So on Wednesday, Jorge Ramos played gotcha with Florida Senator Marco Rubio about whether he would attend a same sex wedding ceremony if it was a close friend or family member. Rubio answered the question about as deftly and honestly as one can.

On Thursday’s Hugh Hewitt Show, Texas Senator Ted Cruz and former Pennsylvania Senator, one declared GOP presidential candidate and one expected to join the fray, both took a whack at the attendance question, but with some very appropriate context thrown in. As a prelude to the context question, here’s how Hugh and Mark Steyn discussed it.

HH: Now here’s my frustration. I talked with Lindsey Graham, and some of that got picked up, and I asked him the question which is are we more susceptible to a mass casualty 9/11 attack today than we were six and a half years ago, and he said absolutely, we are. At the same time that was going on, Jake Tapper asked Marco Rubio would he go to a gay wedding, and Marco Rubio said yes. Today, I’m going to ask Ted Cruz and Rick Santorum the same question, but in the context of what is more important – knowing if they’d go to the wedding, or whether they would destroy the Islamic State before they throw hundreds of more gay men from towers to their death. And I am guaranteeing you, because I already see it, we prerecorded those, the answer that Rick Santorum gives will get more attention than Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz, all of them talking about terrorism. It’s really an upside down world.

MS: Yeah, and it’s a slightly faintly unreal world. In a way, we’ve moved on from same sex weddings where we’re talking now about transgendered bathrooms. And I’m sure we’ll be talking about transgendered bathrooms when the mullahs nuke us. These are like first-world indulgences at a time when large chunks of the map are going backwards. And I think back to that, the mall seizure in Kenya a couple of years ago. A lot of your listeners don’t pay any attention to Kenya. Who cares? It’s East Africa. They’re all crazy over there. Well, they’re not, actually. That was a sophisticated, first-world, upscale mall. And the idea that one day slaughter descends out of the blue and there’s corpses all over the floor. That actually is a metaphor for what’s going on in the world. You know, we’re a fabulous boutique, and there are dark, primal forces out there that want to just smash that boutique. And the idea that we can somehow live as an upscale, little Monte Carlo or Switzerland, and just obsess about transgendered bathrooms while the rest of the planet goes to hell is completely ridiculous.

Here’s how Ted Cruz answered the question.



And here is how Rick Santorum answered it.



But wait! There’s more!

There was another interesting compare and contrast between the two would-be contenders, especially on the issue of enforcement of the federal drug laws, which in the wake of Colorado and Washington States marijuana laws have caused the libertarian seam in the Republican Party to become a bit frayed. Here’s how Senator Cruz answered it.



An hour later, channeling a bit of the answer Hugh got from New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, Rick Santorum said he would enforce the federal drug laws.

HH: Okay, let me move on, then, to the next divisive question which is dividing Republicans left and right, which is the dope laws, or I’m told I can’t call it dope anymore, the pot laws of Colorado and Washington State. The President is being criticized by a lot of people on our side for not enforcing the immigration laws. And I criticize him for not enforcing the federal drug laws. Chris Christie said he’d enforce them. Marco Rubio said he’d enforce them. Ted Cruz believes in the state option. I think Senator Paul does as well, I’m not sure. Where’s Rick Santorum on this?

RS: I don’t know what you mean about the state option. What’s that mean?

HH: That means that they get to go their own way on dope. That’s what Senator Cruz basically just told me, is his view is. I think that’s a fair characterization of what he said.

RS: And well, look, I think federal laws should be enforced, and I think Colorado is violating the federal law. And if we have controlled substances, they’re controlled substances for a reason. The federal law is there for a reason, and the states shouldn’t have the option to violate federal law.

HH: That’s what I think, but it is dividing the party because of our libertarians, right?

RS: Well, as Abraham Lincoln said, you know, states don’t have the right to wrong. If there’s a federal law in place, then we need to either change the federal law to provide waivers to the states to be able to do that. But the president shouldn’t, as he has on numerous occasions, decide what laws he’s going to enforce unilaterally, and what laws he’s not going to enforce. The laws are in place. If anybody, I think, running for the Republican nomination wants to say a state option, that means that they should actually put forth legislation as president that gives them that option, because the current law doesn’t do that.

Now these reactions will spark a lot of praise and criticism, depending upon your perspective. But keep in mind, unlike previous primary cycles, there is at least an attempt by some in the media to ask serious questions of all the contenders about issues foreign and domestic that the base cares about, so that conservative primary voters will be more informed about what the entire field really thinks. And that’s a very good thing.