Rubio: Same-Sex Marriage Not ‘Settled Law’
In other words, a President Rubio (perish the thought) would try to overturn same-sex marriage.
“It is the current law. I don’t believe any case law is settled law,” Rubio said in an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “Any future Supreme Court can change it.”
“And ultimately, I will appoint Supreme Court justices that will interpret the Constitution as originally constructed,” he added.
Rubio called the decision ruling that states cannot prohibit the practice of same-sex marriage “bad law.”
Copyright 2015 Liberaland
tracey marie December 13th, 2015 at 12:50
equality under the law is settled law runio
ExPFCWintergreen December 13th, 2015 at 12:51
“As originally constructed.” Translation: “The way conservatives like.”
Chris December 13th, 2015 at 13:03
What’s next for you to abolish, “New Century” nominee?
The 13th Amendment which did away with slavery? Heaven knows the Founding Fathers never wouldn’t have wanted that either, eh?
I’m beginning to think this little twerp would be easier to beat than the Donald and the Rafael.
Larry Schmitt December 13th, 2015 at 13:09
Proving again that republicans only have to follow the laws they agree with. The rest of us, we’re out of luck. If that’s the case, what the hell is the purpose of having a Supreme Court in the first place? Oh, that’s right, as Huckleberry says, god’s law trumps man’s law.
alpacadaddy December 13th, 2015 at 14:16
exactly… and then in the next breath they complain about our ‘lawless’ POTUS… what a crock!
MyDogsAreSmarterThanYou December 13th, 2015 at 13:17
Which means it’s for white, male, hetero Christians only, amirite Marco? Here, have a drink of water.
rg9rts December 13th, 2015 at 13:17
SCOTUS says differently …..you’ll appoint??? Get elected first THEN see if you can get you NOMINEE through the senate …not the brightest bulb in the box are you Marco
Boltorama December 13th, 2015 at 13:20
Oh get over it you sourpuss. SSM is legal in all 50 states and the country is still standing.
whatthe46 December 13th, 2015 at 13:31
canada hasn’t collapsed yet.
Larry Schmitt December 13th, 2015 at 13:47
And I think we’d know, they’re sitting right on top of us.
whatthe46 December 13th, 2015 at 13:55
good reply Larry.
Boltorama December 13th, 2015 at 14:47
It’s been legal there for more than a decade.
Boltorama December 13th, 2015 at 14:21
Nope but it looks like the Chargers are going to collapse with that interception.
epazote December 13th, 2015 at 17:29
eff the Chargers (Spanos family)
they need to pack their shit and move up the road to LA
they’ve sucked up hundreds of millions of San Diego’s taxpayer dollars in subsidies… Tijuana’s streets have fewer potholes than San Diego’s
Gina Bousquet December 13th, 2015 at 13:33
Marco “God’s law comes before secular law” Rubio rides again.
Larry Schmitt December 13th, 2015 at 13:48
Huck said the same thing.
Gina Bousquet December 13th, 2015 at 13:53
Two of a kind…
Boltorama December 13th, 2015 at 14:25
That’s why they call them the American Taliban.
Gina Bousquet December 13th, 2015 at 14:28
Then I guess we’ll have to include so many of the Republican candidates in that label…
Tommie December 13th, 2015 at 14:30
And their supporters!
Gina Bousquet December 13th, 2015 at 14:37
Let’s not forget them… :)
Boltorama December 13th, 2015 at 14:31
Of course! The clown car is too full!
Gina Bousquet December 13th, 2015 at 14:37
All right-wing fanatics, some more, some less.
anothertoothpick December 13th, 2015 at 15:29
How, exactly, does rubes law get murica closer to being the land of the free they are always talking and singing about?
Gina Bousquet December 13th, 2015 at 15:40
Well, it pushes the country in the reverse direction… :)
Tommie December 13th, 2015 at 14:29
The right hates progress which is why they are trying to turn the clock back in America!
anothertoothpick December 13th, 2015 at 15:25
At one time same sex was outlawed in 49 of the fifty states.
Larry Schmitt December 13th, 2015 at 15:26
There are probably some anti-sodomy laws still on the books.
Homosexual December 13th, 2015 at 16:16
SCOTUS struck them all down in the last 100 years
Larry Schmitt December 13th, 2015 at 16:19
I stand corrected. But here’s something I bet you didn’t know: “In 1779, Thomas Jefferson wrote a law in Virginia which contained a punishment of castration for men who engage in sodomy. Jefferson intended this to be a liberalization of the sodomy laws in Virginia at that time, which prescribed death as the maximum penalty for the crime of sodomy. It was rejected by the Virginia Legislature.”
Imagine that. Castration was a “liberalization” of the law.
Homosexual December 13th, 2015 at 16:23
Progress is made one baby step at a time. In Saudis castrated their gays instead of executing them it could arguably be progress. Humanity is so messed up
The Original Just Me December 13th, 2015 at 21:11
Funny thing, he never said anything about Beastility laws. Hummmm, Wonder what he is interested in ?
Homosexual December 13th, 2015 at 16:16
Thanks judicial activists for fixing that
anothertoothpick December 13th, 2015 at 21:18
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” —The Declaration of Independence
The Original Just Me December 13th, 2015 at 21:09
But there were only 48 states then. LOL.
labman57 December 13th, 2015 at 14:39
In Mario’s world, gay marriage will NEVER be settled until it is outlawed … permanently.
allison1050 December 13th, 2015 at 14:41
There ya go!
FatRat December 13th, 2015 at 14:42
It is the current law. I don’t believe any case law is settled law,” Rubio said
Rubio sounds like a low rent hooker or some other profession that sells their wares.
http://cache2.asset-cache.net/gc/154945658-eager-potential-client-negotiates-with-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=wstiBgex01e8EkO%2FyAyEjDV%2F0NTDlhCFkB0NWRUhTaElnStldZCtbgfJP5wmmhQU
http://rozstrategies.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/everything_is_negotiable.png
StoneyCurtisll December 13th, 2015 at 19:25
Image #1… Boing~!
The Original Just Me December 13th, 2015 at 21:07
Can you tell me what street corner she works ?
FatRat December 13th, 2015 at 21:24
34th and Vine.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gF2eqWshBNs
The Original Just Me December 13th, 2015 at 21:51
Is that near Hollywood and Vine ? From this angle, she looks like a California Girl.
allison1050 December 13th, 2015 at 14:42
I wonder what this idiot considers “settled” law?
Boltorama December 13th, 2015 at 14:45
Law that fits his interpretation of the bible.
The Original Just Me December 13th, 2015 at 21:06
But not Shari law.
anothertoothpick December 13th, 2015 at 15:23
The ten comandments maybe.
Larry Schmitt December 13th, 2015 at 15:23
Except for that part about bearing false witness.
The Original Just Me December 13th, 2015 at 21:05
If Republicans made it, THEN it is settled law. His opinion.
allison1050 December 14th, 2015 at 06:23
lol
John Galt December 13th, 2015 at 14:57
We need to move this forward by eliminating the entire concept of any government “licensing” marriage. If it is a fundamental human right of free association, guaranteed under the First Amendment, then the very concept of restricting it through “licensing” is repugnant. This should be the “settled” law!
anothertoothpick December 13th, 2015 at 15:22
Won’t work, There is more than just love involved.
It would be like working for a boss, without any protection. Like we have today.
John Galt December 13th, 2015 at 15:56
So marriage between co-equal partners is like work? You cannot even decide the details of your own consenting adult relationship? You MUST have a third party to the marriage because why? Are all people little better than little children?
Larry Schmitt December 13th, 2015 at 15:59
It affects taxes, for one thing. You need to be able to prove you’re married, and someone has to produce a piece of paper for the records.
John Galt December 13th, 2015 at 16:24
Then change the idiotic tax law if it is nothing more than an excuse to intervene in your personal affairs! Same with Social Security; people choose their beneficiaries for every other insurance program and benefit. Change the law to meet the requirements of the Constitution per the recent Supreme Court decision.
Larry Schmitt December 13th, 2015 at 16:29
You’re asking an awful lot, for the tax code to be changed. They can’t pass a budget, and you expect the tax code to make sense? Dream on.
John Galt December 13th, 2015 at 16:42
So get it done in the courts. Can’t continue to apply the ten-year rule for Social Security marital benefits when gays could not get married ten years ago! Strip discrimination, including discrimination against singles in the tax law, from ALL public law.
bpollen December 13th, 2015 at 17:21
What have YOU done in this instance to correct what you so obviously have a major hard-on for?
bpollen December 13th, 2015 at 17:20
Are your hands tied? Your voice muted? Your ability to contact the people who can actually accomplish your “change the idiotic tax law” goal has been taken away from you?
If you don’t like the way things are set up, DO something about it other than railing on those who say “this is the way it is.”
anothertoothpick December 13th, 2015 at 16:00
Pretty much.
tracey marie December 13th, 2015 at 16:08
children, property, money, investments…most of all children.
John Galt December 13th, 2015 at 16:21
So a couple cannot decide between the two of them about having children? Why should this be anything but a mutual agreement? You need some other person to make your most intimate and personal decisions?
tracey marie December 13th, 2015 at 16:42
are you really that simple minded?
John Galt December 13th, 2015 at 16:54
YES! How is it not the personal choice of the actual people involved? Care to explain why people cannot decide for themselves? Sorry if I’m simple minded and pro-choice.
tracey marie December 13th, 2015 at 17:02
Not deciding to have kids but making sure they are supported by both people, marriage laws do that.
John Galt December 13th, 2015 at 17:09
Marriage laws have NOTHING to do with that and have not for a very long time now. Do you really think we do not require this from parents who were never married to each other? These laws were changed for the practical reason that less than half of children are born to people married to one another.
bpollen December 13th, 2015 at 17:17
Marriage is NOT a simple decision of cohabitation or creating progeny. It is a legal contract, with certain benefits and obligations attached.
John Galt December 13th, 2015 at 17:25
Not under current law. A legal contract requires the mutual agreement of the parties for consideration of some type. Marriage law actually prohibits forming a mutual agreement by replacing it with the “license” and associated laws. This was overturned by the USSC because it is a fundamental right of people to freely associate and form their own, consenting relationship. The purpose of marriage licenses was to restrict people from marriage without permission of others. Court decisions have been overturning these restrictions since Loving vs. Virginia overturned racist marriage restrictions controlled through “licensing”.
bpollen December 13th, 2015 at 17:52
There are no legal obligations placed on the members of this “licence” in terms of say, division of property, distribution of progeny?
According to the GAO, there are “1,138 statutory provisions[1] in which marital status is a factor in determining benefits, rights, and privileges.
In law, a contract (or informally known as an agreement in some jurisdictions) is an agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them. Marriage carries legal obligations, two people voluntarily agree to accept said obligations, it’s a legal document once formalized, there is definite purpose behind it. Marriage FITS the definition of a contract.
Does my driver’s license require me to split my property with my car before I can junk it? Does your fishing license give you immunity from testifying against the fish?
StoneyCurtisll December 13th, 2015 at 19:22
great point.
The Original Just Me December 13th, 2015 at 21:03
Only since the income tax law was instituted.
bpollen December 13th, 2015 at 21:55
Marriage was a civil and not an ecclesiastical ceremony for the Puritans until 1686.
Most marriages up until fairly recently were financial arrangements struck between families. Ever read Romeo and Juliet?
In 17th Century England, a legally valid marriage required the completion of a marriage contract.
The Original Just Me December 13th, 2015 at 22:19
The definition of Marriage, or to Marry, has changed a lot over the Centuries. if you go back far enough, when a man Married a woman, it meant only that he had intercourse with her and nothing more. Then, Marriage became a Political thing between neighboring Empire Ruling families. When King James Got his Bible and the Church of England going, Marriage became a Church arrangement of families and finances. When the Christian Movement got involved along about then, the Churches began to keep records of the people who got a religious marriage Ceremony. In the U.S. Only the Good religious and wealthy got Church weddings. Along about 1900 or slightly before, local governments started looking into marriage at the urging of the religious Women Folk. Then, about 1909, the Federal Government started looking at a direct tax system. In 1913, the 16th. Amendment was passed and government registration of marriage came into being in order to deduct dependents.
bpollen December 13th, 2015 at 22:50
But even in Rome and antebellum America, there were certain obligations incumbent upon both partners in a marriage. There were certain benefits conferred by that marriage. There are specific requirements to the dissolution of that marriage. To say that it was only when income taxes became legal that marriage became more than social mingling or free association as has been postulated upstream is misrepresenting the facts.
In Elizabethan times, women were expected to bring a dowry in return for becoming the property of their husband. If the husband dies, she inherits his property. Marriages were recorded by the local parish, the “registrar” of the time. Real property changes hands, legal requirements and benefits accrue to both parties, disposition of property is legislated… Just because there was no direct income tax does not mean that it wasn’t a contract. Contracts existed before income tax. Before the 16th amendment, all inheritance of a woman became the property of a man. Sounds like a contractual obligation to me.
The Original Just Me December 13th, 2015 at 23:04
I was primarily referring to the licensing and registering by the government. That is our basic requirement of Marriage, civil or Religious ceremony, today, in our country. As for a woman inheriting a man’s property, in many cultures, when a man died, his family would come in and raid the dead mans belongings and the woman was just kicked out into the street unless a brother or someone took her as their own. We have developed a complicated system in our country for the union of two people. That is for sure.
bpollen December 13th, 2015 at 23:12
Oh, yeah.
William December 13th, 2015 at 18:04
I agree. The government needs to get out of the marriage business. The concept of a license is to document competency in a profession, occupation or activity. IE, a medical license, drivers license or license to dispense alcohol. The concept of granting a license to proclaim a couples ability to coexist is ridicules . Taxes, finances. pensions, etc.. should be the exclusive province of the individual, unless a couple agrees to contractually enter into an agreement.
StoneyCurtisll December 13th, 2015 at 19:21
I totally agree…
and who the fugg is Kim Davis to lord over anyones relationship.
The Original Just Me December 13th, 2015 at 21:01
Actually, the government never really got into marriage until the Income tax law was passed. Or did it ever really get Ratified.
John Galt December 13th, 2015 at 22:42
Yes, 1916 and even further in 1935, at least as far as the federal government is concerned.
The Original Just Me December 13th, 2015 at 22:44
You’re talking Social Security there, Yup.
anothertoothpick December 13th, 2015 at 15:19
What other freedoms does rubes want to take away from US citizens, I wonder?
The Original Just Me December 13th, 2015 at 20:59
Dual Citizenship ?
dewired4u December 13th, 2015 at 15:31
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVM5LpJH5do
anothertoothpick December 13th, 2015 at 15:36
That is a RIOT!
Thanks D.
StoneyCurtisll December 13th, 2015 at 19:16
Now that is Funny~!
anothertoothpick December 13th, 2015 at 15:58
Rubes was on NBC’S “meet the republicans” this morning.
That librul lame stream media show and he does not like that godamn law.
And NBC just let’s him spew.
Obewon December 13th, 2015 at 16:19
Soon to be ex-Senator lame duck Rube, still hasn’t comprehended his own conservative majority SCOTUS upholding the 10th and 14th equal marriage amendments in 2014. And again in 2015 nationally conferring 2,000+ Federal marriage benefits “Equally.”
bpollen December 13th, 2015 at 17:14
“…interpret the Constitution as originally constructed”
Yeah, we don’t need those Amendment thingies…
jybarz December 13th, 2015 at 17:21
Should concentrate on settling the 2nd Amendment…it’s not an individual’s right to arm.
It would be thousands of lives saver!
Whereas SSM harms no one except the evil minds of bigots, like Rubio and GOP, who want to deny human and civil rights from lgbt Americans.
jwong318 December 13th, 2015 at 18:55
Top off the craziness, the more crazy these Candidates, the more RepubliCon will love them. This kid Rubio wants to be President. He keeps talking both of his mouth, look his donators..Bunch of Special Interests… Clown! Drink more water, Rubio, and start talking Nonsense.