Poor Marco!

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Mario Rubio was challenged and corrected on some misinformation by a gay New Hampshire voter on the campaign trail on Monday.

Republican presidential hopeful Marco Rubio, in an exchange with a gay New Hampshire resident today, showed a lack of historical knowledge and got accused of wanting to put LGBT people back in the closet.

Rubio was campaigning today at the Puritan Backroom diner in Manchester, where Timothy Kierstead asked him, “Why do you want to put me back in the closet?” according to The New York Times, which cited press pool reports. Rubio responded, “I don’t. You can live any way you want.”

Kierstead pointed out that he’s a gay man in a same-sex marriage, and said Rubio’s opposition to equal marriage rights shows the U.S. senator from Florida thinks gay people don’t matter. Rubio said, “No, I just believe marriage is between one man and one woman.”

When Kierstead said, “That’s your belief,” and noted that half the nation disagrees, Rubio replied, “I think that’s what the law should be. And if you don’t agree, you should have the law changed by a legislature.” As Rubio prepared to move on, Kierstead noted that the law already has changed [by the New Hampshire legislature]. He could have been referring to the U.S. Supreme Court’s marriage equality decision last year or to the fact that New Hampshire’s marriage law was indeed changed by its legislature to include same-sex couples — back in 2009. And in 2012 the legislature rejected an effort to repeal marriage equality.

Kierstead told reporters afterward that he's a Manchester restaurant owner, a father of three, and a registered independent voter. He will vote in the Democratic primary Tuesday because of Republican opposition to marriage equality, he said. “They want to take my rights away as a citizen of the United States,” he said of Republicans.

It wasn’t the only gay-related conversation Rubio had in the diner, the Times reports. Another patron asked him if U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who recently dropped out of the Republican presidential race, is gay. Rubio chuckled and said no, according to the Times.

The Human Rights Campaign, in a blog post about Rubio’s exchange with Kierstead, stressed that Rubio is staunchly opposed to LGBT rights. He has said he would appoint Supreme Court justices who would reverse the marriage equality ruling and has voiced support for the First Amendment Defense Act, which would allow broad exemptions from antidiscrimination law if the discrimination is based on religious or moral objections to same-sex marriage.

“Let’s dispense with this fiction that Marco Rubio is a moderate. He knows exactly what he’s doing when he telegraphs his desire to allow discrimination in last week’s debate, and then tells a married gay man to have the legislature vote on his constitutional rights," JoDee Winterhof, HRC’s senior vice president for policy and political affairs, said in the post. “Marco Rubio’s so-called ‘New American Century’ is one in which LGBT people are treated like second-class citizens, where they remain at risk for being fired or denied a job because of who they are or who they love, and where they could lose the right to get married. He’s threatened to revoke, repeal, and overturn the gains made on LGBT equality during President Obama’s two terms in office. Rubio would be a disaster for LGBT Americans, plain and simple.”

Watch a portion of Rubio’s conversation with Kierstead in the video below, from American Bridge 21st Century, and find more Rubio faux pas caught on camera here.

Source

Video of the exchange:

Comments

[ponitacupcake.livejournal.com]

Marco Rubio but fuck that guy and fuck all of them. There are no republican "moderates".

[fieryphoenix.livejournal.com]

Have you noticed that the term 'Republican In Name Only' and similar accusations are never flung at a Republican who's too right-wing? Only those who aren't right-wing enough? You need boundaries on both sides to not be a batshit crazy loose cannon of an institution.

Edit: Also: Marco Rubio On The Issues:

(http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Marco_Rubio.htm)

[ponitacupcake.livejournal.com]

Heh, true.

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

In this race, the closest you'll get is Kasich, who isn't really moderate. The sad truth is the last Presidential election cycle taught the party that being a true moderate (like Huntsman) means you get no votes. Hell, Kasich isn't really getting any votes, so this lesson is being reinforced.

[ponitacupcake.livejournal.com]

I remember thinking "I wouldn't vote for a Republican but Kasich doesn't seem too bad". And then I actually read about his politics and was, "nope".

[donkeyjon.livejournal.com]

I would gladly vote for Kasich, but it's likely I won't get the option. I like many of Rubio's positions, but hate a few (including his views on the legality of same-sex marriage), so it would be hard to vote for Rubio, but I would do so if he ran against Hillary.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

Credit where credit is due--Kasich is the kind of GOPer who I want to "nope nope nope" all the way to the bank, but he comes off as someone who will agree to disagree on XYZ, and agree to work on ABC.

Shit, he's the only GOPer who, on national TV, proudly talks about raising the min-wage (even if he only raised it a small amount, it's the correct direction, vs the rest of them who want to eliminate it entirely)

[ponitacupcake.livejournal.com]

I pretty much disagree with Kasich on everything but i would trust him not to be very inexperienced (Rubio or Carson) or blow stuff up (Trump and Cruz) so i guess he's the best of them.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

A certain conservative LJer recently lambasted Kasich for being too far to the left (calling him, in effect, a RINO - I think the wording was that he is no "true" conservative.) What I'd love to ask people like that, as their own personal Overton window's continue to slide to the right, is where the rightward bound of that definition lies. I mean, is there any such thing as a candidate who is SO far to the right that he'd be a RINO, or no longer conservative? I think the true answer to that would be pretty telling, because it helps explain this mad rush to more and more extreme positions (and a subsequent Orwellian re-definition not only of what conservatism means now, but what it must ALWAYS have meant - and therefore center-right candidates are now seen as "too liberal.")

[ponitacupcake.livejournal.com]

I wonder if Reagan is too liberal now.

[moonshaz.livejournal.com]

Not only would Reagan be too liberal for most of his party now, but he's probably spinning in his grave at where some of them are trying to take it.

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

What about Hillary?

[ponitacupcake.livejournal.com]

Its hard to tell what this is in answer to but is she a Republican?

[ponitacupcake.livejournal.com]

Also it makes zero sense for anyone to oppose gay marriage. The only rational explanation is homophobia but homophobia isn't rational.

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Not zero sense. In terms of getting support from (as you point out) the non-rational, it is a rational decision.

If there are enough non-rational people out there, you could be elected.

It's pandering.

[ponitacupcake.livejournal.com]

Yes.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

It's proposals like the FADA that make me very wary to support Hillary. I just don't see how she's getting the Equality Act through a Republican Congress without making some FADA-related concession. If such a deal is struck, you can bet it'll be the status quo for decades - it won't be an incremental step in the right direction, it'll be the only step.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

FADA?

To me it's her Iraq vote and her disinterest in breaking up the too big to fail banks that make me very wary.

That and her increasingly harsh rhetoric against Sanders supporters--Bernie Bro's and "young women should just grow up" kind of crap.

But that's me.

What the heck is FADA? Sorry if ignorant question.

[oslo.livejournal.com]

FADA is referenced in the OP. The "First Amendment Defense Act," which would prohibit the federal government from doing anything that might be deemed to be a punishment or withdrawal of benefits from a "person" (meaning any natural person or corporation) exercising his, her, or its religious belief marriage is between one man and one woman, or that "sexual relations" are properly reserved to such marriage.

The "you support Bernie only because you're a sexist" line of Hillary support has been very frustrating for me. I think a lot of the Hillary supporters I encounter have an internally inconsistent set of reasons to support Hillary, but it's hard to call out without risking that whole set of baggage.

[johnny9fingers.livejournal.com]

The "you support Bernie only because you're a sexist" line of Hillary support has been very frustrating for me. I think a lot of the Hillary supporters I encounter have an internally inconsistent set of reasons to support Hillary, but it's hard to call out without risking that whole set of baggage.

I think sometimes you have to risk it and tell it as you see it. You can always retire hurt when you have blown your reputation and standing: but while you still have any social capital and intellectual credibility you have to tell it as it is. :)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I was seriously confused about MARIO Rubio.

I thought maybe it's MARCO's son or brother or something....

[yes-justice.livejournal.com]

Let us dispel with this fiction that Marco Rubio is a moderate. He knows exactly who he is oppressing.

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I like what you did there.