Even though Clarence Thomas has threatened to “revisit” Obergefell v. Hodges, the landmark SCOTUS ruling which legalized same-sex marriage, even though Thomas has at least four conservative Christian partners on the court chomping at the bit to reverse every jot and tittle of progress made towards social justice in the last fifty years, and even though 47 Republicans in the House joined with Democrats to pass the Respect for Marriage Act, which would protect Gay marriages from encroachments by the high court, Marco Rubio vows he will not vote for the bill, saying it is not needed and calling it “a waste of time.”
“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.”
Uh, Marco that is BS.
Unless your gay friends, of which I am sure you have many, are driving Monster Trucks or gas guzzling Semis, gas prices should be of little import to them if their right to marry whom they wish is threatened. Of more import to you than the rights of LBTGQ voters, I suspect, is the approval of the rabid GOP base voters, whom you wish to placate with this statement.
“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.”
Cute, Marco.
You are aware, of course, that before Obergefell, the Pope and The Dali Llama and Jesus Christ himself, working in concert, couldn’t have married a same-sex couple in Vegas, Florida, or anywhere else in the U.S. That is exactly why we need to pass this legislation to protect these marriages from the court.
And that is why we will need ten Republican votes for cloture to stave off a filibuster from the yahoo states Senators.
“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.”
But the “current” Constitution does provide each citizen, gay or straight, Marco, equal protection under the law.
If everyone, including red state legislatures and the friggin’ Supreme Court of the United States truly honored that Constitution, The Respect for Marriage Act, The Voting Rights Act et. al would not need to be codified into new law. But they don’t, so we are gonna need your cowardly ass to vote correctly on this.
If you have the time.
Rubio doesn’t know anyone who will tell him how they really feel.
Rubio is a clown
Come on. Let’s give this suit the respect he deserves. After all a pissant is a pissant is a pissant. He’s consistently a pissant. Is Marco his real name? Sad. You can’t overcome that by being a pissant. Marco. Maybe you will be kidnapped by a gay motorcycle gang who dislikes pissants. We can only hope & pray.
Look at it from his perspective-Val (that’s the dem opponent I think???) is pulling ahead of him in polls so he’s thinking he might need to look for another job after November.
Rubio might want to remember that, until Obergefell, same-sex couples in the states that *did* actually allow them to marry were required to file TWO SETS of income taxes–one for their states and another for the Feds. The states allowed them to file jointly as a couple (if they really wanted to–just as straight couples get the option to file jointly or as individuals) but the Feds BECAUSE OF LAWS ENACTED BY CONGRESS would not allow same-sex couples to file jointly; they had to file as individual taxpayers. In other words, even if their states allowed them to get married, the Feds didn’t recognize it. Nor did the Feds recognize the right of same-sex couples who were legally married under their state’s laws to inherit their partner’s Social Security benefits–another provision that required Congressional involvement to change.
And, again, why should same-sex couples be the only ones to lose out because of Thomas and the other Federalist Society judges? I say that the first attempt to overturn Obergefell needs an immediate response by a lawsuit banning interracial marriages. Make Clarence Thomas realize that his bigotry needs to be paid in full. Some states had removed their bans on interracial marriage long before Loving came along but there were plenty of states that still enforced their laws. Alabama had a referendum back in 2000 to *formally* end its own ban on interracial marriage and the referendum passed by 60-40, meaning 40% of voters wanted to retain the ban in the State’s Constitution even though SCOTUS had ruled the ban null and void more than 3 decades earlier. (And it had only been a few years before that when a high school principal in the small town of Wedowee tried to enforce a rule that prevented interracial high-school couples from participating in their prom; a biracial girl had been asked by her “pure-white” boyfriend but the principal basically told her that it wasn’t his fault that her parents had “made a mistake” in having her and, if she wanted to go to the prom, she had to go with another biracial student–not that there were any other such students.)