Marco Rubio has so angered his Tea Party base on immigration reform that he's desperate for pander material. So in addition to his address to conservatives and the Tea Party last week, essentially telling them what they should think about his immigration reform plans, his disgust for same sex marriage and his love of discrimination gave him an easy way kill two birds with one press release.
Naturally he jumped at the chance to criticize the U.S. Supreme Court on their gay marriage decision: That the court "overstepped" and made a "serious mistake."
Yes Marco, we've heard you're really not a bigot, you just feel it's your right to tell Americans who they can and can not marry, just as you tell women they have no business using birth control or having an abortion based solely on your beliefs. We got the memo.
Regardless, here are some of the highlights from Rubio's statement catering to the Tea Party outrage machine who may be on the fence over his next electoral move:
“I believe the Supreme Court made a serious mistake today when it overstepped its important, but limited role....
...“I recognize that the definition of marriage and the legal status of same-sex relationships is a deeply personal and emotional issue for Americans of a variety of viewpoints. These types of disagreements should be settled through the democratic process, as the Founders intended, not through litigation and court pronouncements.
Rubio seems to feel that checks and balances are only necessary when that "balance" falls on his side. Someone really needs to give him a crash course in Democracy, because he seems really confused for a guy who aspires to be President some day:
“Rather than having courts redefine marriage for all Americans, my hope is that the American people, through their state legislatures and referendums, can continue to decide the definition of marriage. It is through debates like this that the brilliance of our constitutional system of democracy, and the inherit goodness of our people, is revealed.
Please tell us, Sen. Rubio, how do you suppose this all wound up in front of the Supreme Court in the first place? You see, this is how this whole Democracy thing works. Part of that "debate" was just settled whether you like it or not. Also, have a look at the polls. Americans are overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage these days. Take a step outside of that protective bubble of yours once in a while. It's not nearly as scary out here in the real world as it is inside of yours.
“My hope is that those of us who believe in the sanctity and uniqueness of traditional marriage will continue to argue for its protection in a way that is respectful to the millions of American sons and daughters who are gay. It is also my hope that those who argue for the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marriage will refrain from assailing the millions of Americans who disagree with them as bigots.”
Yes Marco, nothing says "I'm being respectful" like saying in so many words "You can have all the rights you want, unless you happen to be gay. Then all bets are off, in which case you, and your rights are dead to me. Have a nice day."
And here's another memo to Rubio: If you expect people to refrain from assailing you as a bigot, then show some actual respect for not only gay Americans, but women, minorities, and all people of color. In short, respect the rights of ALL Americans, not just the ones you think will vote for you or contribute to that pile of cash you earn from selling said bigotry.
And while we're on that subject, we can't help but notice that you haven't released a single word on the Supreme Court's decision striking key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Do you feel, as you do about the same-sex marriage rulings, that the court "overstepped" or made a "serious mistake" there too? More to the point, did you think they "overstepped" or made a "serious mistake" when they handed the election to George W. Bush in 2000 in spite of Americans choosing Al Gore? If the Court were to step in and turn back the clock on women's rights and overturn Roe v Wade, which the GOP are chipping away at and working towards as I write, would you say they were also "overstepping" there?
No. Of course you wouldn't. But being a "respectuful" lover of democracy and all, that wouldn't necessarily make you a bigot for having those views and forcing them on the rest of us regrdless of own views and beliefs. Nope. With all due respect, some might say that would also make you prejudiced, intolerant, homophobic, partisan, sexist, racist, and dogmatic.