Marco Rubio At CPAC: Just Because I Don’t Believe Gay People Are Equal Doesn’t Mean I’m A Bigot

Today, GOP wunderkind Marco Rubio addressed the right-wing circle-jerk that is CPAC. He managed to give his address without lunging for a bottle of water, so kukos there.

But he did manage to insult the LGBT community, pro-choice people—and common sense.

Above, Rubio explains how just because he believes marriage should be legally defined as between a man and a woman doesn’t mean he’s bigoted against same-sex couples.

I respect people who disagree with me on certain things, but that means they have to respect me too.

Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot. Just because we believe that life, all human life, all life, all human life is worth of protection in every stage of its development doesn’t make you a chauvinist.

In fact, the people who are actually close minded in American politics are people who love to preach about the certainty of science in regard to our climate, but ignore the absolute fact that life begins at conception.

Really, that’s what you’ve got? “Let’s agree to disagree?”

Is “agreeing to disagree” what Mississippi, GOP state Rep. Andy Gipson meant last May, when he invoked the biblical passage that “if a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, they are to be put to death”?

Is that what the new Pope meant when he said marriage equality was a tool of the devil?

Is that what anti-choice people mean when they call abortion providers baby-killers?

Speaking of reproductive rights and the beginnings of life, we always thought Rubio was fluent in English, but it seems he has problems understanding the difference between the words “fact” and “opinion.”

h/t: Think Progress

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #cpac #gopdeathwatch stories and more


  • 2eo

    It seems he doesn’t understand what being human actually is.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Equality is a different issue from abortion and when GOP combines the two, it is really meant to link them in the minds of the audience. Cheeky cheeky naughty sneaky as Brian Eno might say. Rubio, you are so antiquated. You will NEVER be President, so go back home and be quiet, like the other bigots who lose elections.

  • multitasker

    Uh, yes, yes it does, Mr Rubio. Until now I had mostly found Rubio’s speeches and interviews refreshing (for the Right Wing). Now I see a promising career spiraling toward the brown water pipes.

  • Larry

    Oh maybe I am wrong, but doesnt the Constitution say EVERYONE should be treated equally?

  • Ronbo

    If someone said, “I believe states should have the right to define marriage to excludeng hispanics, but that does not make me a bigot,” they would quickly be marginalized.

    But it does make you a bigot, unkind sir. By the very exclusion of a group, it does make you a bigot.

    Religion can NOT be mandated in this nation and you are trying to enforce a religious view heald by a shrinking population. What’s next…mandating hasidic curls? Ban of shellfish? No more cotton/polyester blends? Pope-hats for the masses?

  • yaoming

    Ronbo is so right… and Rubio is so wrong.

  • Teleny

    And this… Is the GOP’s attempt to show more diversity. Rubio is a token. The hateful one to watch out for is New Jersey’s whale of a Gov. Chris Christie.

  • MuscleModelBlog.com

    I thought that perhaps with Marco Rubio being from a minority group, the GOP would start re-defining itself…I guess not.

  • loren_1955

    Just because I don’t believe ******* people are equal does not make be a bigot. Hmmm, let’s see fill in the blank with black, Jew, women, basically anyone else and the guy would be a resounding bigot. Why is the use of gay a free ride to hate, persecute, and be a bigot and still not be considered such???

  • mlbumiller

    “Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot.”

    So please explain what you mean by “traditional way”? Do you mean social? or religious? Socially, the definition has changed many times. Socially it was unacceptable to marry outside your religion, race, & social economic status, In fact, at one point in our recent history that it was against the law to marry outside your race. The social climate is changing once again.

    Religiously… well that should not be made a part of your decision… your decision is to be made for all the people, not just those that have the same religious views as yourself. Do you not remember what you were taught in school, that our government was suppose to govern with a separation of religion and state.

    In 1712, 1812 Afro-Americans were not even considered humane… THAT WAS A TRADITIONAL view. Even in 1912 they were not even consider truly equal. In 2012, if you would believe in the “tradition” you would be a Bigot!

    In 1620, 1720, 1820 women did not vote. The “tradition” was that they were not able to have a higher level of thinking. Was not until 1920 that the 19th Amendment gave everyone the right to vote regardless of sex. If you hold that women are not smart enough to vote as traditionally it was held, then you are a Bigot!

    You are a bigot! You hold that my partner and I are not equal. We have been together over 20 years. The median duration of first marriages that end in divorce is only 7.85 years. We have beaten the heteo average. He was with me 14 years of my military career; separated for three years because of my over-seas assignment and upon my return after only four months back on U.S. soil, deployed for almost a year in Afghanistan.

    All denying me same right to marry and the benefits that go along with it… YOU ARE A BIGOT.

  • Bob LaBlah

    What hands me a laugh about this idiot is how he learned the hard way that his remarks are so easy to pick apart and expose as lies. And trust me, he made some doozies that the press seem reluctant to remind him of.
    It seems like yesterday morning when he could not be specific if he was born here in the U.S. or Cuba. Once he finally settled on being born in the U.S. he went on a rant about how his family escaped Castro’s regime……..the problem with that was his family fled Cuba in 1954, under the rule of Batista, the dictator who laid the groundwork for Castro to remain in power for as long as he has.
    Mr. Rubio, Bobby Jindal (Gov. of Louisiana), Ms. Martinez (Gov. of New Mexico) and Mr. Sandoval (Gov. of Nevada) amount to nothing more than latino pic-a-ninnies that the GOP deep down hope the latino community of the U.S. are too stupid to recognize just what they are. Though Mr. Jindal is of Indian decendt he has a way of speaking like a man who does not care for blacks, which goes over well with the old white foggies who still run the GOP. Only problem is if he were standing next to a black man with only both of their backsides showing it would NOT be easy to tell which is blacker. Though don’t bother telling him that.
    I must give credit to Jindal and Martinez when they stopped short of telling Romney he was full of shit about his claim Obama bought off his base by handing out college grants. That took courage and no doubt both will somehow pay for that down the road. But hey, they are minorities who don’t quite get it like Rubio does. Or do they?
    Don’t worry Marc, I will still laugh at EVERYTHING you foolishly stand at a podium and allow to come out of your mouth. I just wonder how far you will go in order to keep having them pay your first class hotel and airfares. Can’t wait till the next election and see Christy of New Jersey eat your young ass alive in the GOP debates.

  • Joel J

    If this guy is the great, white hope of the Republican Party, the party is in deep doo doo. Rubio is falling into the same trap Romney fell into–pandering to the party’s base and in the process making himself unelectable as president. Have they learned nothing from the past two elections?

  • erikwm

    Oh, how I want to watch Hillary Clinton wipe the floor with this guy.

  • DarkZephyr

    This is Queerty.com. not “Pro-choice.com”. I am a Queer and I am pro-life. If you want to consider me an “anti-choice” bigot because I am in favor of the unborn, then fucking have at it Queerty, but please stop assuming all gay people are for abortion.

    That being said, I am not a fan of Marc Rubio by any stretch of the imagination. I am 100% pro-gay rights.

  • Fidelio

    The GOP is carpet-bagging their entire brand all on their own. How long can the GOP sustain this backward, bigoted stance before they implode?

  • ferduchi

    Not a bigot….just an asshole???? No wait..he is both.

  • Alan down in Florida

    I am ashamed to say Mr. Rubio is my Senator but only because he won a 3 way split. Life will not be so easy for him come re-election, especially now that he has stupidly antagonized the quarter of a million GLBT individuals in the 4 counties that comprise South Florida.

  • Chad Hunt

    Why do bigots always end their bigoted rhetoric with, “but I’m not a bigot.”

  • Yiannis

    @1EqualityUSA: I tip my hat to anyone who quotes Brian Eno!

  • jwrappaport

    Typo in the first sentence – it’s “wunderkunt.”

  • Joel J

    @Chad Hunt: For the same reason liars preface their remarks with “honestly…”

  • Elloreigh

    A few points, but read the entirety of my post before you blow a gasket:

    1) I really hate the bait and switch headlines of jaundiced journalism.

    2) The definition of bigot is not someone who holds an opposing opinion on a question of law.

    3) Tarring someone with the statements of others in a game of guilt by association doesn’t impress me.

    4) mlbumiller has pretty much said the rest of what I was thinking: I still number Rubio among the bigots. Arguing points of law is one thing, using the codewords of fellow bigots, such as “traditional marriage” means he has implicated himself as one of them.

  • Cam

    The people who defended slavery said the same thing.

  • Ronbo

    @DarkZephyr: Your theory that ANYONE celebrates abortion is repugnant. Often the choice is between two very, very bad choices. Have you walked a mile in their shoes?

    Is that paternalistic? You know, that you know what’s best for everyone. I guess when they insist you chose to be gay, you agreed and took penance upon yourself.

    “without forgiveness no man is pleasing to God.”

  • niles

    He wants me to respect his right to discriminate against me? Don’t make me laugh.

  • 2eo

    @DarkZephyr: Not just an “anti choice” bigot, but also a misogynistic man with clear issues relating to women in general.

    If it walks like a bigot, talks like a bigot and acts like a bigot.

  • macmantoo

    @Larry: Not according to the Republicans. They have their own take on the Constitution anyway.

  • Atomicrob

    There’s an ongoing struggle to empower people like Rubio to advance an agenda of hatred and bigotry. We all do what we can to turn back the tide, but I still find it amazing that vast numbers of people would vote for this charlatan in a minute because he makes these pronouncements.

  • BJ McFrisky

    Christie-Rubio 2016!

  • 1EqualityUSA

    McFrisky, you had adamantly said that you were not Republican in another thread. Interesting choice of bigots you’ve got there.

  • Cam

    @BJ McFrisky:

    BJ THAT is why you get no respect in here. To CHEER for a ticket that states flat out you are not equal and to be excited about it shows a level of self loathing that is disturbing.

    If you had the attitude of “Well after reviewing everything this is the lesser of two evils” that would make more sense. But to excitedly trumpet somebody that hates you is just a very sad commentary on your self-worth.

  • 2eo

    @Cam: Maybe he wasn’t talking about the election, when for example I say Christie-Rubio 2016, what I mean is that I hope they have both being dead for the combined amount of days to number 2016.

  • Joel J

    @BJ McFrisky: Bring ’em on!

  • BJ McFrisky

    @1EqualityUSA: That’s right, I’m not a Republican, I’m a Libertarian, but if the choice in 2016 comes down to Christie or Hillary Clinton, I’m going to go with the one who has leadership experience (as I did in 2008 and 2012). Hillary and Obama are posers—their “experience” is comprised of making speeches or riding on the coattails of others.
    @Cam: Why is it you believe Rubio hates me? Because he believes in traditional marriage? (I don’t care about marriage.) Is it because he’s pro-immigration? (I don’t care about immigration.) Is it because you perceive him to be homophobic? (He’s not homophobic, he’s Catholic.) For you to state that he hates me—simply because he believes marriage is a sacred institution—is blatant bias on YOUR part, and shows how intolerant YOU are of others with differing opinions.
    ps – The reason I get no respect on Queerty is because I don’t toe the liberal line. All I’d have to do is start spouting liberal talking points and you guys would be slobbering all over me. I’ve watched this syndrome unfold day after day on this site.

  • jwrappaport

    @BJ McFrisky: You doth protest too much. The reason you get little respect, at least in this thread, is because your argument is weak.

    Rubio may or may not hate us – that isn’t the point. The point is that he thinks we should have fewer rights than he does because we happen to be gay. He thinks this way because he thinks gays are, on some level, morally disordered. These views are based neither in fact nor reason, but rather in what is likely a combination of Catholic dogma and political expedience. By definition, he is a bigot and a homophobe. I can’t conceive of how this is in any serious controversy.

    You’re free to vote for him, but you can’t properly say that we’re all crazy libs for having a huge problem with people who want to deny us equal protection of the law. Don’t tell us that he doesn’t harbor bigoted or homophobic views by substituting buzzwords like “traditional marriage” and “sacred institution.” Those words mean one thing, and we all know it, to wit: “I find homosexuality distasteful and want to treat homosexuals as a subordinate legal class.”

  • 2eo

    @BJ McFrisky: No, the reason is because you’re a c*nt who condones paedophilia, and has exchanged pictures himself. You sick fascist fuck.

  • BJ McFrisky

    @jwrappaport: Point taken, but the bottom line—for me—is that gay marriage is as important an issue to me as is abortion or immigration or solar energy, meaning it will never affect my life in any manner, so I don’t get flustered over it. Am I against it? No, of course not, but I don’t see it as a civil rights issue, and think that civil unions are just as good at protecting us under the law.
    But that’s just me.
    And I don’t believe that Rubio finds us “distasteful” (although, in hindsight, every gay person I know thought Obama was in love with us from the beginning, even though he was outspokenly against gay marriage until the Dems forced his hand on the issue . . . Which reminds me: How many gay people, exactly, are in Obama’s cabinet? And if there are none, or no more than the token few that every president has, isn’t that indicative of him categorizing us as a “subordinate legal class”?).

  • jwrappaport

    @BJ McFrisky: Well, it is a civil rights issue by definition considering that civil rights are defined as the rights of citizens to social and political equality.

    Whether or not the equal protection of your fellow citizens directly affects your life is hardly a reason to not “get flustered”: the essence of a just society is that its people possess not only political self-determination, but also social and legal equality. In so many words, you should give a damn because your fellow human beings are being robbed of their freedoms. Not only are civil unions legally inferior to marriage in many jurisdictions (in that they confer fewer rights and privileges), but also and more importantly, they are socially inferior. They stand for the proposition that separate can be equal. That has never been true, and it remains so today. Ask any straight person if they would trade their marriage license in for a civil union declaration.

    When someone says that two men getting married is a violation of the sacred institution of marriage, please explain to me how that can be based in anything except a deep-seated intuition that homosexuality is morally distasteful.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    jwrappaport, Equality doesn’t matter to McFrisky because his spouse is a blow-up doll.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    I’m so out of the loop that I had to look that one up, jwrappaport! T.V. isn’t my thing. I pictured more of an impish waif with round glasses and a speech impediment. Do blow up dolls speak? I suppose if the Red Dragon could carry on a conversation with Francis Dolarhyde, anything is possible!

  • BradT

    That’s the definition of a bigot, Rubio. Thinking any person is not equal to another. His new found profile is going to his head.

  • BradT

    @BJ McFrisky: Yes please…..that will guarantee Hillary will be the first woman President.

  • 1EqualityUSA

    I would trust Hilary’s foreign affairs experience over Chris Christie’s. The most foreign affairs he’s had is with Chick-fil-A, Taco Bell, Jaques en le box, and the bagel shoppe.

  • spacegod

    @BJ McFrisky: @BJ McFrisky: I get the impression you aren’t self-reflective enough to see you’re embracing what’s bad for you. It’s you choice–but it’s kind of easy to see your personal issues are cause you to react rather than responding.

  • spacegod

    @DarkZephyr: Nobody is FOR abortion. It simply better to have a choice when you’re up against the wall than to have no choice at all. I am gay and adopted. Therefore:


  • Joel J

    @1EqualityUSA: Holy cannoli!

  • Tampabiker

    @Ronbo: You put it exactly right!

Comments are closed.