Rubio: A Federal Marriage Amendment would step on the rights of states
Smith followed up: Where was Rubio on gay marriage?
“Increasingly, that’s an issue that states are deciding,” said Rubio. “Which is interesting. There’s an article today — I think it was in the New York Times — the administration has moved away from that position, in terms of the legal arguments that it’s making. Ultimately, I have a strong belief in what marriage should be and how to define it.”
Did that mean he opposed a Federal Marriage Amendment? “Look,” said Rubio, “I’ve always been uncomfortable with a federal constitutional amendment on anything, particularly on that, because it steps on the rights of states to define marriage. I think that’s a two-way street, though. I mean, if states define marriage as between one man and one woman, you’re gonna say to a lot of states that you respect the decisions they make. That includes a state like Florida, which passed a constitutional amendment saying marriage is between one man and one woman.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Even the liberal trolltards know history better than you, boy. We are not only your peers but your BETTERS.
You know, I wonder if your employer would like to know that he/she has a closet-racist traitor on the payroll…
MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 1:07 PM
Is that the only freedom you noticed Americans lost due to Lincoln?
You are an ignorant.
astonerii on February 6, 2013 at 1:07 PM
Says the bucktoothed hick who can’t write a coherent sentence.
I hope there’s three Americas when the dust settles: the USSA liberal dystopia, the conservative states, and Hicksabama where the likes of you can wave your racist dishrags and wear bedsheets all you like.
Because frankly was a mistake trying to bring you lot back into the Union. We should’ve just shot your ancestors and been done with it.
MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 1:12 PM
Were the states required to uphold the bill of rights in the Constitution of the United States of America before the war between the states? Was it after?
astonerii on February 6, 2013 at 1:12 PM
I was born in the north. Didn’t you just say location of birth had nothing to do with… Oh, I see, you are being Racist, where I am only being accused of being so by the real racist…
LOL are you awake?
astonerii on February 6, 2013 at 1:14 PM
You mean the states where ‘rights’ were not applied to some people to the point they were being treated to imagination-defying levels of horror?
MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 1:15 PM
… and the anti-gay marriage, “gayfia”-opposing side dissolves into a volatile rift of Southern Pride. Their tender union of mutual homophobia and gay-bashing ignored as they explore contemporary topics of racism, close-mindedness and diversity.
Let’s watch with interest.
ZachV on February 6, 2013 at 1:20 PM
Answer the question… because it goes to the heart of the original statement.
Before the war, the states were not subject to the bill of rights. They could trample them ALL THEY WANTED and could get away with based on their voters. I had not one thing to say about whether they were right, only were they more free before the war or the same?
Before the war, states had rights…
After the war, states were subjects and made servants of the federal government. Yeah, its gotten worse over the 150 years since, but that was the start of the slide into where we are today.
The argument I made was, will passing a marriage amendment be more or less destructive of states rights than the amendments that came after the war…
You can read everything you want into that you want. It is your life, your own personal world and you are the only ignorant loser still fighting some made up racist argument. Just goes to show how stupid a person can be.
I think i figured it out. You know I am right, but are not willing to admit it, so are throwing everything you can out there to distract… weak liberal progressive of you to do so…
astonerii on February 6, 2013 at 1:22 PM
The “rift” consists of one self-hating northerner who needs nothing more than for his keyboard to break, dipstick. Possibly two if Dumb-te shows up.
I have a better idea you jizz-gargling pervert: let’s watch with interest as you get that smirk wiped off your face by everyone who doesn’t want to treat the institution of marriage as toilet paper.
MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 1:27 PM
Summarized.
MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM
Were states required to observe the bill of rights before the war?
Were they required to observe the bill of rights after the war?
Not willing to answer because you know I am right?
Seems to me that you are the one that cannot hear, are willfully ignorant and have no desire to have an adult conversation.
By the way, it is usually those who see racism everywhere they look that actually ARE the racists. It is just a fact of life…
astonerii on February 6, 2013 at 1:34 PM
What socon isn’t an overreach? It’s what makes them relics from a bygone era.
Moesart on February 6, 2013 at 1:54 PM
It requires 38 out of 50 states to sign and pass and Constitutional amendment so if 12 states decide not to sign and 38 did sign then these 12 states would have their State Rights infringed upon… If you are a conservative you should advocate more for State Rights and less for Federal Power…
mnjg on February 6, 2013 at 1:56 PM
If it is not passed, and the supreme court says other states must recognize other state’s same sex unions, then far more than 12 states have had their RIGHTS infringed. As you were saying. With the amendment at most 12 would be overruled. With out it, as many as 49 could be over ruled.
Nice argument, too bad it does not work in your favor.
astonerii on February 6, 2013 at 2:01 PM
Oh, how we all can belong to such a free country.
Where we can all agree that LGBTs are ‘jizz-gargling pervert’ mafioso, and that the South shall rise again from under Northern oppression. Three cheers for far-right from this libertarian.
ZachV on February 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM
Says a petulant member of a tiny minority group bullying it’s way to power.
MelonCollie on February 6, 2013 at 2:08 PM
Ever notice how no one here besides Honda and stangull or whatever his name is (both Obama voters, IIRC) treat you with any degree of seriousness? That’s right, only the Obama-voting cranks think you’re smart. Congrats, clown.
crrr6 on February 6, 2013 at 2:09 PM
Since when did amending the Constitution constitute an infringement of anyone’s rights?
If an amendment is passed using the constitutionally-determined amendment process, then the result of that process is necessarily constitutional. It is impossible to have an unconstitutional amendment. Even if the text of the amendment is believed by some to contradict other text retained in the Constitution, it would still be constitutional (it would however cause countless judicial headaches).
If an amendment removes a theretofore-enjoyed privilege of certain individuals or states, that would not be an infringement of a right, since that right would instantaneously cease to exist with the passage of the amendment that ends it. You cannot infringe a non-existent right.
steebo77 on February 6, 2013 at 2:15 PM
Popularity is a measure of correctness? Is that how science and knowledge are to be judged? My my, such a progressive way of determining things.
I tend to think that history books written at the time or very shortly after the events are the best place to find facts and base evidence on.
You will likely never obtain PEER status to me. You pride yourself on being equally ignorant.
astonerii on February 6, 2013 at 2:18 PM
Without weighing in on anything else astonerii has said, I would like to point out the following quote from handy-dandy Wikipedia:
steebo77 on February 6, 2013 at 2:22 PM
Actually, rights are given to us by our creator, and the constitution does not create or destroy those rights.
What these people are talking about are “rights” granted by the state.
Gays want the state to grant them a power that is not a natural right, the right to be given special privilege by other citizens of the state, privileges that the citizens would grant them if they were earned.
I have the right to free speech, but not the right to media access free of charge.
I have the right of religious practice, but not the right to be free from religion.
I have the right to bear arms, but not the right to have free arms.
All your rights can be enjoyed in the absence of others. You have no right that lays claim on another person’s wealth.
astonerii on February 6, 2013 at 2:26 PM
And those “rights” are more accurately called privileges. When I spoke of rights ceasing to exist, that’s what I meant.
steebo77 on February 6, 2013 at 2:32 PM
works for me.
astonerii on February 6, 2013 at 2:32 PM
The only people who think you know what you’re talking about are Obama voters. Own it.
crrr6 on February 6, 2013 at 2:36 PM
Supreme court agrees with me.
Also note, not all of the supreme court are Obama Voters… Just in case you wanted to go that route..
The basis of which is the 14th Amendment… What exactly was the 14th amendment based on?
So again, you are arguing that the 14th Amendment and its incorporation usage does not infringe on STATES’ rights more than a single issue Marriage definition Amendment?
LOL,
astonerii on February 6, 2013 at 2:56 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2