Marco Rubio is Sounding Weak on Marriage

Scott Walker had to do it on evolution. Rand Paul had to do it over his treatment of female reporters. And now Marco Rubio has had to do it on marriage. Others will get their turn. The liberal media will make sure of that. In fact, every serious GOP presidential candidate will have to answer liberal "gotcha" questions multiple times over. One would think they would have learned how by now. If you're a conservative, you don't win elections by answering such questions in a manner that you think will please liberals.

When asked by a liberal reporter from Fusion this week whether or not he would attend the same-sex "wedding" of a homosexual friend, family-member, or co-worker, Rubio replied, "If it’s somebody in my life that I love or care for, of course I would."

Rubio went on to say, "I’m not going to hurt them simply because I disagree with a choice they’ve made or because I disagree with a decision they’ve made, or whatever it may be. Ultimately, if someone that you care for and is part of your family has decided to move in one direction or another or feels that way because of who they love, you respect that because you love them."

Rubio's comments sent many a liberal into their "hypocrisy" dance, and at the same time, satisfied many conservatives. Guy Benson of Townhall.com said that Rubio "gamely" addressed the gotcha-style question with a "serious, compassionate answer." I don't doubt that Senator Rubio has "compassion" in his heart on this matter. However, his compassion is misguided. Given the amount of time a U.S. presidential candidate that is a conservative and a Christian should have spent on this matter, I expected better.

I would never attend an event--family, friend, or otherwise--that celebrated homosexual acts. The reason that the law should not recognize homosexual "marriage" is that such unions are immoral and have tragic consequences on many levels. If you fail to recognize that in your personal life, why should you be trusted to legislate on such grave matters?

Additionally, according to Breitbart, Rubio and Rand Paul did not sign the Congressional friend-of-the-court brief requesting that the Supreme Court not force a redefinition of marriage upon the whole nation. Why did Rubio and Paul not take such an opportunity on this grave matter? Again, according to Breitbart, "The Paul camp has not been willing to go on the record and the Rubio campaign claims his views are well known and offered a handful of his public statements. However, the Rubio campaign did not answer why he did not sign the brief and take his views directly to the Supreme Court."

I like both Rubio and Paul as strong conservative presidential candidates. However, as ridiculous as it is, the legal definition of marriage is a terribly important issue in our time. Marriage is the oldest institution in the history of humanity. Marriage as the union of one man and one woman is one of the oldest truths revealed by God. If ANYTHING is true, marriage as God gave it is true. Any candidate worthy of my vote better acknowledge this and live it.

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com