extremely bizarre reading of the founding documents. Since when does “Nature’s God” need OUR “protection”? Nature’s God is powerless?

      And the founders didn’t plan on protecting entitlements–they planned to protect rights.

      But I do agree that commercialism has turned us into a randy society

Comments are closed.