Rubio Participated In National Organization For Marriage Robocalls Against Marriage Equality. According to the Washington Blade: “Rising Republican star Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is speaking out against same-sex marriage in robocalls being sent to voters in states deciding the issue at the ballot and presidential election swing states, according to an anti-gay group. The National Organization for Marriage, one of the major groups opposing marriage equality, included Rubio in a press release as among those making calls against same-sex marriage along with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Focus on the Family co-founder James Dobson.” [Washington Blade, 11/2/2012 ]



Rubio Said He Had “Always Been Uncomfortable With A Federal Constitutional Amendment On Anything.” In an interview with BuzzFeed, Senator Rubio said “I’ve always been uncomfortable with a federal constitutional amendment on anything, particularly on that, because I think it steps on the rights of states to define marriage. I think that’s a two-way street, though. If states define marriage as between one man and one woman, if you’re going to say it belongs to the states, then you have to respect whatever decision they make.” [BuzzFeed, 2/6/2013 ; VIDEO]



Rubio Said He Had A “Strong Belief” That Marriage Was Between A Man And A Woman And “That’s An Issue That The States Are Deciding.”.” According to Buzzfeed “Asked if he had a strong view one way or another on the issue [of same-sex couples], Rubio said, ‘That goes to the core issue of marriage in general, and I think, increasingly, that’s an issue that states are deciding,’ noting his ‘strong belief’ in marriage being only between a man and a woman. Although that answer could suggest that Rubio thinks a state’s decision whether to allow same-sex couples to marry should control whether they are treated as married for immigration purposes, the federal prohibition on recognizing same-sex couples’ marriages under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — which Rubio has supported in the past — doesn’t allow the federal government to acknowledge the states’ decisions.” [Buzzfeed, 2/6/2013 ; VIDEO]



Rubio Said That The Supreme Court Should Not Have “Second-Guessed” The American People On Marriage. The News-Press reported that Senator Rubio said, “I believe the Supreme Court made a serious mistake (Wednesday) when it overstepped its important, but limited role. I do not believe that President Clinton and overwhelming bipartisan majorities of both houses of Congress acted with malice or intent to 'demean' a class of people when they adopted a uniform definition of marriage for the purposes of federal law. The Court should not have second-guessed the will of the American people acting through their elected representatives without firm constitutional justifications. The sweeping language of (Wednesday's) majority opinion is more troubling than the ruling itself as it points to further interference by the Court in the years to come.” [The News-Press, 6/27/2013]



Rubio Said On Proposition 8 He Believed The Supreme Court Overstepped On The Defense Against Marriage Act. According to the New York Times: “After the court's rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 this summer, Senator Marco Rubio issued a statement saying the court had ‘overstepped’ on DOMA. But, he added: ‘I do not believe there exists a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Therefore, I am glad the Supreme Court did not create one in the Proposition 8 case.’” [New York Times, 11/2/2013]



Rubio Said Marriage Had Always Been Regulated By The States. The Examiner reported: “Marriage has always been something that has been regulated by the states,’ Rubio told the Examiner. ‘Some Republicans support those changes in state laws [supporting gay marriage], and they certainly have the right to define marriage differently. That's reflective of how public opinion in America is moving.’” [The Examiner, 6/26/2014]



Rubio Claimed That If To Be Against Marriage Equality Was “Bigotry,” Then President Obama Was A Bigot Before 2012. According to Politico: “Rubio reminded the audience that President Barack Obama was among those who didn't support gay marriage -- at least publicly -- until the months leading up to his re-election. ‘If support for traditional marriage is bigotry, then Barack Obama was a bigot until just before the 2012 election,’ he said.” [Politico, 7/23/2014]



Rubio: “There Is A Growing Intolerance On This Issue… Intolerance Towards Those Who Continue To Support Traditional Marriage.” “Our nation has in the past demonstrated a tremendous capacity to work through issues such as this. And I believe it will again. Doing so will require those of us who support traditional marriage to respect those who support same sex marriage. But it will also require those who support same sex marriage to respect those of us who support traditional marriage, for tolerance is also a two way street. However, today, there is a growing intolerance on this issue… intolerance towards those who continue to support traditional marriage. We have seen the push to remove the CEO of Mozilla because, in 2008, he made a small donation to support Proposition 8 in California, which would have upheld the traditional definition of marriage. We have seen the CEO of Starbucks tell a shareholder who supports traditional marriage that he should sell his shares and invest in some other company. And we’ve seen Chick-fil-A attacked and boycotted due to its CEO giving an honest answer to a question regarding his deeply held religious beliefs. And I promise you that even before this speech is over, I will be attacked as a hater, a bigot or someone who is anti-gay. This intolerance in the name of tolerance is hypocrisy. Supporting the definition of marriage as one man and one woman is not anti-gay, it is pro-traditional marriage. And if support for traditional marriage is bigotry, then Barack Obama was a bigot until just before the 2012 election.” [Marco Rubio, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, 7/23/2014]



Rubio Opposes Marriage Equality “Not Because I Seek To Discriminate Against People Who Love Someone Of The Same, But Because I Believe That The Union Of One Man And One Woman Is A Special Relationship That Has Proven To Be Of Great Benefit To Our Society, Our Nation And Our People And Deserves To Be Elevated In Our Laws.” “Many committed gay and lesbian couples feel humiliated by the law’s failure to recognize their relationship as a marriage and supporters of same sex marriage argue that laws banning same sex marriage are discriminatory. I respect their arguments and I would concede that they pose a legitimate question for lawmakers and for society. But there’s another side to this debate. You see, thousands of years of human history have shown that the ideal setting for children to grow up is with a mother and a father committed to one another, living together and sharing the responsibility of raising their children. And since traditional marriage has such an extraordinary record of success at raising children into strong and successful adults, states in our country have long elevated this institution and set it apart in our laws. This is the definition of marriage that I personally support, not because I seek to discriminate against people who love someone of the same, but because I believe that the union of one man and one woman is a special relationship that has proven to be of great benefit to our society, our nation and our people and deserves to be elevated in our laws.” [Marco Rubio, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, 7/23/2014]

Rubio: “Americans, Like Myself, Who Support Keeping The Traditional Definition Of Marriage Have A Right To Work To Keep The Traditional Definition Of Marriage In Our Laws Without Seeing That Overturned By A Judge.” “Today, public opinion polls show there is a growing acceptance in society of the idea that marriage should be redefined to include the union of two adults of the same sex. And as a result, a number of state legislatures have changed their laws to redefine marriage. States have always regulated marriage in America, and state legislatures have a right, a constitutional right to change those regulations. But that right to define and regulate marriage is a two-way street. A majority of states still have laws that define marriage as one man and one woman. In some, like my home state of Florida, voters placed that definition in our state constitution. Just as states have a right to redefine marriage to include same sex marriage, they also have right to continue to define it as between one man and one woman. But now, all across this country, we have judges overturning state laws and defining marriage and redefining marriage from the bench. Just last week, in my home state, a local judge overturned the decision of Florida’s voters to define marriage as one man and one woman. Those who support same sex marriage have a right to lobby their state legislatures to change state laws. But Americans, like myself, who support keeping the traditional definition of marriage also have a right to work to keep the traditional definition of marriage in our laws without seeing that overturned by a judge.” [Marco Rubio, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, 7/23/2014]



Rubio Suggested Legislatures Had A Right To Work Against Marriage Equality Without Them Being Overturned By A Judge. While giving a speech at Catholic University of America, Senator Rubio said, “Americans like myself who support keeping the traditional definition of marriage also have a right to work to keep traditional definition of marriage in our laws without seeing them overturned by a judge.” [Politico, 7/23/2014]



Rubio Suggested That Those Against Marriage Equality Faced “Intolerance.” The Washington Times reported that Senator Rubio “complained that those who question gay unions have faced ‘intolerance’ for their views from same-sex marriage activists. ‘Even before this speech is over, I will be attacked as someone who is a hater or a bigot or someone who is anti-gay,’ he predicted.” [Washington Times, 7/24/2014]



Rubio Said If The Supreme Court Ruled In Favor Of Marriage Equality Opponents Would Be “In The Same Boats As Opponents Of Roe v. Wade.” According to CNN: “Rubio said if ultimately the Supreme Court issued a ruling protecting gay marriage as constitutional, opponents of gay marriage would be ‘in the same boat as opponents of Roe v. Wade,’ the SCOTUS decision that established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.'” [CNN, 1/7/2015 ]

Rubio Clarified That State Officials Had No Option But To Abide By The Courts Decision. According to CNN Senator Rubio, “clarified during his Wednesday phone conversation that he felt his remarks did not constitute a shift from his July speech --- that while he felt the court was mistaken, the state's officials had no option but to abide by it. ‘I think [the court's decision] is wrong, both on legal principles, and I also think it's the wrong way to’ reverse Florida's gay marriage ban, which was approved by voters in 2008. He said the proper way to overturn a gay marriage ban is to offer an opposing ballot measure for the state's voters to again consider.” [CNN, 1/7/2015]



Rubio Thought Clerks Did Not Have Choice In Issuing Marriage Licenses Unless There Was A Stay By The Court. According to CNN Senator Rubio, on clerks having an option to follow the court’s decision to issue marriage licenses said, “I don't think [Florida's] clerks have a choice, at this stage, given that the ruling is there unless there's a stay.” [CNN, 1/7/2015]



Rubio Said Future Supreme Court Could Overturn Marriage Ruling. According to CNN: “Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said in an interview with CNN Wednesday that if the Supreme Court eventually rules that same-sex marriage is constitutional, Americans would have to abide by that ruling. ‘I wouldn't agree with their ruling, but that would be the law of the land that we would have to follow until it's somehow reversed — either by a future Supreme Court, or a U.S. constitutional amendment, which I don't think is realistic or foreseeable,’ he said.” [CNN, 1/7/2015; VIDEO]



Rubio Said That “I Don’t Agree The Courts Have The Power [To Overturn State Same-Sex Marriage Bans]” And Changes Should Only Come Through Legislature Or Constitutional Amendment. In a brief interview Wednesday, [Rubio] argued that a federal court’s move undermines the will of the 62 percent of Florida voters who approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage six years ago...“If they wanted to change that law, they should have gone to the legislature or back to the Constitution and try to change it,” Rubio said. “I don’t agree we should be trying to make those changes through the courts.”.... But Rubio added: “While I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, while people want to change that law — and a lot of people apparently do – there is a way to do that. You go through the legislature, or you go on on the ballot, but I don’t agree the courts have the power to do this. [Politico, 1/7/2015]



Rubio Said “At A Time When The American Family Is Threatened As Never Before, Redefining [Marriage] Away From The Union Of One Man And One Woman Only Promises To Weaken It As A Child-Rearing, Values-Conveying Institution.” According to Politico, Rubio said in his book, “At a time when the American family is threatened as never before, redefining it away from the union of one man and one woman only promises to weaken it as a child-rearing, values-conveying institution.” Rubio defends his personal opposition to gay marriage, but he said each state should have the right to choose its path on the topic. He also stresses that he opposes discrimination and harassment of people based on their sexual preference.” [Politico, 1/8/2015; Marco Rubio, American Dreams: Restoring Economic Opportunity for Everyone, 2012]



Rubio Suggested Legislatures Had A Right To Work Against Marriage Equality Without Them Being Over-turned By A Judge. While giving a speech at Catholic University of America, Senator Rubio said, “Americans like myself who support keeping the traditional definition of marriage also have a right to work to keep traditional definition of marriage in our laws without seeing them overturned by a judge.” [Politico, 7/23/2014]

Rubio Clarified That State Officials Had No Option But To Abide By The Courts Decision. According to CNN, Senator Rubio “clarified during his Wednesday phone conversation that he felt his remarks did not constitute a shift from his July speech --- that while he felt the court was mistaken, the state's officials had no option but to abide by it. ‘I think [the court's decision] is wrong, both on legal principles, and I also think it's the wrong way to’ reverse Florida's gay marriage ban, which was approved by voters in 2008. He said the proper way to overturn a gay marriage ban is to offer an opposing ballot measure for the state's voters to again consider.” [CNN, 1/7/2015]

According to CNN, Senator Rubio “clarified during his Wednesday phone conversation that he felt his remarks did not constitute a shift from his July speech --- that while he felt the court was mistaken, the state's officials had no option but to abide by it. ‘I think [the court's decision] is wrong, both on legal principles, and I also think it's the wrong way to’ reverse Florida's gay marriage ban, which was approved by voters in 2008. He said the proper way to overturn a gay marriage ban is to offer an opposing ballot measure for the state's voters to again consider.” [CNN, 1/7/2015] Rubio Thought Clerks Did Not Have Choice In Issuing Marriage Licenses Unless There Was A Stay By The Court. According to CNN, Senator Rubio “clarified during his Wednesday phone conversation that he felt his remarks did not constitute a shift from his July speech --- that while he felt the court was mistaken, the state's officials had no option but to abide by it. ‘I think [the court's decision] is wrong, both on legal principles, and I also think it's the wrong way to’ reverse Florida's gay marriage ban, which was approved by voters in 2008. He said the proper way to overturn a gay marriage ban is to offer an opposing ballot measure for the state's voters to again consider.” [CNN, 1/7/2015]

Rubio Would Not Accept “That Belief In Traditional Marriage Equates To Bigotry And Hatred.” According to the Tampa Bay Times, Senator Rubio said, “The trend that I will not accept, however, is the growing attitude that belief in traditional marriage equates to bigotry and hatred. Just as California has a right to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, Florida has a right to define it as one man and one woman.” [Tampa Bay Times, 1/8/2015]



Rubio Believed In Definition Of A Marriage As “One Man And One Woman.” According to the Tampa Bay Times, Senator Rubio said, “Thousands of years of human history have taught us that the ideal setting for children to grow up in is with a mother and a father committed to each other, living together and sharing the responsibility of raising their children. It is for this reason and this reason alone that I continue to believe marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. It is neither my place nor my intention to dictate to anyone who they are allowed to love or live with.” [Tampa Bay Times, 1/8/2015]



Rubio Said He Did Not Believe There Was A “U.S. Constitutional Right To Same-Sex Marriage.” According to Stuart News: “‘I do not believe that there is a U.S. constitutional right to same-sex marriage,’ Rubio said Wednesday. ‘If a state wants to change its marriage laws, it should do so by petitioning their elected representatives in the legislatures, and in the case of Florida, by placing on the ballot a question on the issue.’” [The Stuart News, 1/11/2015]



Rubio Hoped Florida Attorney General Bondi Continued Her Fight Against Marriage Equality. According to Stuart News: “During an interview with reporters Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio said he hopes Bondi continues her fight against gay marriage.” [The Stuart News, 1/11/2015]



Rubio Said That Marriage Was Defined “As The Union Of One Man And One Woman,” But Called For The Supreme Court Decision To Be Respected. According to CNN: “The Florida freshman senator recently told CNN that he believes ‘the institution of marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman,’ but called for the Supreme Court's decision to be respected -- even if that decision is to allow same-sex marriage everywhere.” [CNN, 1/25/2015]

Rubio Said He Did Not Think It Was Realistic To Overturn The Supreme Court Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Through Constitutional Amendment. Rubio told CNN: “I wouldn't agree with their ruling [on same-sex marriage], but that would be the law of the land that we would have to follow until it's somehow reversed -- either by a future Supreme Court, or a U.S. constitutional amendment, which I don't think is realistic or foreseeable.” [CNN, 1/25/2015]

Rubio Was Called A “Real Marriage Champion” By The National Organization For Marriage. The National Organization for Marriage released a statement that read, “With a solid pro-marriage majority in both the House and the US Senate, populated by real marriage champions like Representatives Raul Labrador and John Fleming in the House and Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and newly elected Thom Tillis and Tom Cotton in the Senate, we are in a great position to advance critical legislation.” [The National Organization for Marriage News Release, 1/30/2015]



Rubio Respected The Court Ruling On Striking Down The Defense Of Marriage Act, But Said It Differed With His Personal Views. The Boston Herald reported: “Some GOP hopefuls are already seeking political cover should the court follow its own logic in the 2013 case that struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act because it had ‘the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure’ married gays’ and lesbians’ personhood and dignity.’ Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio all say they respect court rulings, even if they differ from their personal views.” [Boston Herald, 2/2/2015]



Rubio Said “States Are Going To Have To Comply With Whatever” The Supreme Court Rules On Same-Sex Marriage. According to ABC News, “Rubio continued: ‘There's going to be a Supreme Court ruling in June of this year so they say and I think that would answer a lot of questions about the future of that question in our country and I think that unless that case is overturned by a future Supreme Court or by a constitutional amendment, which I don't see as likely, states are going to have to comply with whatever that ruling is.’” [ABC News, 2/10/2015]



Rubio Said That Although He Didn’t Know The Legal Arguments Alabama Was Using To Justify Non-Compliance With Federal Court Ruling, He Believed States Have The Right To Define Marriage Any Way They Choose.” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., declined to comment on the specific case in Alabama, but noted that states will have to comply with what the Supreme Court decides on same-sex marriage this summer. ‘I've just read the headlines about what's happening in Alabama, so I'm not quite sure what the details are with regards to what the legal arguments the state is using as to why they don't need to comply with it,’ Rubio said. ‘I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. I believe states - through their legal process, through their legislative process - have the right to define it any way they choose, although I would strongly advocate for what I believe should be traditional marriage.’” [ABC News, 2/10/2015]



Rubio Said “If A Majority Of People In Any Given State In This Country Petition Their Legislature To Change The Definition Of Marriage [To Include Same-Sex Couples] That’ll Be The Law Of The Land. And That Is What It Is.” In an interview with NPR, when asked about what ground opponents of marriage equality had given the rising majority of support for same-sex marriage, Rubio said: “First of all, if the majority of Americans support gay marriage, then you'll see it reflected in changes in state law, which has always regulated marriage. And so at the end of the day, if a majority of people in any given state in this country petition their legislature to change the definition of marriage to include the marriage of two people of the same sex, that'll be the law of the land. And that is what it is.” [NPR , 4/13/2015; AUDIO]

Rubio Said He Never Supported A Federal Constitutional Amendment To Define Marriage Because He Believes States Can Define Marriage And If People Want Marriage Equality They Can Petition Their State Legislatures. Asked about his opposition to same-sex marriage on CNN, Rubio said, “Well, a couple of points, number one, that is an issue that will largely be determined at the state level since marriage laws have always been defined by the states. I'm not, for example, ever supported a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage, because I believe states define marriage in their laws. And if in fact people feel that way as that poll says, then they can petition their state legislature to change the law.” [CNN, The Lead With Jake Tapper, 4/14/2015; VIDEO]



Asked About His Opposition To Marriage Equality Put Him In The Minority, Rubio Said “Well, They’re A Large Minority…We’re In A Republic. If You Want To Change The Marriage Laws Of Your State….Get Your Legislators To Change It.” Asked by CNN if Rubio’s opposition to marriage equality despite it’s popularity made him the candidate of yesterday, Rubio said, “The second point I would make is, I think there's still a significant number of Americans that believe that the definition of marriage should be that of one man and one woman as it has been for thousands of years. And that continues today.” TAPPER: “But, they're a minority.” RUBIO: “Well, they're a large minority. In essence still parts of this country that believe that way, but irrespective, we're in a republic. If you want to change the marriage laws of your state, go to your state legislature and get your legislators to change it. I don't believe the court system is the appropriate way to do it and I don't believe Washington and the Supreme Court is the appropriate way to do that.” [CNN, The Lead With Jake Tapper, 4/14/2015; VIDEO]



Rubio Said Despite Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage, He Would Attend A Same-Sex Wedding, Likened It To Divorce And Second Weddings. Asked by Fusion’s Jorge Ramos whether he would attend a same-sex wedding given his opposition to marriage equality, Rubio said “‘If there’s somebody that I love that’s in my life, I don’t necessarily have to agree with their decisions or the decisions they’ve made to continue to love them and participate in important events,’ Rubio said. He compared it to attending ‘second marriages,’ which are not strictly allowed the Catholic faith. ‘If it’s somebody in my life that I care for, of course I would,’ Rubio reiterated on the question of attending gay weddings. ‘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.…. ‘If someone gets divorced, I’m not going to stop loving them,’ he said.” [Mediaite, 4/15/2015; Fusion, 4/15/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Said “I Don’t Think Same-Sex Marriage Is A Constitutional Right.” On CBS’s Face The Nation, Rubio said, “Well, first, it's not that I'm against gay marriage. I believe the definition of the institution of marriage should be between one man and one woman. States have always regulated marriage. And if a state wants to have a different definition, you should petition the state legislature and have a political debate. I don't think courts should be making that decision. And I don't believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.” [CBS, Face The Nation , 4/19/2015; VIDEO]



Rubio Said Advocates Of Same-Sex Marriage Want To “Stigmatize” And “Ostracize Anyone Who Disagrees With Them As Haters” And Want Courts To Impose Marriage Rather Than Having A Debate. Asked by CBN’s David Brody if there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Rubio said it doesn’t exist, stating, “The advocates of same sex marriage refuse to go to the legislatures, because they can’t win that debate. They don’t want to have any debate in society. They want courts to impose it on people. And they’re not even satisfied with that. They’ve now gone further. They want to stigmatize, they want to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them as haters. It’s very simple. This is not a policy against anyone. I believe, as do a significant percentage of Americans, that the institution of marriage, an institution that existed before government, that existed before laws, that institution should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman.” [CBN, The Brody File, 4/26/2015; VIDEO]



Rubio Said “Marriage As An Institution Existed Before Even Government Itself. The Institution Of Marriage As One Man And One Woman Existed Before Our Laws Existed.” At Faith and Freedom Coalition in Waukee, IA, Newsmax reported that “Outlining his family's immigrant history, Rubio talked about the importance of values for a strong society. “You cannot have strong people without strong values,” he said. ‘We should never have any policies that stand in the way of families,’ he said. ‘We should never have any policies that stand in the way of marriage.’ Rubio won his strongest applause when he talked about marriage between a man and woman. ‘Marriage as an institution existed before even government itself,’ he said to strong applause. ‘The institution of marriage, as one man and one woman, existed before our laws existed.’ Rubio didn’t mention same-sex marriage, but said the ‘ideal’ situation for a child is to be raised by a mother and father.” [Newsmax, 4/26/2015]



Rubio Said “You Have To Really Have A Ridiculous And Absurd Reading Of The U.S. Constitution To Reach The Conclusion That People Have A Right To Marry Someone Of Their Own Sex.” Asked by CBN’s David Brody if there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Rubio said, “It doesn’t exist. There is no federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. There isn’t such a right. You have to really have a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex. There is no such constitutional right. Can a state decide to change their laws? Yes, but only through the political process, not through the court system, and that’s what’s happening now. The advocates of same sex marriage refuse to go to the legislatures, because they can’t win that debate. They don’t want to have any debate in society. They want courts to impose it on people.” [CBN, The Brody File, 4/26/2015; VIDEO]



Rubio Warned That If You Are Labeled A “Homophobe And A Hater” For Opposing Marriage Equality, There’s A “Real And Present Danger” Mainstream Christianity Will Be Treated As Hate Speech. CBN reported that “‘If you think about it, we are at the water's edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech,’ Rubio told CBN News. "’Because today we've reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.’ ‘So what's the next step after that?’ he asked. ‘After they are done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church is hate speech and there's a real and present danger,’ he warned.” [CBN, 5/26/2015; VIDEO]



Rubio Calls For Appointment Of Justices “Committed To Applying The Constitution As Written And Originally Understood.” According to USA Today: “Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said that, while ‘this decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years,’ the nation must abide by the ruling. ‘As we look ahead,’ Rubio said, ‘it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood.’” [USA Today, 6/26/2015]



Rubio Said “Perhaps A Future Court Will Change That Decision [On Marriage Equality], In Much The Same Way As It’s Changed Other Decisions In The Past” In Explaining Opposition To Constitutional Amendment. Bloomberg reported that Rubio said: “‘I don't support a constitutional amendment. I don't believe the federal government should be in the marriage regulation business,’ the Florida senator told reporters after a speech the Cedar Rapids Country Club in Iowa. ‘We can continue to disagree with it. Perhaps a future court will change that decision, in much the same way as it's changed other decisions in the past. But my opinion is unchanged, that marriage should continue to be defined as one man and one woman. The decision is what it is, and that's what we'll live under,’ he said.” [Bloomberg, 7/8/2015]



Rubio Said “If I’m President, We Are Going To Have Supreme Court Justices, Who We Appoint, That Will Defend Liberty” And That President Should Protect Right “To Exercise Your Faith In Every Aspect Of Your Life.” On his campaign web site, Rubio says, “Religious liberty is the right to live according to your religious teachings and to have the opportunity to spread it to others, instill it in your children and live it in your everyday life. Those of us of the Christian faith understand we are called to be Christians in every aspect of our lives and we are called to influence the culture around us. In the new American Century, we need a president who understands that protecting religious liberty means understanding the Constitutional principles of the right to exercise your faith in every aspect of your life. If I’m president, we are going to have Supreme Court Justices, who we appoint, that will defend liberty and we’re going to have a Justice Department that will protect ALL Americans from discrimination.” [MarcoRubio.com, Religious Liberty Is Not Simply The Right To Believe Anything You Want, Accessed 11/13/2015]

Rubio Said He “The Most Important This The Next President Will Do” Is Appoint Justices To The Supreme Court Who Will Disagree With Current Court’s Thinking On Obergefell. In an interview with CBN, Rubio said: “And beyond it, I think one of the biggest things the next President is going to do is appoint justices to the Supreme Court -- justices who understand that the Constitution is a living and breathing document. It is a document of limitation and it’s supposed to be interpreted and applied based on its original intent. And there is no way that you can read that Constitution and deduce from it that there is constitutional right to an abortion, or a constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex. And what you have is a Supreme Court that wanted to reach a certain policy outcome and so creatively manipulated the Constitution to discover a right that for over two centuries, some of the most brilliant minds and legal history didn’t find. So you need judges that understand how constitutionally flawed that those two kinds of rulings and others have been and that’s what the most important thing the next President will do is appoint Supreme court Justices that actually will apply the constitution irrespective of their personal feelings about the issue.” [CBN, The Brody File, 12/5/2015; VIDEO]



Rubio Said “What Is Wrong Is That The Supreme Court Has Found This Hidden Constitutional Right That 200 Years Of Jurisprudence Had Not Discovered And Basically Overturn The Will Of Voters In Florida” By Supporting Marriage Equality. On Meet the Press, Rubio said a constitutional amendment to overturn marriage equality “would be conceding that the current Constitution is somehow wrong and needs to be fixed. I don't think the current Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage. That belongs at the state and local level. And that's why if you want to change the definition of marriage, which is what this argument is about. It's not about discrimination. It is about the definition of a very specific, traditional, and age-old institution. That definitional change, if you want to change it, you have a right to petition your state legislature and your elected representatives to do it. What is wrong is that the Supreme Court has found this hidden constitutional right that 200 years of jurisprudence had not discovered and basically overturn the will of voters in Florida where over 60 percent passed a constitutional amendment that defined marriage in the state constitution as the union of one man and one woman.” [NBC, Meet The Press, 12/13/2015; VIDEO]



Rubio Said Marriage Equality “Is Current Law. I Don’t Believe Any Case Is Settled Law. Any Future Supreme Court Can Change It.” After declaring marriage equality “bad law,” Rubio said: “What is wrong is that the Supreme Court has found this hidden constitutional right that 200 years of jurisprudence had not discovered and basically overturn the will of voters in Florida where over 60 percent passed a constitutional amendment that defined marriage in the state constitution as the union of one man and one woman.” Chuck Todd pressed, “So are you accepting the idea of same sex marriage in perpetuity?” Rubio responded: “It is the current law. I don't believe any case law is settled law. Any future Supreme Court can change it. And ultimately, I will appoint Supreme Court justices that will interpret the Constitution as originally constructed.” [NBC, Meet The Press, 12/13/2015; VIDEO]



Rubio Signed A Pledge Vowing To Push For Passage Of The First Amendment Defense Act In His First 100 Days In Office. According to the American Principles Project, Rubio was one of six signers of their pledge to push for the First Amendment Defense Act in the first 100 days of their presidency. “American Principles Project has joined together with Heritage Action for America, the action arm of the Heritage Foundation, and FRC Action, the legislative affiliate of the Family Research Council, to invite each of the candidates running for President to sign the following pledge: ‘If elected, I pledge to push for the passage of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) and sign it into law during the first 100 days of my term as President.’” [American Principles Project, Accessed 1/7/2016]



Significant Findings on Discrimination Protections for LGBT Americans Opposed adding sexual orientation to existing civil rights protections Said he opposed discrimination, but voted against ENDA in the U.S. Senate

Threatened to oppose his own immigration bill over provisions for same-sex couples

Supports legal loopholes that would allow private businesses to deny services to LGBT couples



Rubio Said He Was “Not For Any Special Protections Based On Orientation.” According to Think Progress, when asked about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Senator Rubio said, “By and large I think all Americans should be protected, but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.” [Think Progress, 6/13/2013 ; VIDEO]

Rubio Voted Against The Employment Non-Discrimination Act. In 2013, Senator Rubio voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that the Miami Herald reported “would make it illegal under federal law for employers to discriminate against their employees based on the employee's sexual orientation or gender identity. These same basic workplace protections are already afforded to individuals on the basis of race, creed, national origin, gender, and disability status.” [S. 815 Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013, Vote #232 64-23, 11/7/2013; Miami Herald, 11/20/2013]

Rubio Believed The Employment Non-Discrimination Act Went Beyond Protecting Workers. According to the Tampa Bay Times, Rubio’s office “said he opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because it goes far ‘beyond protecting workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation.’” [Tampa Bay Times, 11/4/2013]



Rubio Said He Was Against Discrimination And That “The Best People Should Be Hired For Jobs.” According to BuzzFeed: “Rubio himself, though, softened his opposition to same-sex couples’ marriage rights with general comments opposing discrimination, saying, ‘I’m against discriminating against people. I think the best people should be hired for jobs.’” [BuzzFeed, 2/6/2013 ]

Rubio Said He Would Be Against His Own Immigration Bill If It Gave Same-Sex Couples Rights. According to CNN, Senator Rubio, when discussing his immigration bill said, “If this bill has in it something that gives gay couples immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill. I'm gone. I'm off it.” [CNN, Political Ticker, 6/13/2013 ]

Rubio Said He Would Vote Against Any Bill That Included Same-Sex Provisions. According to the Rockford Register Star: “Backers of gay and lesbian rights wanted wording attached to the immigration reform bill to ensure that same-sex couples are covered in the new legislation. That wording probably would have doomed the bill's chances. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said this month that he would vote against any bill that included same-sex amendments -- and Rubio is one of the bill's sponsors.” [Rockford Register Star, 6/27/2013]

Rubio Said If Same-Sex Partners Are Included In Immigration Bill “This Bill Will Fail. It Will Not Have The Support. It Will Not Have My Support.” According to the New York Times, “Senator Leahy’s bill does not seek to legalize gay marriage. Instead, it would allow an American citizen to petition for a green card for a ‘permanent partner.’ Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican, is a co-sponsor of that bill. ‘Our legislation would simply update our nation’s immigration laws to treat binational, same-sex permanent partners fairly,’ she said on Tuesday…..But in an interview Tuesday with the conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Senator Rubio was blunt in his assessment of the impact of any same-sex amendment. ‘This immigration bill is difficult enough as it is,’ he said. ‘If that issue is injected into this bill, this bill will fail. It will not have the support. It will not have my support.’” [New York Times, 5/1/2013]

Rubio Was An Original Cosponsor Of S. 1808, The Marriage And Religious Freedom Act. [S.1808 (113th), 12/12/2013]

Rubio Did Not Believe A Caterer Or Photographer Should Be Forced To Serve a Same-Sex Marriage. In an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, when discussing Arizona’s anti LGBT law that was veto by the governor, Senator Rubio said, “I don`t believe that gay Americans should be denied services at a restaurant or hotel or anything of that nature. I also don`t believe however that a caterer or photographer should be punished by the state for refusing to provide services for a gay wedding because of their religious believes. We’ve got to figure out a way to protect that, as well.” [NBC Meet the Press, 3/2/2014]

Rubio Agreed With The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision. According to the Associated Press, Senator Rubio said, “The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision is a re-affirmation of America's commitment to religious freedom and a reminder of why Obamacare is such a flawed law that needs to be entirely repealed and re-placed.” [Associated Press, 7/14/2014]

