On Wednesday, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) appeared at the Catholic University of America in Washington, D.C. to deliver a speech aimed at bolstering his reputation among social conservatives. The speech, which he titled ‘Strong Values for a Strong America,’ was highlighted by Rubio’s strong defense of both ‘traditional marriage’ and a pro-life agenda. More than anything, this address by Rubio was a reminder that the Florida Senator intends on running for the White House in 2016. It was also an effort to make right-wingers forget that he had previously pushed for immigration reform.
Rubio basically checked certain boxes that he thinks are needed to for him to make headway with the ‘base’ ahead of the GOP primary. When discussing same-sex marriage, and the right’s continued opposition to it, Rubio said the following.
The first of these is same-sex marriage. At the outset, it is important to openly acknowledge that our history is marred by discrimination against gays and lesbians. This is shameful and must be condemned. Supporters of same-sex marriage argue that laws banning same-sex marriage are vestiges of this discrimination. I respect their arguments, but there is another side to this debate.
Societies around the world have defined marriage as the union of a man and a woman for thousands of years. And because traditional marriage has an extraordinary record of success at raising children into strong and successful adults, in our country, states have long elevated this institution in our laws. In weighing both arguments, that is the definition that I personally support.
Those who support same-sex marriage have a right to lobby their state legislature to change their state laws. But Americans, including me, 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 or a court, and without being targeted with hate speech.
Our nation has demonstrated an incredible 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 the views of those who support same-sex marriage. But it will also require those who support same-sex marriage to respect the views of those who support traditional marriage. For tolerance is a two-way street, and intolerance in the name of tolerance is hypocrisy.
Did you catch that? Not only did Rubio make the case that marriage should only be defined as being between a man and a woman, he also made sure to frame conservatives as victims in the debate. Basically, those who are pushing for tolerance when it comes to respecting and acknowledging the rights of gays and lesbians are the ones being intolerant. Essentially, social conservatives should not have to deal with others calling out their bigotry, because being intolerant of those who are intolerant is apparently hypocrisy. Those who have been discriminated against in the past must always be tolerant of the intolerant. Why? Because they are supposed to preach tolerance. Or something like that.
In a discussion of this speech on NOW with Alex Wagner Wednesday afternoon, former RNC chairman Michael Steele defended Rubio’s speech as well as his position that social conservatives are victims in the debate over same-sex marriage. Hilariously, Steele took the stance that there is nothing more forward and progressive thinking than sticking to your values, especially in the face of changing public opinion, as has been the case with gay marriage. Since the majority of Americans now support gay marriage, conservatives are now the ones who are in the minority and pushing a more progressive agenda.
Below is video of Steele’s remarks, courtesy of MSNBC:
Taking Steele’s argument to its logical conclusion, essentially those who feel that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote are the ones who are extremely progressive with their thinking. Why? Because while it was the law of the land at one point, public opinion changed over time and eventually women were provided access to the franchise. However, there are still some who feel women should be second-class citizens. Or that blacks or other minorities shouldn’t have equal rights. In Steele’s mind, those are the real progressives.
As for Rubio, due to the nuttiness of today’s Republican Party, this was something he had to do. He had to prove to far-right that he is one of them. To do so, he had to point out he is against abortion and for ‘family values.’ Rubio also had to give voice to Republican victimology and the notion that conservatives just “want our country back!” There was not one mention of immigration in his speech. Instead, it was all about hating gays, abortion and playing the victim. Expect Rubio to continue along this path as we head into primary season.
Justin Baragona is the Managing Editor at Politicus Sports as well as Senior Editor at PoliticusUSA. He was a political writer for 411Mania.com before joining PoliticusUSA. Politically, Justin considers himself a liberal but also a realist and pragmatist. Currently, Justin lives in St. Louis, MO and is married. Besides writing, he also runs his own business after spending a number of years in the corporate world. You can follow Justin on Twitter either with his personal handle (@justinbaragona) or the Sports site’s (@PoliticusSports).
Rubio is so yesterday. He can’t but say stupid things. Another one who needs to look in the mirror and ask, am I really presidential material? NOT!
The GOP again fails to see the writing on the wall. This is becoming a gateway issue with younger voters; that is if you are not for marriage equality I couldn’t care less about what else you have to say.
I could not care LESS if Rubio doesn’t believe same-sex marriage is fine. Really, I don’t.
What I will not tolerate is he and his party trying to legislate the lives of others, to deprive them of their rights, and to force their views on folks who don’t believe the same thing.
This is the pathetic GOP strategy. They know, believe me they know, that we’re perfectly tolerant of their beliefs, just not their actions regarding them, yet every time, they whine like little titty babies and make themselves out to be the persecuted ones here.
Let them go 20 years back and try to be a gay person in this country, see what persecution really is.
So pi$$ off Rubio. Once your trap opens and starts to spew your rigid ideology, all bets are off and my tolerance drops to zero. If you don’t like same-sex marriage, fine, just shut up and let others live their lives. No one appointed you in charge (i.e., God, if you’re religious).
“But it will also require those who support same-sex marriage to respect the views of those who support traditional marriage. ”
You can’t respect someone who claims they are being hurt or threatened by gay marriage, yet can’t define what the damage is. They should be considered politically-expedient liars, and nothing more.
Rubio is simply brown-nosing Christian conservatives who continually strive to impose their own religious, dogmatic mores onto the rest of society and then attempt to be perceived as righteous martyrs when their efforts are rebuffed.
Sorry folks, you are the persecutors in this conflict, not the persecuted.
And more importantly to what others are saying regarding Rubio’s views. Why would you as Latino Americans ever believe and fall for what so many other Americans fall for. The lies that exclude others yet ask you to believe in what they foster. This Senator has sold his own people out just like Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas. Bigotry should not be tolerated. It is the minority. 50 Years ago I might have listened to this, but not in this day and age. For these racists to profess to be victims now after benefitting from their oppression of others is the lie of all lies. Calling others racist when the definition of racist is :a person who believes that they are superior because they are of a particular ethnicity is the definition So until these other minorities start making whites have a disadvantage because they run the institutions oppressing others, until they exclude whites from participation in the election process for hundreds of years. Don’t feel sorry for these Monsters
“What I will not tolerate is he and his party trying to legislate the lives of others, to deprive them of their rights, and to force their views on folks who don’t believe the same thing.”
Mmmmmm….you’re kinda doing the same thing.
Mirror ———————–>
“Taking Steele’s argument to its logical conclusion,”
There’s a problem right there. Logic does enter into the ramblings of these people. Rubio is trying hard to break into the upper echelon of GOP politics. I got news for ya’ Ricky, not gonna happen. The big money boys aren’t backing you. Do you really think you can get anyone outside of Florida to support you? You tried for the crossover vote but that’s ancient history now. The lines are drawn. There is no middle ground left. The GOP is now run by the hardcore rightwing crazies. Have you been to AZ or TX or KS or NB or NC or SC or MS lately. You think you’ll get any votes there? It will be fun watching you at the debates in the primary but you’re not serious about winning are you?
I see my question was too hard for you to answer. In case you have forgotten it, What republican policies have benefited the average American in the past 30 years?
There’s a problem right there. Logic does enter. oops!
Insert below
“There’s a problem right there. Logic does not enter”
“This Senator has sold his own people out just like Supreme Court justice Clarence Thomas.”
So, should people just vote their race to avoid being a “sellout”?
You say the dumbest things admitting a lack of comprehension of almost everything
Rubio was known as a immigrant friendly person who was trying to write immigration reform until he stopped and started bashing Latino immigration.
Do try to wise up, your questions are far too obvious
So should people who come on a site and refuse to answer a simple question be allowed to spew nonsense? You know what it is and I am still waiting.
Woody… what that poster was saying..is that we, as pro gay marriage folks, are of the mind that it’s nobody’s business whom you love. What republicans do, for the most part, is they want limited government interference, except when it has to do with something with which they disagree…be it abortion, gay marriage, women’s right to birth control…pick one of many many issues where republicans feel the need to intervene…they pass laws to limit a women’s right to seek her own healthcare, or voters rights to vote,etc… we are not hypocrites. We believe that everyone deserves equal treatment under the law, not legislators making it illegal to vote, gain access to healthcare or marry the person you love and are committed to…
no matter the gender. Tolerance of everyone is what we espouse… but we don’t tolerate bigots…
It was a fair question, but you’re unwilling to answer it.
There is a hypocrisy in your philosophy.
You ask minorities to vote their race, but it’s horrible if white people do exactly the same thing.
You want ‘equality’ but approve of race based initiatives…as long as it’s the race you approve of.
A better approach would be to treat everyone equally if you want ‘equality’. Until you do, you will forever be trying to sell the pig with the lipstick on it.
It was a fair question, but you’re unwilling to answer it.
———————————
WELL SHIVER ME TIMBERS
Obviously a case of obvious questioning.
Its a silly question and the time for it was over years ago.
You are asking us to make decisions for how minority’s must vote. No one says any minority or race must vote for their race, but they do it anyways. You are obviously bashing the fact that minorities have certain problems and expect the representatives to address them.
A better approach would be for you to move along and try that lipstick on a pig elsewhere
It’s quite simple:
Either we are ALL equal under the law or we ALL are not.
Heaven’s sake, it is 2014. Has this country not grown up or is it still experiencing its “terrible twos?”
I didn’t want to go there but the peckerwood statement is white supremacy at its finest. He would question how and who minorities vote for but not once did he address why whites for whites even if a minority is the superior candidate.
I saw it in Chicago when Harold Washington ran for mayor and you know Chicago is as democrat as one can be but the republican pulled in a lot of white democrats to make the race competitive.
Now I am still waiting for him to answer my simple question
See, right there’s the problem – a total lack of the perception of reality. And its a biggie:
Conservative: Sez gay people have zero right to get married. Gay people shouldn’t have the right to marry, to have spousal rights of any kind – adoption, inheritance, survival, etc, etc. What it amounts to is they want to go back to govt-sanctioned bigotry because they’re uncomfortable with homosexuality or believe it to be a sin.
Liberal: Uh…yes, they’re people. As such, they have the same rights as any other person.
Can you not see the problem? WE aren’t depriving ANYONE of ANYTHING. Conservatives are pissed because they really, desperately want to have the right to continue to discriminate. No matter how you look at it, THAT is the issue.
“For tolerance is a two-way street, and intolerance in the name of tolerance is hypocrisy.”
Sounds a lot like something Hitler said first.
I have for years complained about the fact that conservatives expect me to be tolerant of their intolerance. They seem to be saying “you, as a liberal, must love all while we can hate all and you can’t complain without looking like us”. Bull. Also, Rubio, for thousands of years and in most culture the marriage norm was one man and however many women he could support.
I thought it was a pretty simple concept that if you don’t want people to treat you in a particular fashion, you shouldn’t treat them that way. Kinda like what goes around, comes around. If you don’t want to be called intolerant, then stop being intolerant. Equal rights for all, or equal rights for none. Your rights stop at precisely the point mine begin.
Do you write the poll questions for Fox? Just wondering …
Conservatives consider that fighting them back is oppressing them, making them the victims.
If you criticize them for trying to strip millions of their healthcare and voting right, you are victimizing the conservatives.
Paranoid assholes.
Ridiculous.
He said this…
“At the outset, it is important to openly acknowledge that our history is marred by discrimination against gays and lesbians. This is shameful and must be condemned. ”
At the end, he said those supporting traditional marriage should have their opinions valued also.
The writer then claims he is a bigot. What utter nonsense. Very typical of the Left, character assassination when they don’t agree. Straight out of the Alinsky playbook.
Actually, no. What we Republicans protest over is activist federal courts getting involved in what should be state issues.
Roe v Wade. Horrible legislation that actually is non-constitutional. Should have been left to the states.
Same with gay marriage.
LOL unconstitutional? A persons right to choose?
Why should gay marriage even left to the courts? Are not all people created equal? Why leave things to states that are so obviously corrupt?
So if activist judges didn’t get involved you would be happy with bans on inter-racial marriages, Jim Crow and separate and not equal laws in the country. Wow you must of overdid the bleach on your sheets this morning
US is almost 80% white.
Obama couldn’t have been elected (twice) without the support of the vast majority of white people.
So, to say that white people vote their race is simply untrue.
However, black people do, overwhelmingly. Put a black candidate against a white candidate and the results are stunning.
And they are encouraged by both other blacks and liberals to do so. If they don’t, they’re ridiculed as “Uncle Toms” or “Race Traitors” or “House Nigger”. It’s ugly and it’s just wrong.
Non-Hispanic whites, the nation’s predominant racial group, added 0.09 percent last year to increase their total to 197.7 million, about 63 percent of the total population
Can you count?
What would be fun, is to send Rubio to his ancestral homeland of Cuba and let Fidel and Raoul Castro, teach him a real lesson, in what the world is really like and how harsh life can be, living in the world Rubio wants to create.
I would take your statement further – they not only want to keep their right to discriminate; they seek to federalize their version of morality, and legalize their own intolerance. Federal Government limits no personal rights simply by acknowledging and upholding personal freedoms, but merely staying out of our bedrooms, minds, bodies, and demanding others do likewise. When Government imposes limitations on personal freedoms (in the absence of harm to individuals and/or the greater good), it is in our bedrooms, minds, bodies. As I’ve seen no evidence whatsoever that two sentient adults of either gender coming together in legal matrimony causes harm to any individual or imperils the greater good (other than angering opponents). I tolerate opposing views and won’t tolerate legislation to silence the expression of those views. I will also support human rights, speak loudly regarding my opinions, and vote my conscience. None of which is literally defined as intolerance.
Is there an answer to your question? I’d be curious as well.
I guess Rubio realized he was missing the boat and knows the best way to get noticed is to express hateful beliefs to get attention. And he really thinks he should be the president?