Skip to main content

Senator Rubio may not want to be called a bigot, but...

Remember when Florida Senator Marco Rubio was seen as the politician to watch out for on the Republican side of the aisle? Then he had his dry mouth and water bottle moment when rebutting President Obama's State of the Union Address. Today, he appears to be becoming progressively (or would it be regressively) more of a far-right Tea Party type on an almost daily basis. This has especially been the case with gay rights.

When it came to marriage equality, Rubio said the following:

"I respect people who disagree with me on certain things, but that means they have to respect me too. Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot. Just because we believe that life, all human life, all life, all human life is worthy of protection in every stage of its development doesn't make you a chauvinist. In fact, the people who are actually close minded in American politics are people who love to preach about the certainty of science in regard to our climate, but ignore the absolute fact that life begins at conception."

That whole act of saying, "Hey, I respect your opinion even though it's different than mine. In turn, you have to respect my opinion," is typically nothing but a cop-out. I notice this strategy becomes especially prevalent when it comes to differences of opinion on people's rights - whether it be regarding gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or creed. It's typically said by the person who is against equal rights for one of those before-mentioned groups of people. After the other party gets back at them, they'll usually respond with, "Hey, I respect your opinion. You're the one being close-minded for not respecting mine!"

Yes, when African-Americans were lynched due to their skin color, couldn't vote, and were forced to use separate restrooms, they should have simply sat back, relaxed, and not worried about some whites having a different position than them on the matter. It would have been close-minded for blacks to have stood up, fought back, and tried to attain equal rights, all the while not accepting the discriminatory beliefs held by many at the time. What many people like Rubio don't seem to understand is this isn't about simply having differing opinions. It's about treating all human beings equally. This isn't about who should start at quarterback for the Buffalo Bills. It's about people being treated the same under the law. If a person is against this equal treatment, he or she can be accurately classified as a bigot.

With regard to Rubio's final line of his statement, all I have to say is he may want to read up a little more on the two topics. As a recent survey showcased, 97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing global warming. That may not showcase 100% certainty, but is pretty darn close to it. Also, that whole "life begins at conception" line is not "absolute fact." It is more opinion than anything, because how do we determine when life begins? From what angle are we supposed to look at the matter? Metabolism ("no one point when life can be said to begin")? Genetics (life begins at conception)? Embryology (life begins bout fourteen days after fertilization)? Neurology (life begins between 24 and 27 weeks after conception)? Ecology (life begins around 25 weeks into the pregnancy)? Determining when life begins is more based upon one's personal beliefs than on "absolute fact."

Continuing on with this theme of close-mindedness, Senator Rubio recently engaged in the following back-and-forth with ThinkProgress:

Keyes: "The Senate this summer is going to be taking up the Employment Non-Discrimination Act which makes it illegal to fire someone for being gay. Do you know if you'll be supporting that?"

Rubio: "I haven't read the legislation. by and large I think all Americans should be protected but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation."

Keyes: "What about on race or gender?"

Rubio: "Well that's established law."

Keyes: "But not for sexual orientation?"

This line of thinking is what regularly gets Republicans into trouble with women and minority groups. The line of thinking is, "No one should receive special privileges or protections. All Americans should be equally protected."

It's as if many far-right Republicans feel like this country was founded in 2008, and that blacks were never slaves, women and minorities were always allowed to vote, gays were given marriage rights in certain states, etc. Many seem to see racism, sexism, and homophobia as mere excuses given by people whom aren't very skilled. If an African-American complains about being fired or not being given a job due to the color of his or her skin, many far-right individuals will say, "Oh, there they go throwing the race card again! Stop it with the whining and get a job!" What these same individuals don't seem to realize is the fact that racism, sexism, and homophobia still exist in the country today. I wish that everyone was treated equally. I wish that everyone had equal opportunity. Unfortunately, though, that's still not the case, and due to discrimination, we have to try and establish equality, equal protection, and equal opportunity by passing legislation such as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. This bill isn't an attempt to give gays "special" protection. It's an attempt to give them equal protection due to the discrimination they often times face.

Approximately 40% of all openly lesbian, gay, and bisexual workers have been discriminated against at their jobs. That number rises to 90% for transgender individuals. When's the last time you heard about a straight person being discriminated against at work?

In addition to all of this, Senator Rubio said that he will walk away from the Immigration Reform bill if an amendment is added to include gay couples.

So, let's break this down for a moment. Senator Rubio doesn't want to be called a bigot, yet he doesn't believe gays should be given equal marriage rights, shouldn't be given protection from discrimination at work, and shouldn't be given equal rights as straight couples in the Immigration Reform bill. That's open-mindedness right there. According to the Florida Senator, it's very close-minded of me to not respect his opinions on these matters which prevent homosexuals from attaining equal rights under the law.

I wonder what women would say if Mr. Dry Mouth treated them in a similar manner:

"Ladies, please don't believe me to be a sexist for what I'm about to say and just respect the fact that I differ in opinion than you. The fact of the matter is I don't think you should be allowed to vote. I don't think you should be paid as much as men, even if you work the same job and perform almost identically. I don't believe you should have the option of having an abortion, even if you were raped and your life is in jeopardy. Please, no shouting. You're being the close-minded person now!"

Actually, Rubio doesn't believe in two of those three things (equal pay for women and abortion), so congratulations ladies - it looks like Mr. Water Bottle thinks slightly more of you than he does of homosexuals!

If Senator Rubio runs for president in 2016, his motto should be, "He believes in equality for all, except for women, gays, and many others. Vote Rubio - He's not a bigot."

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/03/14/1721551/rubio-denying-marriage-rights-to-gays-does-not-make-me-a-bigot/

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/sciencefair/post/2010/06/scientists-overwhelmingly-believe-in-man-made-climate-change/1#.Ubox6pxkleA

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_does_life_begin%3F

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2013/06/13/2153451/rubio-enda/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"