It’s a two-fer from Marco Rubio, dissing on not only the Supreme Court but on the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Like other Republican presidential hopefuls, he seems not to understand that the United States Constitution and not the Bible is the law of the land.
We know that, because nowhere in the Constitution does it mention the Bible or “God’s law,” let alone even mention God. It’s really a no-brainer, and that in itself really says it all. It also explains why Rubio appeared with David Brody of CBN’s The Brody File Wednesday, to say that Obergefell and Roe are “not settled law.”
Except: United States Constitution.
But Rubio doesn’t care about that:
I’m in Iowa — the heartland of America. Earlier today, I sat down with Presidential hopeful Marco Rubio. I asked him about same-sex marriage being so-called "settled law.” He had some interesting things to say about the moral conflict many Christians face when the Bible commands to obey civil authorities but also the overlying mandate to follow God’s law. What do you think of what Rubio had to say? Watch below. We'll have much more on this next week AFTER THANKSGIVING on The 700 Club. This is just a little taste of what's to come.
Posted by David Brody on Tuesday, November 24, 2015
“We are clearly called, in the Bible, to adhere to our civil authorities, but that conflicts with also a requirement to adhere to God’s rules. When those two come in conflict, God’s rules always win.
“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin, violate God’s law and sin, if we’re ordered to stop preaching the gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that. We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.”
Of course, the government is not compelling anyone to sin. Nobody is telling Rubio to marry a man or to eat shellfish or to cut his hair, let alone to take the Lord’s name in vain. The government IS asking him not to impose his beliefs on others.
So what to do about this non-problem? For Rubio, the answer is clear:
The states should “do everything possible within the constraints that its placed upon us” to curtail abortion rights, before insisting that government officials “ignore” Supreme Court rulings if they believe they conflict with “God’s rules.”
What we need, he is saying, is more Kim Davises.
This is the same guy who tried to wheedle his way out of the Marriage Equality debate at the Presidential Family Forum in Iowa last week by claiming,
“The debate is about how do you define an institution, the institution of marriage, which has been defined the same way for all of human history. That’s what the debate is about. It’s not about discriminating against anyone. The debate is about how do you define an institution.”
Which is funny, because far from being defined the same way all through history, it isn’t even defined the same way all through the Bible he is pretending to claim as the highest law.
There is no justification for what Rubio claims we need. The Constitution is quite clear on that. The Constitution is quite clear as to its status as the law of the land and the role of the Supreme Court as the highest court in the land. He might try reading it sometime.
All this no doubt sells with the Republican base, which seems never to have heard of the United States Constitution, or which somehow confuses it with the Bible. It’s really rather a short document and there is no excuse to remain unfamiliar with what it says, given that it establishes our country and the laws by which it is governed.
Certainly, Rubio will never sit in the Oval Office. We all know that even if he does not. But these endless attacks on the United States Constitution by what must increasingly be termed American fascism, take their toll.
The entire GOP apparatus is slipping toward fascism and millions of Americans have been indoctrinated to believe that the Bible none of them have read takes precedence over the Constitution none of them have read.
How could anything go wrong?
Hrafnkell Haraldsson, a social liberal with leanings toward centrist politics has degrees in history and philosophy. His interests include, besides history and philosophy, human rights issues, freedom of choice, religion, and the precarious dichotomy of freedom of speech and intolerance. He brings a slightly different perspective to his writing, being that he is neither a follower of an Abrahamic faith nor an atheist but a polytheist, a modern-day Heathen who follows the customs and traditions of his Norse ancestors. He maintains his own blog, A Heathen’s Day, which deals with Heathen and Pagan matters, and Mos Maiorum Foundation www.mosmaiorum.org, dedicated to ethnic religion. He has also contributed to NewsJunkiePost, GodsOwnParty and Pagan+Politics.