Marco Rubio: 'Ignore' Gay Marriage Decision Because 'God's Rules Always Win'

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

This is nothing more than a way for him to publicly say he doesn't care about the issue anymore without pissing off conservative evangelicals.

No, he said he wants to overturn the Supreme Court decision legalizing gay marriage.  He would appoint a Supreme Court justice who would do that.  And, it's not just the gay marriage decision that falls if Marco Rubio gets a Supreme Court nominee.  If Marco Rubio gets a Supreme Court nominee, Lawrence v. Texas could go down as well.  That means gay sex could become illegal in states like Texas, Florida and Kansas.

This is not a trivia matter at all.  Progress has to be defended, it is in no way inevitable.

Perhaps Obama should publicly speculate that incinerating Marco Rubio with a hellfire missile is in accordance with God's Law?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

...Jesus also said "love thy neighbor as thyself"  and also made at least one other comment that can be seen as being in favor of gay rights.

I'm always a bit curious how "gay rights" and "marriage" have managed to be framed as one in the same. I'm of the opinion that gays should have access to the exact same legal standing as other protected groups, but I'm also of the opinion that the re-definition of the word "marriage" is not needed in order to do this. Of course, this is at odds with what gay people want, so naturally I'm painted as "anti-gay". Apparently, if you don't see the world as gay people say it should be, you are anti-gay, and if you don't see the world as the religious right say it should be, you are anti-God, so I suppose I have to be happy in my anti-gay/anti-God world...

So, you're strongly in favor of stoning non-virginal brides to death, incest, kidnapping and rape, polygamy, women as chattel, and legally banning divorce? Or is there some special reason why those re-definitions of marriage  were okay, but same-sex marriage is verboten?

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

So, you're strongly in favor of stoning non-virginal brides to death, incest, kidnapping and rape, polygamy, women as chattel, and legally banning divorce? Or is there some special reason why those re-definitions of marriage  were okay, but same-sex marriage is verboten?

Sorry, but the definition of something is different from the laws and customs which surround that thing. I don't believe marriage has ever been defined as the taking of women as chattel, or the kidnapping and rape of women, or the countless other things you choose to point to as evidence that the word "marriage" is completely subjective. Marriage as traditionally defined has a procreation aspect to it; you seem to be arguing that that has to change, while I am arguing that it doesn't (at least not to ensure the commonality of legal rights ensured for both straight and gay people).

Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765-1769)
Sir William Blackstone
http://lonang.com/library/reference/blackstone-commentaries-law-england/bla-115/

You must be logged in to read this quote.