Marco Rubio Thinks Anti-Gay Discrimination Is Awful But Anti-Christian Discrimination Is Worse

marco rubioSen. Marco Rubio, the Florida Republican who pictures himself behind the desk in the Oval Office, just can’t figure out the modern GOP. First he staked his reputation on finding a reasonable middle ground on immigration reform, only to discover that for many in the party’s base, reform consists solely of pointing an uninterrupted row of cannons at the Mexican border. Now he seems to be looking for a similar “moderate” stance on LGBT issues.

This won’t end well.

In a speech at Catholic University, Rubio tried his best to sound as if he was acquainted with 21st-century reality. The U.S. has come a “long way” in the way it treats gays and lesbians. Everyone should acknowledge the long history of discrimination against the LGBT community and also recognize that “many committed gay and lesbian couples feel humiliated by the laws’ failures to recognize their relationship as a marriage.”

Now, this is remarkable stuff for a Republican, let alone a potential presidential candidate. Saying anything remotely kind about us is not a way to win points with the base, but it does recognize that young voters are not going to shift party loyalties without this kind of rhetoric.

Unfortunately, Rubio proceeded to undercut everything he just said by elaborating on why he felt the law was right to humiliate same-sex couples. “Americans like myself who support keeping the traditional definition of marriage also have a right to work to keep traditional definition of marriage in our laws without seeing them overturned by a judge,” Rubio declared.

Moreover, Rubio wrapped himself in the victim’s cape, complaining that marriage opponents are being targeted unfairly for their views.

“There is a growing intolerance on this issue, intolerance of those who continue to support traditional marriage,” Rubio whined. “Even before this speech is over, I’ll be attacked as a hater or bigot. Or someone who’s anti-gay. This intolerance in the name of tolerance is hypocrisy. Supporting the definition of marriage as one man and one woman, is not anti-gay. It is pro-traditional marriage.”

Yes, well, we have some disagreements there.

From a political point of view, however, Rubio can’t have it both ways. Young voters view gay marriage as a basic right that politicians should support. Even a majority of young Republicans support it. Older voters in the GOP’s base are not going to be thrilled by kind words about the LGBT community.

Marriage equality has moved faster than anyone might have predicted. In a relatively short period of time, it’s gone from a marginal issue to being widely accepted by Americans. It won’t be long when most Americans view opposition to marriage equality the same way that they view opposition to interracial marriages–as a throwback to an older, more bigoted time.

Rubio seems to be betting that he can find a middle ground on the issue. But the ground is shifting too rapidly. It won’t be long before there is no middle ground. In the meantime, he won’t be swaying voters in either camp. Give him credit for trying to change the conversation, but he won’t succeed by talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #politics #2016election #marcorubio stories and more


  • shadrak5

    This guy should be smart enough to get past his religious bias to be viable Politian in a secular state. Does his view of “traditional marriage” include a man having multiple wives and treating them all as chattel? If one is going to color one’s politics with Judeo-Christian biases, then be consistent.

  • lykeitiz

    “There is a growing intolerance on this issue, intolerance of those who continue to support traditional marriage,” Rubio whined.

    Yes Rubio, you are correct. In fact, the intolerance has grown ALMOST to the point of intolerance that gays have always faced from the traditional-marriage types. In other words, f**k you all.

    And if you possess such political savvy & wisdom, then why don’t you pack it up on a raft and take it and 500,000 of your friends & relatives back to the mother-land (Cuba), and leave Florida and the U.S. to fend for themselves.

    Your views against my natural-born U.S. citizen rights are not appreciated.

  • masc4masc

    @Bjk: So basically you’ve managed to become just as bigoted as the bigots you complain about. Congrats.

  • jar

    “Teh evel gays” is dead as a GOP rallying cry and they know it. This is why they’ve switched back to their assault on the autonomy of women. They will try to make lemonade out of their situation in precisely the manner Rubio does here. Turn themselves into the victims of intolerance. They swoon at the chance to play victim. They will also pursue the Hobby Lobby approach- try to undo civil rights advances under the umbrella of “religious freedom.” You can almost hear them circling the drain.

  • Desert Boy

    If Blubber Face Rubio thinks he can take this rhetoric to the GOP primary and win, then he’s even dumber than I thought.

  • Goforit

    @masc4masc: You are mistaken. Bjk and the rest of us do not hate our Christian bigoted brethren. We merely hate their bigotry. You know, “love the sinner, hate the sin”.

  • Chris

    By now, Marco Rubio (and others of his ilk) should know better; after all, at least one of his colleagues from the House has a Lesbian daughter and there are lots of gay folk on their staffs. This is hypocritical pandering, pure and simple. I wonder how he can look at himself in the mirror each morning.

  • BJ McFrisky

    Funny, this. Liberals are so simple-minded that they believe anyone not a Democrat is shifty and evil, but completely buy it when B.H. Obama initially states that marriage is between a man and a woman, and then “evolves” just before his second campaign.

    @Chris: Why is it that a Republican who addresses gay issues is “politically pandering,” but when a Dem like Obama does so, it’s “enlightenment” (besides, you know, the obvious double-standard)?

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Always ask yourselves, who would they put on the Supreme Court?

  • Cam

    Not a good idea to try to even claim that anything Rubio is saying is in any way enlightened.

    Remember, he thinks that it is Anti-Christian discrimination for Christians to NOT be allowed to fire, harass, and assault gays.

    Basically not allowing a bully to attack a kid is anti-bully discrimination according to Rubio and his ilk.

  • Cam

    @BJ McFrisky: said…

    “Funny, this. Liberals are so simple-minded that they believe anyone not a Democrat is shifty and evil, but completely buy it when B.H. Obama initially states that marriage is between a man and a woman, and then “evolves” just before his second campaign.”

    Please explain how the GOP position on gay rights is in any way better than the current position of the Dems or Obama?

    The problem with your posts BJ, is you have to keep them vague because under any close scrutiny they collapse.

    The GOP’s platform in multiple states is about stripping gays of their rights, and the Dems have pushed gay rights forward. You can’t disprove that so you make vague little complaints about how conservatives are such victims of the mean gays.

    Seriously, you have got to find another tactic, it’s almost embarrassing watching the current one.

  • derp

    “You’re intolerant of my bigotry!” It’s just so dead on & intellectually sound, I can’t even argue with them….

  • EGO

    Uh Duh… Rubio apparently does not know what “intolerance” means. I have not heard one gay person ever say they are intolerant of marriage between a man and a woman. Unfortunately, people like Rubio do not have common sense or the ability to think about other peoples viewpoints, only their own.

  • EGO

    @BJ McFrisky: President Barack Obama and President Bill Clinton have shown that they are able to learn about LGBTs and move on, apparently that is not the case for some of the GOPs and religious fanatics.

  • DarkZephyr

    @BJ McFrisky: The funny thing is, BJ McFrisky didn’t address Mark Rubio’s view that its right and good to keep gays stripped of their rights. Though is anyone shocked?

    “Why is it that a Republican who addresses gay issues is “politically pandering,” but when a Dem like Obama does so, it’s “enlightenment” (besides, you know, the obvious double-standard)?”

    In this case he is clearly politically pandering because in the same breath that he said a few token kind words about gay people he went on to say that we SHOULD remain stripped of our rights and that those who want to keep us stripped of our rights are not anti-gay.

  • BitterOldQueen

    “There is a growing intolerance on this issue, intolerance of those who continue to support traditional marriage.” Now, Marco, honey, sit still a moment and listen: It’s not OK to want to deprive other citizens of equal protection under the law, or to want to deprive other citizens of constitutional rights, even if, sweetie, you think your invisible friend told you to think that it’s OK. You and your little friends are perfectly welcome to hold on to any sort of bubble-headed, mean-spirited, stupidass beliefs you like; you just need to keep them in your pointy little nasty head where they belong. Your 19th century friends who thought god loved slavery (because it’s in the bible, after all) made exactly the same sort of argument you’re making, and you see how much history loves them. And if people are calling you “homophobic” or “anti-gay” or a “hater” or a “bigot” or a “simpleminded intolerant self-righteous asshole”, honey, it’s because that’s exactly what you are.

  • Cam



    Oh, and can we all just agree to change the wording of “Traditional Marriage” to “Anti-Gay bigotry”?

    Just like when they say “Family Values” what they really mean is “Anti-Gay bigotry.”

    Their problem is that they forget those words mean other things to other people. They GOP got very excited when Latinos were polled and put “Family Values” down as very important. What the GOP didn’t understand is that the Latinos Polled thought family values ACTUALLY had something to do with family and that it was referring to Schooling, head start programs maternity leave, but to the GOP all it means is Anti-Gay and Anti-Contraception.

  • JJ24

    I’d love to hear his explaination at how me having the same legal rights as him a facts his religious freedom/definition of marriage(it doesn’t).

    I am so sick of these people scream their religious freedom, how does giving everyone the same rights affect their religion or their religious views?

    Further no one is fighting for religious marriage, they are fight for civil which separation of church and state pretty much squashes the religious freedom argument.

  • BJ McFrisky

    @EGO: “Learn” is just a nice way of saying “flip-flopped.” C’mon, get wise.

    @masc4masc: You get it. I get it. A few others get it. Why is it the majority of the rest of them have blinders on? I suspect they’ve been so brainwashed by the likes of GLAAD that they truly believe anyone with an R after their name is the enemy.

  • masc4masc

    @Goforit: LOL you basically just admitted you and Bible-thumpers are sharing the same logic. Thanks for proving my point, buddy. ;-)

  • Cam

    @BJ McFrisky: said…

    “I suspect they’ve been so brainwashed by the likes of GLAAD that they truly believe anyone with an R after their name is the enemy”

    All you do is consistently scream that republicans are victims, and that gays are intolerant of them. But the funny thing is, you will attack Democrats for supposedly being anti-gay and then defend republicans who have said or done far worse.

    Just admit that your agenda is to only defend republicans, you do not care about gay rights or gay issues and are only here to shill for the republicans.

  • NiceNCool1

    You won’t see me speaking ill of religious groups that mind their own business, that cannot include a huge chunk of Christians.

  • masc4masc

    @NiceNCool1: You won’t see me speaking ill of the gays that don’t try to impose their agenda on me and my kids and keep that lifestyle to themselves; that cannot include a huge chunk of homosexuals.

    Homophobic or no?

  • cutemikey

    @BJ McFrisky: The difference is simple. Obama’s words are followed by ACTION. Rubio’s words go nowhere. Where in that speech do you see anything about remedying the “humiliation” felt by gays? Do you see anything about a policy change? So what exactly was the point of his speech, if not purely political — aka pandering? Think about it.

  • cutemikey

    @BJ McFrisky wrote:
    “Funny, this. Liberals are so simple-minded that they believe anyone not a Democrat is shifty and evil, but completely buy it when B.H. Obama initially states that marriage is between a man and a woman, and then “evolves” just before his second campaign.”
    Why are you projecting your exaggerations and broad generalizations (“Liberals are so simple-minded…”) onto others? Give me evidence that Liberals believe that all non-Democrats are “shifty and evil.” Provide some links and verifiable quotes. In terms of lgbt rights, there are many GOPers that we don’t find “shifty and evil.” Margaret Hoover, who spoke at a gay rally; Anna Navarro, GOP consultant and Harvard scholar; Rob Portman, whose son is gay; etc, etc. And BTW, non-Democrats include Independents, so think about your exaggerations before you post.

    As for Obama’s view, your point is meaningless unless you provide evidence to the contrary. Can you PROVE that his views on gay marriage today is the same as they were when he was in college? When he was a boy? When he was a law professor? Give me some quotes, legal writings, etc showing that his views were the same back then. Go ahead, do some work instead of just ranting.

    Finally, in terms of simple-mindedness, studies and surveys repeatedly show that college-educated Americans tend to be more liberal, and pro-lgbt — and indeed, more prone to CRITICALLY question authority. We saw it during the Vietnam War and we see it today, as LIBERALS blast Obama for his NSA policies. On the other hand, older, more insular and less educated Americans tend to be Conservatives. And many tend to rely on religion UNCRITICALLY for their world-view. Is that not “simple-mindedness”?

  • 1EqualityUSA

    Equal rights is not an “agenda.”

  • Andrew Yang

    Thanks so much for the insightful comments and feedback. Particularly Cam, DarkZephyr, BitterOldQueen and Cutemikey. Especially those who quieted that dunce and pedestrian person BJ McFrisky.

  • tjr101

    It’s customary for BlowJobMcFrisky to deflect and bring up Obama (he’s so obsessed with the president) and then disappear when people respond with facts.

  • Bauhaus

    There’s Rubio and his ilk, and then there is Jon Huntsman, who had this to say about gay marriage:

    Today we have an opportunity to do more: conservatives should start to lead again and push their states to join the nine others that allow all their citizens to marry. I’ve been married for 29 years. My marriage has been the greatest joy of my life. There is nothing conservative about denying other Americans the ability to forge that same relationship with the person they love.

    All Americans should be treated equally by the law, whether they marry in a church, another religious institution, or a town hall. This does not mean that any religious group would be forced by the state to recognize relationships that run counter to their conscience. Civil equality is compatible with, and indeed promotes, freedom of conscience.

    Marriage is not an issue that people rationalize through the abstract lens of the law; rather it is something understood emotionally through one’s own experience with family, neighbors, and friends. The party of Lincoln should stand with our best tradition of equality and support full civil marriage for all Americans.

    This is both the right thing to do and will better allow us to confront the real choice our country is facing: a choice between the Founders’ vision of a limited government that empowers free markets, with a level playing field giving opportunity to all, and a world of crony capitalism and rent-seeking by the most powerful economic interests.

  • BJ McFrisky

    @tjr101: A liberal wants facts? Don’t make me laugh.

  • Lovelife

    Is it possible to be “pro” something which doesn’t seem,at the base of it,to be suggestive of being “anti” something else? Yes. But Marco is arguing from a space of “scarcity”. This is where is errs.

    One can be “pro” authentic,full,vibrant living but that does not necessarily mean that one is against assisted death.

    The straights could be fearful that the marriage of same-sex couples will not give them a “one-up” on the privileges of marriage. I mean,god forbid they “run out”!!! :(

    People who owned slaves were fearful of having to “share” their hereditary white privileges with those that,by “law”,were deemed to be as equal as they are.The story continues today.

    The fear here is that there is not “enough”. Not “enough” privileges,not “enough” benefits,just not enough to go around for everyone.People are scraping at the bottom of the proverbial barrel.

    The fear of gay people getting married mirrors the fear of having immigrants enter the country. The “threat” of someone coming in and possessing something that is “yours”. Someone “out there”, someone “foreign” moving in on “your” turf and taking what little there is left of what “rightfully” belongs to you.

    “Marriage” does not belong to the straights as much as land does not belong to those that are born on it. It is for ALL to share and ALL to celebrate in. Sharing something does not “dilute” the value of something, but(actually) enhances it.

    Just because straights were the first to get married,it doesn’t mean that the right to marry should exclusively remain theirs.

    Native Americans were the 1st to inhabit the land now called the “USA”. But we all know that they haven’t called the shots as to how its run for a long, long time.

  • tjr101

    @BJ McFrisky: Facts tend to have a liberal bias deflector.

  • chakrakahn

    Oh. Fuck this douchebag.

  • transiteer

    It’s not discrimination against Christians (although there’s lots of reason to do that). It’s called “S-E-C-U-L-A-R-I-S-M”, which is fair to all. You’re free to practice your “religion” [term used loosley], but not Lord it over everyone else as though you’re in charge. You’re not. Nor should you ever, ever be! You’ve learned absolutely nothing from pretending to read that holy book, and you should be disgraced for your practices.

  • Chris

    I think Marco Rubio is just an embarrassment to everyone who voted for him.

  • EGO

    The statement Marco Rubio makes – “There is a growing intolerance on this issue, intolerance of those who continue to support traditional marriage,” is so hypocritical. Marco Rubio and those people of his ilk are so ignorant about the years of intolerance they have imposed upon the LGBT community.

    Fortunately, most Americans use their brain and are learning to support equality for all citizens.

Comments are closed.