Marco Rubio: Homosexuality Isn’t a ‘Choice,’ But Gay People Still Can’t Marry

By

The Advocate said Senator Marco Rubio might be “the most anti-gay presidential candidate yet,” but if that were true would he attend a gay wedding (in theory) or admit that gay people are born that way (though they don’t have the same rights as straight people)? Sunday on Face the Nation, the Republican presidential candidate told host Bob Schieffer he’s not against same-sex marriage, he just believes “the definition of the institution of marriage should be between one man and one woman.” If the states disagree, that’s fine. “States have always regulated marriage. And if a state wants to have a different definition, you should petition the state legislature and have a political debate,” he explained.

Rubio added, “I don’t think courts should be making that decision, and I don’t believe same-sex marriage is a Constitutional right.” But, to be clear, he’s not a bigot; he knows the gay people who will be denied rights under his definition of marriage really have no choice in the matter. “I also don’t believe that your sexual preferences are a choice for the vast and enormous majority of people,” he said. “In fact … I believe that sexual preference is something that people are born with.”

Rubio’s position on climate change has also been hard to pin down. Previously, the senator — who is admittedly not a scientistrejected researchers’ claims that “somehow there are actions we can take today that would actually have an impact on what’s happening in our climate.” On Sunday he offered another explanation:

I believe the climate is changing because there’s never been a moment where the climate is not changing. The question is, what percentage of that, or what is due to human activity? If we do the things they want us to do, cap and trade, you name it — how much will that change the pace of climate change, versus how much will it cost our economy? Scientists can’t tell us what impact it would have on reversing these changes. But I can tell you with certainty it would have a devastating impact on our economy.

If we can definitely bolster the U.S. economy by doing nothing about climate change, why take our chances on saving the planet where that economy exists?