Marco Rubio sat down with Chuck Todd on Meet the Press Sunday and reiterated his opposition to marriage equality insisting that the issue is not settled law. Rather than pursue a federal marriage amendment if he’s president, Rubio says he’ll appoint Supreme Court justices that will interpret the Obergefell ruling as unconstitutional.
Asked Todd: “Are you going to work to overturn the same sex marriage?”
Said Rubio:
“I disagree with it on constitutional grounds. As I have said–I think it’s bad law. And for the following reason. If you want to change the definition of marriage, then you need to go to state legislatures and get them to change it. Because states have always defined marriage. And that’s why some people get married in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator. And in Florida, you have to wait a couple days when you get your permit. Every state has different marriage laws. But I do not believe that the court system was the right way to do it.”
When asked if he’d pursue a constitutional amendment, Rubio adds:
“As I’ve said, that would be conceding that the current Constitution is somehow wrong and needs to be fixed. I don’t think the current Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage. That belongs at the state and local level. And that’s why if you want to change the definition of marriage, which is what this argument is about….It’s not about discrimination. It is about the definition of a very specific, traditional, and age-old institution. That definitional change, if you want to change it, you have a right to petition your state legislature and your elected representatives to do it. What is wrong is that the Supreme Court has found this hidden constitutional right that 200 years of jurisprudence had not discovered and basically overturn the will of 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.”
Rubio adds that he doesn’t believe it’s settled law:
“It is the current law. I don’t believe any case law is settled law. Any future Supreme Court can change it. And ultimately, I will appoint Supreme Court justices that will interpret the Constitution as originally constructed.”
