Josh, I agree that’s a weird little hit piece by Bustle, and here’s Rubio more recently on CNN:
Rubio: Well, a couple 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’ve 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. The second point I would make is that 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.
Tapper: But they are a minority—
Rubio: Well, they’re a large minority. In essence, there are still parts of this country that believe that way. But irrespective of it, we’re in a republic, if you want to change the marriage laws in 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 right way to do that.
Clint, I have met Rubio too and I agree he’s incredibly charismatic. But I still haven’t seen him answer the question: If he doesn’t believe the Supreme Court should impose gay marriage in all 50 states, then why wouldn’t he sign onto the amicus brief asking the Supreme Court not to interfere? Why was Ted Cruz almost alone in signing that brief?
Maggie Gallagher is editor of ThePulse2016.com.