Florida Republican Senator and man voted most likely to become an elderly superhero by the name of Mr. Dry-Mouth - Marco Rubio - recently made the following remarks at Catholic University:
"[While recognizing that] our history is marred by discrimination against gays and lesbians, traditional marriage has such an extraordinary record of success at raising children.
Today, there is a growing intolerance on this issue, intolerance towards those who continue to support traditional marriage. And I promise you that even before this speech is over, I will be attacked as a hater, a bigot or someone who is anti-gay. This intolerance in the name of tolerance is hypocrisy."
He also added this:
"Supporting the definition of marriage between one man and one woman is not anti-gay, it is pro-traditional marriage. And if support for traditional marriage is bigotry, then Barack Obama was a bigot until just before the 2012 election."
I've touched on this issue before, so I'll try to condense this as much as possible. What Marco Rubio and those like him are missing is the fact that 99.9% of people whom believe in gay marriage also believe in traditional marriage. This isn't a this or that type of situation. My mother and father have been married for over 30 years, and guess what? I'm perfectly fine with that. However, I also believe gay couples should be afforded equal marriage rights under the law. The fact that Rubio doesn't believe this does make him anti-gay. Let's look at the breakdown, shall we?
Traditional marriage
Marco Rubio: "I believe in traditional marriage between one man and one woman."
LGBT supporters: "We believe in marriage rights for 'traditional' couples - between one man and one woman."
Gay marriage
Marco Rubio: "I don't believe in gay marriage! I believe it's between one man and one woman!"
LGBT supporters: "We believe gay couples should have equal rights as straight couples when it comes to marriage."
Now, Marco, do you see the difference there? The LGBT couples are scoring a perfect 2 for 2 (100%) when it comes to believing that both straight and gay couples should have a right to marriage. In other words, they're pro-straight couple and pro-gay couple. You, on the other hand, are 1 for 2 (50%), because while you believe in straight couples' right to marriage, and are therefore pro-straight couple, you are against gay couples' right to marriage, and are therefore anti-gay couple. Get it? Need me to run it by you again? Need another bottle of water, or perhaps three or four? Okay then...
Also, Rubio may be at least partially accurate about President Barack Obama not believing in gays' right to marry until too terribly long ago, and could perhaps have been labeled as anti-gay until that time. However, there is such a thing as changing one's opinion on an issue, or evolving as a person. With Rubio's mentality, he also would say things like, "Well, X must have been a racist before he agreed with the Civil Rights Act being passed!" That's quite possible, but again, people can change. Also, if before that law was signed, someone stood up and said, "I'm not a racist; I'm pro-traditional America, where whites are the leaders and rulers!" I'm sorry, but that would indeed make that person a racist.
Lastly, this hypocrisy bit some on the far-right like to spout makes me chuckle some. They like to claim that not tolerating intolerance is the same as not tolerating tolerance. Just think where this country would be if we continually tolerated intolerance. Women would still be house-slaves. African-Americans wouldn't be able to vote. Muslims wouldn't be able to practice Islam. The list could go on for days. What if Susan B. Anthony didn't fight intolerance? What if Rosa Parks didn't fight intolerance? What if Martin Luther King didn't fight intolerance? That's another thing Marco Rubio and his ilk seem to miss. Most members of the LGBT community don't care whether or not Senator Rubio is tolerant or intolerant of them. They don't care if Rick Santorum despises them, or if Rick Perry makes a disgusted look when he hears a word affiliated with their community. They're not looking for 100% tolerance via people's opinions, because we all have the right to our own opinion. What they're seeking is equal rights and tolerance under the law. A racist congressman can think whatever he wants. A sexist governor can think whatever he wants. An anti-gay senator like Marco Rubio can think whatever he wants. At the end of the day, however, these opinions should not thwart a group of people from having equal rights under the law. Hypocrisy isn't standing up for people attaining equal rights in the face of prejudice. Hypocrisy is voting against people attaining equal rights, all the while claiming that America is the "land of the free."
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/07/23/3463513/marco-rubio-accuses-gay-marriage-advocates-of-intolerance-and-hypocrisy/
"[While recognizing that] our history is marred by discrimination against gays and lesbians, traditional marriage has such an extraordinary record of success at raising children.
Today, there is a growing intolerance on this issue, intolerance towards those who continue to support traditional marriage. And I promise you that even before this speech is over, I will be attacked as a hater, a bigot or someone who is anti-gay. This intolerance in the name of tolerance is hypocrisy."
He also added this:
"Supporting the definition of marriage between one man and one woman is not anti-gay, it is pro-traditional marriage. And if support for traditional marriage is bigotry, then Barack Obama was a bigot until just before the 2012 election."
I've touched on this issue before, so I'll try to condense this as much as possible. What Marco Rubio and those like him are missing is the fact that 99.9% of people whom believe in gay marriage also believe in traditional marriage. This isn't a this or that type of situation. My mother and father have been married for over 30 years, and guess what? I'm perfectly fine with that. However, I also believe gay couples should be afforded equal marriage rights under the law. The fact that Rubio doesn't believe this does make him anti-gay. Let's look at the breakdown, shall we?
Traditional marriage
Marco Rubio: "I believe in traditional marriage between one man and one woman."
LGBT supporters: "We believe in marriage rights for 'traditional' couples - between one man and one woman."
Gay marriage
Marco Rubio: "I don't believe in gay marriage! I believe it's between one man and one woman!"
LGBT supporters: "We believe gay couples should have equal rights as straight couples when it comes to marriage."
Now, Marco, do you see the difference there? The LGBT couples are scoring a perfect 2 for 2 (100%) when it comes to believing that both straight and gay couples should have a right to marriage. In other words, they're pro-straight couple and pro-gay couple. You, on the other hand, are 1 for 2 (50%), because while you believe in straight couples' right to marriage, and are therefore pro-straight couple, you are against gay couples' right to marriage, and are therefore anti-gay couple. Get it? Need me to run it by you again? Need another bottle of water, or perhaps three or four? Okay then...
Also, Rubio may be at least partially accurate about President Barack Obama not believing in gays' right to marry until too terribly long ago, and could perhaps have been labeled as anti-gay until that time. However, there is such a thing as changing one's opinion on an issue, or evolving as a person. With Rubio's mentality, he also would say things like, "Well, X must have been a racist before he agreed with the Civil Rights Act being passed!" That's quite possible, but again, people can change. Also, if before that law was signed, someone stood up and said, "I'm not a racist; I'm pro-traditional America, where whites are the leaders and rulers!" I'm sorry, but that would indeed make that person a racist.
Lastly, this hypocrisy bit some on the far-right like to spout makes me chuckle some. They like to claim that not tolerating intolerance is the same as not tolerating tolerance. Just think where this country would be if we continually tolerated intolerance. Women would still be house-slaves. African-Americans wouldn't be able to vote. Muslims wouldn't be able to practice Islam. The list could go on for days. What if Susan B. Anthony didn't fight intolerance? What if Rosa Parks didn't fight intolerance? What if Martin Luther King didn't fight intolerance? That's another thing Marco Rubio and his ilk seem to miss. Most members of the LGBT community don't care whether or not Senator Rubio is tolerant or intolerant of them. They don't care if Rick Santorum despises them, or if Rick Perry makes a disgusted look when he hears a word affiliated with their community. They're not looking for 100% tolerance via people's opinions, because we all have the right to our own opinion. What they're seeking is equal rights and tolerance under the law. A racist congressman can think whatever he wants. A sexist governor can think whatever he wants. An anti-gay senator like Marco Rubio can think whatever he wants. At the end of the day, however, these opinions should not thwart a group of people from having equal rights under the law. Hypocrisy isn't standing up for people attaining equal rights in the face of prejudice. Hypocrisy is voting against people attaining equal rights, all the while claiming that America is the "land of the free."
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2014/07/23/3463513/marco-rubio-accuses-gay-marriage-advocates-of-intolerance-and-hypocrisy/
Comments
Post a Comment