http://www.addictinginfo.org/2016/02/09/marco-rubios-attempt-to-sweet-talk-a-gay-voter-in-a-new-hampshire-bar-ends-in-tears-image/
Florida Republican senator and presidential hopeful Marco Rubio has spent much of his political life and campaign making life harder for LGBT people. So what happened when he was confronted by a real life gay man in new Hampshire on Monday? Nothing good.
On Monday February 8th, openly gay 50-year-old Timothy Kierstead was enjoying a drink with his mother and his husband in the wonderfully appropriately named Puritan Backroom diner, when he was approached by Marco Rubio during a campaign event. He asked the candidate a very simple question:
“Why do you want to put me back in the closet?”
The color leeched from Rubio’s face as he realized he’d definitely come to the wrong table.
The New York Times reports that the candidate, when face-to-face with Kierstead, responded:
“I don’t…You can live any way you want.”
But it did not end there. As The Times continues:
“Mr. Rubio, who is seeking to win over conservatives, is seldom asked about gay rights at his campaign stops.
During a brief conversation, Mr. Kierstead, 50, told Mr. Rubio that he was married but complained that the senator’s position amounted to him declaring that ‘we don’t matter.’
Mr. Rubio, who was standing with his youngest son, Dominick, 8, by his side, gently disagreed. “No, I just believe marriage is between one man and one woman.”
‘Well,’ replied Mr. Kierstead, ‘that’s your belief.’
Mr. Rubio continued: ‘I think that’s what the law should be. And if you don’t agree you should have the law changed by a legislature.’”
Rubio was reminded by Mr. Keirstad that this is exactly what the LGBT community had done, and that the Senator and his party were seeking to have their religious prejudices supersede the law of the land. In fact, just last December, Rubio told Chuck Todd:
“It is the current law. I don’t believe any case law is settled law.”
“Any future Supreme Court can change it.”
“I don’t think the current Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage,”
“What is wrong is that the Supreme Court has found this hidden constitutional right that 200 years of jurisprudence had not discovered and basically overturned the will of the voters in Florida, where over 60 percent passed a constitutional amendment that defined marriage in the state constitution as the union of one man and one woman.”
In short, Rubio doesn’t believe that the Constitution gives federal government the right to regulate marriage, unless it is regulating against the rights of same-sex couples. Rubio doesn’t want the government regulating his access to guns, yet he is totally in favor of the government regulating the access of same-sex couples to marriage. This hypocrisy reveals that for Rubio and his fellow Republicans, the government can never be too big, so long it is enforcing their prejudices.
this should be published all over and often we need to adopt their play sheet and repeat the rebuttals continuously, it will sink in eventually sometimes fire with fire is the best offense and defense especially when your point is proven to be correct. because you get a larger percent of deniers in a poll where you target them does not qualify you to be right and your bigotry should not override forcing your agenda on those who don't ascribe. they also need to stop saying marriage is between one man and one woman that is an opinion not a fact as the law of the land says so. i love the response to Rubio when he said change the law, priceless
Mr. Rubio continued: ‘I think that’s what the law should be. And if you don’t agree you should have the law changed by a legislature.’”
Rubio was reminded by Mr. Keirstad that this is exactly what the LGBT community had done, and that the Senator and his party were seeking to have their religious prejudices supersede the law of the land.
