One thing that Sen. Marco Rubio received grief for is when he delivered a response to one of the Dear Leader's
It was as if Sen. Rubio was not human and could not get some dry throat giving a speech. I wrote a post on that here.
But Jorge Ramos from the
Would you attend a friend's same-sex wedding?
OK, Mr. Ramos said gay, but I call it what it actually is. I thought my wedding was gay in the traditional meaning of the word. You know, happy. I don't think that in The Flintstones theme song when these words were sung, "we'll have a gay, old time" was meant in the modern sense.
Sen. Rubio said the right answer.
Yes, it is nuanced but the issue for those of us that support traditional marriage, especially in the religious sense, it is correct to say yes. Here is the actual answer,
“How you treat a person that you care for and love is different from what your opinion is or what your faith teaches marriage should be.”
Now to some, the correct answer is no. Not a chance. Can't do it. As noted by Allahpundit in the link, the Rev. Pat Robertson of the 700 Club gave a pretty hard-line answer on this:
“You don’t agree with it. You’ve got to stand there and be a witness to it. By your attendance at the ceremony, you are agreeing with it … I just wouldn’t go. I would tell your child, ‘I love you but I cannot condone this. We will always love you but I don’t condone this activity."
I do not agree with the Rev. Robertson.
Let's say that a man-woman are getting married but not in the church. Say you are the son's parents and can't believe that all he was taught about marriage and it being part of God's plan was being thrown out the window. And let's throw in that the son is not marrying a Christian but a Muslim woman. Yet they have agreed to raise their potential children Christian. But since she does not want to convert as she is a lapsed Muslim, the son thinks it is being hypocritical to marry in the church. Using the Rev. Robertson argument, attending such a wedding is a negatory. Nyet. Nien. Not a chance.
When we wade into these issues we have to look at them in a way in which one can have the view of Sen. Rubio, he does not support same-sex marriage and supports RFRA laws that allow Christian vendors that do not want to participate in a same-sex ceremony to have a defense.
I think where Sen. Rubio is with the answer that the love and friendship kinda tops the religious understanding that he has on the subject.
That is where most Americans are on this subject, I believe.
Few if any people beyond the hard left and gay-rights activists would want to force any religious institution to perform a same-sex wedding. After all, in Judaism, Reform rabbis do perform same-sex marriages where they are permitted. In Mainline Protestant Christianity, The Episcopal Church and the United Church of Christ also perform same-sex marriages. The Presbyterian Church USA is about to allow it as well. Within every aforementioned denomination there are a substantial number of holdouts and outright opponents to the rite. And of course the Roman Catholic church, all Orthodox churches, Evangelical Christians and fundamentalists are opposed to same-sex marriage.
At the end of the day, that is where I stand. My understanding of same-sex marriage is that there is no affirmation for it in the bible. There are a few admonishments but no direct "Thou shalt not marry man and man as man and woman" admonishment. More than likely the supreme court will rule that same-sex marriage will be the law of the land in all 50 states. Much like the court usurped the right of states and localities to have abortion laws and or regulations, the same will be done here. If not now, at some point.
That does not mean there will not be opposition. I will oppose it being forced on religious institutions. The fact is since not all of Christianity is on the same page on the issue, as is Judaism and probably Islam in the United States, there are plenty of churches, temples and mosques that would perform such ceremonies without the force of government.
And like Allahpundit asked, is there a conservative answer on the subject, I don't think there is a universally acceptable one when, as I noted, Christianity is not all together on the subject. I think that there is an honest and nuanced one. The answer that Sen. Rubio gave fits that category and showed that he will not be derailed by these kind of gotcha questions. Questions designed to make a candidate look bad by his or her answer. It won't please absolutionists, but it will make those that a Sen. Rubio have to reach out to, independents, take a look at where a person that maybe president stands on a particularly touchy subject.
And unlike the Dear Leader, President Obama, there is nothing in Sen. Rubio's public history to suggest that this is going to come back to haunt him. Like when then candidate for Illinois state senate, Barack Obama answered that he favored same-sex marriage. When running for senate and president, he clearly lied and only changed to his real position when it was deemed to not hurt his reelection chances.
A nuanced yet principled answer is probably the best we should expect from any politician and Sen. Rubio showed how it was done.