|
Marco Rubio on Civil Rights
Republican Florida Senator
|
|
|
Men's bathrooms are for men & women's bathrooms for women
Q: Support gay marriage?Murphy: Yes
Rubio: No. Supports overturning same-sex marriage ruling.
Q: Should transgender individuals have the right to use public bathrooms of their choice?
Murphy: Yes. Cosponsored The Equality Act to ban
discrimination based on gender identity.
Rubio: No. Men's bathrooms are for men & women's bathrooms are for women. Advocates for reversing Obama's Executive Order on gender identity and opposes making sexual orientation a protected class.
Source: CampusElect Voter Guide to 2016 Florida Senate race
, Oct 9, 2016
One-man-one-woman marriage existed before our laws
Several GOP candidates tried to outdo one another on who could speak out most strongly against a right to gay marriage. "Marriage as an institution existed before even government itself," declared Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, at the Faith &
Freedom Summit, at which nine likely presidential candidates spoke. "The institution of marriage as between one man and one woman existed even before our laws existed."
Source: Politico.com on 2015 Iowa Faith & Freedom Coalition summit
, Apr 26, 2015
I oppose gay marriage, but it's the law of the land
Rubio says the Supreme Court decision on gay marriage is the law of the land. Rubio disagreed with the decision legalizing same-sex unions in all fifty states but said that Americans must abide by the ruling. Personally, Rubio says he believes marriage
is between a man and a woman. Holding a nuanced position on Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, Rubio believes some kinds of businesses, like wedding photography, should be allowed to turn away gay customers, and others, like hotels, should not.
Source: PBS News Hour "2016 Candidate Stands" series
, Apr 13, 2015
Opposes Paycheck Fairness: don't require equal pay for women
Marco Rubio voted Nay on S 2199 - Paycheck Fairness Act. Vote on a motion to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed to debate on a bill that establishes additional penalties for violations of equal pay requirements in the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Synopsis:- Prohibits an employer from paying a wage rate to employees of a particular sex that is lower than the rate paid to employees of the opposite sex for equal work unless such payment is made due to a bona fide factor other than sex.
-
Prohibits any employer from discharging or discriminating against any employee who has inquired about or disclosed his or her wages or the wages of another employee.
-
Requires an employer who violates the provisions of this bill to be held liable for compensatory damages, and for punitive damages, if the employee can demonstrate that the employer acted with "malice" or "reckless indifference."
Source: VoteSmart 2014 voting record synopsis
, Apr 9, 2014
Balance gay anti-discrimination with religious rights
Q: As gay rights advance, is religious freedom being trampled on?RUBIO: On the one hand, I think Americans, myself included, are against discrimination. A notion that someone, because they are gay, would be denied service at a restaurant or so forth
is something conservatives don't support. The other side of the equation is, imagine how if you are a Catholic or Evangelical photographer, who does not believe because of your faith in gay marriage, and because of that, you don't want to provide photo
services for a gay marriage. Should you be sanctioned by the state for refusing to do so?
Q: So what about the recent Arizona case?
RUBIO: I don't believe that gay Americans should be denied services at a restaurant or a hotel or anything of that
nature. I also don't believe however that a caterer or a photographer should be punished by the state for refusing to provide services for a gay wedding because of their religious-held beliefs. We've got to figure out a way to protect that as well.
Source: Meet the Press 2014 interviews of 2016 presidential hopefuls
, Mar 2, 2014
Defining marriage does not demean a class of people
I believe the Supreme Court made a serious mistake today when it overstepped its important, but limited role. I do not believe that Pres. Clinton and overwhelming bipartisan majorities of both houses of Congress acted with malice or intent to 'demean' a
class of people when they adopted a uniform definition of marriage for the purposes of federal law. The Court should not have second guessed the will of the American people acting through their elected representatives without firm constitutional
justifications. The sweeping language of today's majority opinion is more troubling than the ruling itself as it points to further interference by the Court in the years to come.I recognize that the definition of marriage and the legal status of
same-sex relationships is a deeply personal and emotional issue for Americans of a variety of viewpoints. These types of disagreements should be settled through the democratic process, not through litigation and court pronouncements.
Source: Press release on U.S. Supreme Court rulings on DOMA
, Jun 28, 2013
I believe in historical marriage, but ok if states redefine
I believe that marriage is a unique historical institution best defined as the union between one man and one woman. In the U.S., marriage has traditionally been defined by state law, and I believe each state, acting through their elected representatives
or the ballot, should decide their own definition of marriage. For the purposes of federal law, however, Congress had every right to adopt a uniform definition and I regret that the Supreme Court would interfere with that determination.
I appreciate that many Americans' attitude towards same-sex marriage have changed in recent years. I respect the rights of states to allow same-sex marriages, even though I disagree with them. But I also expect that the decisions made by states like
Florida to define marriage as between one man and one woman will also be respected.
I do not believe there exists a federal constitutional right to same-sex marriage. Therefore, I am glad the Supreme Court did not create one in the Proposition 8 case.
Source: Press release on U.S. Supreme Court rulings on DOMA
, Jun 28, 2013
Leave gay marriage to states, but keep DOMA
Rubio is further to the ideological left on gay marriage than his rhetoric would suggest. "Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot," he declared at this month's Conservative
Political Action Conference. The "bigot" part is what got press--but more notable is that he said states should be able to ban gay marriage, meaning the issue should be left to the states.In February, Rubio likewise said he was "uncomfortable with a
federal constitutional amendment on anything, particularly on that, because it steps on the rights of states to define marriage." That was essentially Obama's position until last summer, and Hillary Clinton's position until last week.
But Rubio is
conservative Catholic, and his personal views on gay marriage are unlikely to shift. As of 2011 he also supports the Defense of Marriage Act, which bars federal recognition of same-sex marriages conducted in states where such unions are legal.
Source: Washington Post on Conservative Political Action 2013 Conf.
, Mar 26, 2013
Supports Amendment to prevent same sex marriage.
Rubio supports the CC survey question on banning same-sex marriage
The Christian Coalition voter guide [is] one of the most powerful tools Christians have ever had to impact our society during elections. This simple tool has helped educate tens of millions of citizens across this nation as to where candidates for public office stand on key faith and family issues.
The CC survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: "Federal Marriage Amendment to prevent same sex marriage"
Source: Christian Coalition Survey 10-CC-q3 on Aug 11, 2010
Opposes Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA).
Rubio opposes the F2A survey question on ENDA
Faith2Action.org is "the nation's largest network of pro-family groups." They provide election resources for each state, including Voter Guides and Congressional Scorecards excerpted here.
The Faith2Action survey summarizes candidate stances on the following topic: 'Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) '
Source: Faith2Action Survey 10-FF-q3 on Sep 19, 2010
Respect faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage.
Rubio co-sponsored respecting faith-based opposition to same-sex marriage
Congressional Summary: The First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that:
- marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or
- sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.
Legal Argument Opposed: [Secular.org]: `The stated purpose of FADA is to protect the tax-exempt status, government contract, or any other federal benefit of those who do not comply with the Supreme Court`s same-sex marriage ruling. This act`s true impact would allow for sweeping, taxpayer-funded discrimination against same-sex couples and their children--all under the guise of religious liberty. FADA would completely eviscerate the historic nondiscrimination Executive Order that President Obama signed last summer that prohibits federal contractors from
engaging in discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. The First Amendment protects freedom of religion and freedom from religion, not the special privileges of the religiously affiliated at the expense of the fundamental rights of other Americans.`Political Argument Opposed: [ACLU, July 20, 2015]: The House of Representatives & leading anti-LGBT organizations are pushing a bill--disingenuously titled the First Amendment Defense Act--that would open the door to unprecedented taxpayer-funded discrimination against LGBT people, single mothers, and unmarried couples. This bill would
- allow federal contractors, including those that provide homeless shelters or drug treatment programs, to turn away LGBT people
- permit a university to fire an unmarried teacher simply for becoming pregnant
- permit federal employees to refuse to process tax returns, visa applications, or Social Security checks for all married same-sex couples
Source: H.R.2802 16-HR2802 on Jun 17, 2015
Page last updated: Aug 06, 2024; copyright 1999-2022 Jesse Gordon and OnTheIssues.org