Marriage: Rubio has consistently opposed marriage equality. He even thanked Speaker John Boehner for spending taxpayer dollars to protect the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). Rubio said “you have to really have a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex.” Rubio has also said that “the most important thing the next President will do is appoint Supreme Court justices” opposed to rulings like Obergefell, and has suggested Supreme Court appointments are the best way to reverse the historic ruling and roll back progress.

Discrimination: As a candidate, Rubio said he opposed making sexual orientation a protected class under civil rights laws. Despite claiming he opposed discrimination, Rubio voted against ENDA--which would have given LGBT Americans explicit protection from discrimination in the workplace--and he threatened to oppose his own immigration bill if it included provisions for same-sex couples. He supports the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), which would allow government employees to discriminate against LGBT people under the guise of “religious liberty” and has vowed to appoint both an Attorney General and Supreme Court justices who would defend the right of people like Kim Davis to discriminate.

Executive Orders: Rubio has vowed to repeal “every single one” of President Obama’s executive orders. He has explicitly called for repealing those that protect LGBT people from discrimination, stating “on my first day in office, they’re gone.”

Conversion Therapy: Rubio has raised money in Florida for a key backer of conversion therapy.

Harmful Rhetoric: Rubio has recorded robocalls for the National Organization for Marriage (NOM), which named him a “real marriage” champion. He has helped raised money for the Florida Family Policy Council, whose leader said that being gay is an “artificial, social construct” that is “dangerous.”

Adoption: Rubio opposes allowing LGBT couples to adopt because children shouldn’t “be part of a social experiment.”

Anti-bullying: TBD

Rubio’s Notable Quotes on LGBT Equality

Rubio Spoke Out Against Allowing Same-Sex Couples From Adopting, Saying Children “Shouldn’t Be Forced To Be Part Of A Social Experiment.” According to the Tallahassee Democrat: “The Department of Children and Families is under fire from children’s advocates for allowing foster children to spend the night in a conference room in Tallahassee, but legislative leaders said Wednesday that won’t change their minds about allowing gays to adopt. ‘Some of these kids are the most disadvantaged in the state,’ said House Majority Leader Marco Rubio of West Miami. ‘They shouldn't be forced to be part of a social experiment.’” [Tallahassee Democrat, 4/6/2006]

Rubio Said He Would Be Against His Own Immigration Bill If It Gave Same-Sex Couples Rights. According to CNN, Senator Rubio said when discussing his immigration bill, “If this bill has in it something that gives gay couples immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill. I'm gone. I'm off it.” [CNN, Political Ticker, 6/13/2013]

Rubio Said “The Most Important This The Next President Will Do” Is Appoint Justices To The Supreme Court Who Will Disagree With Current Court’s Thinking On Obergefell. In an interview with CBN, Rubio said: “And beyond it, I think one of the biggest things the next President is going to do is appoint justices to the Supreme Court -- justices who understand that the Constitution is a living and breathing document. It is a document of limitation and it’s supposed to be interpreted and applied based on its original intent. And there is no way that you can read that Constitution and deduce from it that there is constitutional right to an abortion, or a constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex. And what you have is a Supreme Court that wanted to reach a certain policy outcome and so creatively manipulated the Constitution to discover a right that for over two centuries, some of the most brilliant minds and legal history didn’t find. So you need judges that understand how constitutionally flawed that those two kinds of rulings and others have been and that’s what the most important thing the next President will do is appoint Supreme court Justices that actually will apply the constitution irrespective of their personal feelings about the issue.” [CBN, The Brody File, 12/5/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Said Marriage Equality “Is Current Law. I Don’t Believe Any Case Is Settled Law. Any Future Supreme Court Can Change It.” After declaring marriage equality “bad law,” Rubio said: “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.” Chuck Todd pressed, “So are you accepting the idea of same sex marriage in perpetuity?” Rubio responded: “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.” [NBC, Meet The Press, 12/13/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Vowed To Undo “Every Single One” Of Obama’s Executive Orders… “On My First Day In Office, They’re Gone.” According to the Des Moines Register, “FORT DODGE, Ia. – Marco Rubio promised to undo ‘every single one’ of President Barack Obama’s executive orders, and on Tuesday said that Obama is unconstitutionally limiting and undermining the Second Amendment. ‘On my first day in office, they’re gone,’ the Florida senator said to crowd in Cedar Rapids.” [Des Moines Register, 1/6/2016]

Rubio Said He Didn’t Think Indiana RFRA Bill “Opened Up Discrimination” And That No One “Should Be Force[d] To Participate…In An Event That Your Faith Teaches Is Immoral And Wrong.” At an event in Waverly, IA, Rubio was asked about Indiana’s right to discriminate RFRA legislation. Rubio said: “Well, I don’t agree that [Pence’s Indiana RFRA bill] opened up discrimination. I don’t believe that. I don’t believe in discrimination, but I can tell you this, you’re never going to--we shouldn’t have a country where a pastor is threatened for losing their tax-exempt status because they refuse to conduct a same-sex ceremony. I don’t think we need to live in a country where a baker or a florist is threatened with a fine because they refuse to participate in a specific event. Not serve people. It is sinful to discriminate against people. But to be forced to participate in a ceremony, in an event that your faith teaches is immoral and wrong, no one should be forced to do that. You shouldn’t be forced to do that.” [Marco Rubio, Waverly, IA, 1/18/2016]

Rubio on the Issues

• Marriage Equality: Opposed

• Protecting LGBT Americans from Discrimination: Opposed

• Protecting President Obama’s Executive Orders: Opposed

• Ban Harmful “Conversion Therapy” :Opposed

• LGBT Adoption: Opposed
• Anti-Bullying: TBD

Rubio Said He Had “Mixed Feelings” On A Federal Marriage Amendment But “Marriage Is Between A Man And A Woman.” Slate reported that, “In the book, Rubio shies away from social issues. There's an emphasis on family-parental notification for social networking sites (No. 66), building ‘Children's Zones’ for at-risk kids (No. 69), creating a ‘family-friendly Hollywood’ in Florida (No. 90)-but he doesn't touch gay marriage or abortion. ‘The reason it's not in the book is we didn't hear a lot about it at that moment,’ Rubio says. But, he tells me, he believes marriage is between a man and a woman. As for the federal marriage amendment, ‘I have mixed feelings about that.’” [Slate, 5/22/2009]

Rubio Thanked Speaker Boehner For Taking Action To Defend The Defense Of Marriage Act. Senator Rubio released a statement regarding the Defense Of Marriage Act that read: “I want to thank Speaker Boehner and the House Republican leadership for taking action to defend this critical law that was enacted by a bipartisan majority in Congress and signed by President Bill Clinton. It is unfortunate that President Obama decided to no longer defend the Defense of Marriage Act. While much of the debate in Washington is focused on creating jobs and growing our economy, we should not sit by while this administration makes profound and regrettable decisions based more upon the politics of the day than the words of our Founding Fathers. This law protects one of our most sacred institutions and because of the House’s actions today, it will be defended.” [Office of Senator Rubio, Press Release, 3/4/2011]

Rubio Supported The Florida Family Policy Council’s “Ignite Enduring Cultural Transformation” Campaign; Campaign Sought To Stop Marriage Equality, Curtail Abortion Rights, And Ban Bathrooms Inclusive Of All Gender Identities. According to the Florida Independent: “Rubio in particular has associated with anti-abortion groups since campaigning for his current seat in the U.S. Senate. Rubio appeared at a policy awards dinner for the Florida Family Policy Council, and threw his support behind the group’s ‘Ignite an Enduring Cultural Transformation’ campaign. ‘Ignite’aaims to raise large amounts of cash for ‘groups [that] intend to pass anti-gay marriage amendments, curtail abortion rights and, in at least one case, ban ‘transgender bathrooms,’” The American Independent reported.” [The Florida Independent, 8/16/2011]

Rubio Said That Democrats Were Using Same-Sex Marriage Issue In Order To “Label These Folks As Left Undesirable” And Say “If You Don’t Agree With [The Left] You Are A Bad Person.” According to ABC: “Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said Thursday that the left is using the gay marriage debate and other issues in an effort to divide the country and drive attention away from President Obama’s failings on the economy. ‘They [Democrats] don’t want to have a debate on marriage or these ideas. What they are saying is if you don’t agree with them you’re a bad person, and that’s usually their default position,’ Rubio said in an interview on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. ‘For example, if you don’t agree with their ideas about immigration and immigration reform, you’re anti-immigrant,’ he said. ‘If you don’t agree with their ideas of how the tax code should be structured, you’re anti-working, you’re for the rich guys and you’re against the working class. So we have to work – we have to understand that’s what their strategy is. ‘They can’t win a debate on the merits of these ideas,’ he added. ‘They can’t. They know that. So they don’t want to be involved in a debate on the merits. ‘They immediately go to the, ‘Let’s label these folks as left undesirable,’ for the reasons that you’ve outlined. So we have to be aware of it and we have to be able to point that out. And we also have truth on our side. We also have facts and figures on our side, and we have to be able to make that compelling argument and not fall into that trap of trying to prove that we’re not haters, that we’re not trying to overcompensate, either.’ Rubio said he believes in keeping the institution of marriage as being between one man and one woman. He added that people should not be demonized for holding that view." [ABC News, The Note, 5/10/2012]

Rubio Said President Obama’s Acceptance Of Same-Sex Marriage Was “An Effort By This President To Divide One Group Of Americans Against Another Group Of Americans For The Purposes Of Getting Him Re-Elected. It’s Very, Very Sad.” Rubio told Laura Ingraham: “‘The issue here is a very straight-forward one. And that is this institution called marriage, which societies have had for a very long time, what does it mean? What is it? What is a marriage? And for those of us that believe that a marriage – the word marriage – is a very specific institution, and that is the union of a man and a woman under law together.’ the senator insisted. ‘I think you can have that belief and not have to be characterized the way some people are characterized about it. I think it’s an honest and open debate that people are having all across the country.’ He continued, ‘And so I think Charles is absolutely right when he talks about one of the pitfalls of this issue is this effort to demonize people. But that’s not unique to this issue…‘And obviously if you don’t vote for the Democratic plan on student loans you’re not in favor of students. If you don’t agree that the federal government should have the power to mandate that the Catholic Church pay for things the Catholic Church teaches against you’re waging a war against women. If you don’t believe that we should raise taxes you’re waging a war against the working class. I mean every week it is an effort by this president to divide one group of Americans against another group of Americans for the purposes of getting him reelected. It’s very, very sad.’ he finished.” [Philadelphia Conservative Examiner, 5/11/2012]

Rubio Said Same-Sex Marriage Was A “Unique Institution…I Think That’s How The Majority Of People Feel In Key States Where This Has Been Voted On.” According to Newsmax: “Sen. Marco Rubio said Tuesday that President Barack Obama is using gay marriage to distract from his own dismal record on the economy. The Florida Republican, author of a new autobiography, ‘An American Son,’ told Newsmax TV that he doesn’t think the marriage issue, which he called a personal one, will help Obama in the election. ‘I believe marriage is a unique institution, it’s the union between one man and one woman, and that’s my personal belief. I think Americans of good faith can disagree on the issue but that’s certainly how I feel and I think that’s how the majority of people feel in key states where this has been voted on,’ Rubio said.” [Newsmax, 5/15/2012]

Rubio, When Asked If There Should Be A Federal Amendment Banning Same-Sex Marriage, Said It Should Remain In The States, And Pointed To Florida’s Constitutional Ban.” Rubio, asked on Fox News by Neil Cavuto whether same-sex marriage was an issue Republicans were uncomfortable with said, “I mean, look, I think that the bottom line is that -- I’m not saying all Republicans, but certainly, I do believe that marriage is an institution where there’s a union between one man and one woman, and that’s my personal belief. I think people of good faith can disagree with me, and in many states, they have made a different decision than that. And that’s a fact…” Cavuto asked, “Well do you think that should be encoded in our Constitution, that there should be an amendment that states that?” Rubio responded, “Well, I think ultimately, marriage has always been regulated by states, so I think that’s where it remains and where it should remain. I think that’s what most people believe, but what I think you’re pointing to is a different issue. And that is, you want to know my opinion on marriage, I’ll give you my opinion on marriage, and that is that’s a union between one man and one woman. And that’s what it is in Florida, for example, because the voters wanted it to be that way in the state Constitution.” [Fox News, Your World With Neil Cavuto , 5/18/2012; VIDEO]

In An Evangelical Magazine, Rubio Reiterated His Opposition To Marriage Equality. The Advocate reported that "Rubio, who represents Florida in the U.S. Senate, told Christianity Today interviewer Sarah Pulliam Bailey, ‘In terms of the Bible’s interpretation of marriage, what our faith teaches is pretty straightforward. There’s not much debate about that. The debate is about what society should tolerate, and what society should allow our laws to be. I believe marriage is a unique and specific institution that is the result of thousands of years of wisdom, which concluded that the ideal — not the only way but certainly the ideal — situation to raise children to become productive and healthy humans is in a home with a father and mother married to each other. Does that mean people who are not in that circumstance cannot be successful? Of course not. It’s not a discriminatory thing. I’m not angry at anyone because of it, but I also have to be honest about what I believe marriage should be in our laws.’” [Advocate, 6/20/2012]

• After USA Today Blogger Categorized Rubio As ‘Open’ To Marriage Equality, Rubio Spokesman Clarified, “To Characterize His Views On Gay Marriage As ‘Open’ Is Not Accurate.” According to the Advocate: “The interview led USA Today blogger Cathy Lynn Grossman, in a Tuesday post, to call the Republican senator ‘open’ to consideration of equal marriage rights. Not so, says Rubio spokesman Alex Conant, who responded to Grossman today. ‘Senator Rubio believes that the union of one man and one woman is the ideal setting to raise a strong family and why our laws should recognize the institution of marriage as a union of one man and one woman,’ Conant said. ‘He recognizes that children raised in other settings, such as those raised by single parents, can and do succeed as well. But the ideal setting to raise children is by a married man and woman. To characterize his views on gay marriage as ‘open’ is not accurate.’” [Advocate, 6/20/2012]

Rubio Participated In National Organization For Marriage Robocalls Against Marriage Equality. According to the Washington Blade: “Rising Republican star Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) is speaking out against same-sex marriage in robocalls being sent to voters in states deciding the issue at the ballot and presidential election swing states, according to an anti-gay group. The National Organization for Marriage, one of the major groups opposing marriage equality, included Rubio in a press release as among those making calls against same-sex marriage along with former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Focus on the Family co-founder James Dobson.” [Washington Blade, 11/2/2012]

Rubio Said He Had “Always Been Uncomfortable With A Federal Constitutional Amendment On Anything.” In an interview with BuzzFeed, Senator Rubio said “I’ve always been uncomfortable with a federal constitutional amendment on anything, particularly on that, because I think it steps on the rights of states to define marriage. I think that’s a two-way street, though. If states define marriage as between one man and one woman, if you’re going to say it belongs to the states, then you have to respect whatever decision they make.” [BuzzFeed, 2/6/2013; VIDEO]

Rubio Said He Had A “Strong Belief” That Marriage Was Between A Man And A Woman And “That’s An Issue That The States Are Deciding.”.” According to Buzzfeed “Asked if he had a strong view one way or another on the issue [of same-sex couples], Rubio said, ‘That goes to the core issue of marriage in general, and I think, increasingly, that’s an issue that states are deciding,’ noting his ‘strong belief’ in marriage being only between a man and a woman. Although that answer could suggest that Rubio thinks a state’s decision whether to allow same-sex couples to marry should control whether they are treated as married for immigration purposes, the federal prohibition on recognizing same-sex couples’ marriages under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) — which Rubio has supported in the past — doesn’t allow the federal government to acknowledge the states’ decisions.” [Buzzfeed, 2/6/2013; VIDEO]

Rubio Said That The Supreme Court Should Not Have “Second-Guessed” The American People On Marriage. The News-Press reported that Senator Rubio said, “I believe the Supreme Court made a serious mistake (Wednesday) when it overstepped its important, but limited role. I do not believe that President 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 (Wednesday's) majority opinion is more troubling than the ruling itself as it points to further interference by the Court in the years to come.” [The News-Press, 6/27/2013]

Rubio Said On Proposition 8 He Believed The Supreme Court Overstepped On The Defense Against Marriage Act. According to the New York Times: “After the court's rulings on the Defense of Marriage Act and California's Proposition 8 this summer, Senator Marco Rubio issued a statement saying the court had ‘overstepped’ on DOMA. But, he added: ‘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.’” [New York Times, 11/2/2013]

Rubio Said Marriage Had Always Been Regulated By The States. The Examiner reported: “Marriage has always been something that has been regulated by the states,’ Rubio told the Examiner. ‘Some Republicans support those changes in state laws [supporting gay marriage], and they certainly have the right to define marriage differently. That's reflective of how public opinion in America is moving.’” [The Examiner, 6/26/2014]

Rubio Claimed That If To Be Against Marriage Equality Was “Bigotry,” Then President Obama Was A Bigot Before 2012. According to Politico: “Rubio reminded the audience that President Barack Obama was among those who didn't support gay marriage -- at least publicly -- until the months leading up to his re-election. ‘If support for traditional marriage is bigotry, then Barack Obama was a bigot until just before the 2012 election,’ he said.” [Politico, 7/23/2014]

Rubio: “There Is A Growing Intolerance On This Issue… Intolerance Towards Those Who Continue To Support Traditional Marriage.” “Our nation has in the past demonstrated a tremendous capacity to work through issues such as this. And I believe it will again. Doing so will require those of us who support traditional marriage to respect those who support same sex marriage. But it will also require those who support same sex marriage to respect those of us who support traditional marriage, for tolerance is also a two way street. However, today, there is a growing intolerance on this issue… intolerance towards those who continue to support traditional marriage. We have seen the push to remove the CEO of Mozilla because, in 2008, he made a small donation to support Proposition 8 in California, which would have upheld the traditional definition of marriage. We have seen the CEO of Starbucks tell a shareholder who supports traditional marriage that he should sell his shares and invest in some other company. And we’ve seen Chick-fil-A attacked and boycotted due to its CEO giving an honest answer to a question regarding his deeply held religious beliefs. 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. Supporting the definition of marriage as 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.” [Marco Rubio, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, 7/23/2014]

Rubio Opposes Marriage Equality “Not Because I Seek To Discriminate Against People Who Love Someone Of The Same, But Because I Believe That The Union Of One Man And One Woman Is A Special Relationship That Has Proven To Be Of Great Benefit To Our Society, Our Nation And Our People And Deserves To Be Elevated In Our Laws.” “Many committed gay and lesbian couples feel humiliated by the law’s failure to recognize their relationship as a marriage and supporters of same sex marriage argue that laws banning same sex marriage are discriminatory. I respect their arguments and I would concede that they pose a legitimate question for lawmakers and for society. But there’s another side to this debate. You see, thousands of years of human history have shown that the ideal setting for children to grow up is with a mother and a father committed to one another, living together and sharing the responsibility of raising their children. And since traditional marriage has such an extraordinary record of success at raising children into strong and successful adults, states in our country have long elevated this institution and set it apart in our laws. This is the definition of marriage that I personally support, not because I seek to discriminate against people who love someone of the same, but because I believe that the union of one man and one woman is a special relationship that has proven to be of great benefit to our society, our nation and our people and deserves to be elevated in our laws.” [Marco Rubio, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, 7/23/2014]

• Rubio: “Americans, Like Myself, Who Support Keeping The Traditional Definition Of Marriage Have A Right To Work To Keep The Traditional Definition Of Marriage In Our Laws Without Seeing That Overturned By A Judge.” “Today, public opinion polls show there is a growing acceptance in society of the idea that marriage should be redefined to include the union of two adults of the same sex. And as a result, a number of state legislatures have changed their laws to redefine marriage. States have always regulated marriage in America, and state legislatures have a right, a constitutional right to change those regulations. But that right to define and regulate marriage is a two-way street. A majority of states still have laws that define marriage as one man and one woman. In some, like my home state of Florida, voters placed that definition in our state constitution. Just as states have a right to redefine marriage to include same sex marriage, they also have right to continue to define it as between one man and one woman. But now, all across this country, we have judges overturning state laws and defining marriage and redefining marriage from the bench. Just last week, in my home state, a local judge overturned the decision of Florida’s voters to define marriage as one man and one woman. Those who support same sex marriage have a right to lobby their state legislatures to change state laws. But Americans, like myself, who support keeping the traditional definition of marriage also have a right to work to keep the traditional definition of marriage in our laws without seeing that overturned by a judge.” [Marco Rubio, Catholic University of America, Washington, DC, 7/23/2014]

Rubio Suggested Legislatures Had A Right To Work Against Marriage Equality Without Them Being Overturned By A Judge. While giving a speech at Catholic University of America, Senator Rubio said, “Americans like myself who support keeping the traditional definition of marriage also have a right to work to keep traditional definition of marriage in our laws without seeing them overturned by a judge.” [Politico, 7/23/2014]

Rubio Suggested That Those Against Marriage Equality Faced “Intolerance.” The Washington Times reported that Senator Rubio “complained that those who question gay unions have faced ‘intolerance’ for their views from same-sex marriage activists. ‘Even before this speech is over, I will be attacked as someone who is a hater or a bigot or someone who is anti-gay,’ he predicted.” [Washington Times, 7/24/2014]

Rubio Said If The Supreme Court Ruled In Favor Of Marriage Equality Opponents Would Be “In The Same Boats As Opponents Of Roe v. Wade.” According to CNN: “Rubio said if ultimately the Supreme Court issued a ruling protecting gay marriage as constitutional, opponents of gay marriage would be ‘in the same boat as opponents of Roe v. Wade,’ the SCOTUS decision that established a woman's constitutional right to an abortion.'” [CNN, 1/7/2015]

Rubio Clarified That State Officials Had No Option But To Abide By The Courts Decision. According to CNN Senator Rubio, “clarified during his Wednesday phone conversation that he felt his remarks did not constitute a shift from his July speech --- that while he felt the court was mistaken, the state's officials had no option but to abide by it. ‘I think [the court's decision] is wrong, both on legal principles, and I also think it's the wrong way to’ reverse Florida's gay marriage ban, which was approved by voters in 2008. He said the proper way to overturn a gay marriage ban is to offer an opposing ballot measure for the state's voters to again consider.” [CNN, 1/7/2015]

Rubio Thought Clerks Did Not Have Choice In Issuing Marriage Licenses Unless There Was A Stay By The Court. According to CNN Senator Rubio, on clerks having an option to follow the court’s decision to issue marriage licenses said, “I don't think [Florida's] clerks have a choice, at this stage, given that the ruling is there unless there's a stay.” [CNN, 1/7/2015]

Rubio Said Future Supreme Court Could Overturn Marriage Ruling. According to CNN: “Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said in an interview with CNN Wednesday that if the Supreme Court eventually rules that same-sex marriage is constitutional, Americans would have to abide by that ruling. ‘I wouldn't agree with their ruling, but that would be the law of the land that we would have to follow until it's somehow reversed — either by a future Supreme Court, or a U.S. constitutional amendment, which I don't think is realistic or foreseeable,’ he said.” [CNN, 1/7/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Said That “I Don’t Agree The Courts Have The Power [To Overturn State Same-Sex Marriage Bans]” And Changes Should Only Come Through Legislature Or Constitutional Amendment. In a brief interview Wednesday, [Rubio] argued that a federal court’s move undermines the will of the 62 percent of Florida voters who approved a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage six years ago...“If they wanted to change that law, they should have gone to the legislature or back to the Constitution and try to change it,” Rubio said. “I don’t agree we should be trying to make those changes through the courts.”.... But Rubio added: “While I believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman, while people want to change that law — and a lot of people apparently do – there is a way to do that. You go through the legislature, or you go on on the ballot, but I don’t agree the courts have the power to do this. [Politico, 1/7/2015]

Rubio Said “At A Time When The American Family Is Threatened As Never Before, Redefining [Marriage] Away From The Union Of One Man And One Woman Only Promises To Weaken It As A Child-Rearing, Values-Conveying Institution.” According to Politico, Rubio said in his book, “At a time when the American family is threatened as never before, redefining it away from the union of one man and one woman only promises to weaken it as a child-rearing, values-conveying institution.” Rubio defends his personal opposition to gay marriage, but he said each state should have the right to choose its path on the topic. He also stresses that he opposes discrimination and harassment of people based on their sexual preference.” [Politico, 1/8/2015; Marco Rubio, American Dreams: Restoring Economic Opportunity for Everyone, 2012]

Rubio Suggested Legislatures Had A Right To Work Against Marriage Equality Without Them Being Over-turned By A Judge. While giving a speech at Catholic University of America, Senator Rubio said, “Americans like myself who support keeping the traditional definition of marriage also have a right to work to keep traditional definition of marriage in our laws without seeing them overturned by a judge.” [Politico, 7/23/2014]

• Rubio Clarified That State Officials Had No Option But To Abide By The Courts Decision. According to CNN, Senator Rubio “clarified during his Wednesday phone conversation that he felt his remarks did not constitute a shift from his July speech --- that while he felt the court was mistaken, the state's officials had no option but to abide by it. ‘I think [the court's decision] is wrong, both on legal principles, and I also think it's the wrong way to’ reverse Florida's gay marriage ban, which was approved by voters in 2008. He said the proper way to overturn a gay marriage ban is to offer an opposing ballot measure for the state's voters to again consider.” [CNN, 1/7/2015]
• Rubio Thought Clerks Did Not Have Choice In Issuing Marriage Licenses Unless There Was A Stay By The Court. According to CNN, Senator Rubio “clarified during his Wednesday phone conversation that he felt his remarks did not constitute a shift from his July speech --- that while he felt the court was mistaken, the state's officials had no option but to abide by it. ‘I think [the court's decision] is wrong, both on legal principles, and I also think it's the wrong way to’ reverse Florida's gay marriage ban, which was approved by voters in 2008. He said the proper way to overturn a gay marriage ban is to offer an opposing ballot measure for the state's voters to again consider.” [CNN, 1/7/2015]

Rubio Would Not Accept “That Belief In Traditional Marriage Equates To Bigotry And Hatred.” According to the Tampa Bay Times, Senator Rubio said, “The trend that I will not accept, however, is the growing attitude that belief in traditional marriage equates to bigotry and hatred. Just as California has a right to redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, Florida has a right to define it as one man and one woman.” [Tampa Bay Times, 1/8/2015]

Rubio Believed In Definition Of A Marriage As “One Man And One Woman.” According to the Tampa Bay Times, Senator Rubio said, “Thousands of years of human history have taught us that the ideal setting for children to grow up in is with a mother and a father committed to each other, living together and sharing the responsibility of raising their children. It is for this reason and this reason alone that I continue to believe marriage should be defined as one man and one woman. It is neither my place nor my intention to dictate to anyone who they are allowed to love or live with.” [Tampa Bay Times, 1/8/2015]

Rubio Said He Did Not Believe There Was A “U.S. Constitutional Right To Same-Sex Marriage.” According to Stuart News: “‘I do not believe that there is a U.S. constitutional right to same-sex marriage,’ Rubio said Wednesday. ‘If a state wants to change its marriage laws, it should do so by petitioning their elected representatives in the legislatures, and in the case of Florida, by placing on the ballot a question on the issue.’” [The Stuart News, 1/11/2015]

Rubio Hoped Florida Attorney General Bondi Continued Her Fight Against Marriage Equality. According to Stuart News: “During an interview with reporters Wednesday, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio said he hopes Bondi continues her fight against gay marriage.” [The Stuart News, 1/11/2015]

Rubio Said That Marriage Was Defined “As The Union Of One Man And One Woman,” But Called For The Supreme Court Decision To Be Respected. According to CNN: “The Florida freshman senator recently told CNN that he believes ‘the institution of marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman,’ but called for the Supreme Court's decision to be respected -- even if that decision is to allow same-sex marriage everywhere.” [CNN, 1/25/2015]

• Rubio Said He Did Not Think It Was Realistic To Overturn The Supreme Court Ruling On Same-Sex Marriage Through Constitutional Amendment. Rubio told CNN: “I wouldn't agree with their ruling [on same-sex marriage], but that would be the law of the land that we would have to follow until it's somehow reversed -- either by a future Supreme Court, or a U.S. constitutional amendment, which I don't think is realistic or foreseeable.” [CNN, 1/25/2015]

Rubio Was Called A “Real Marriage Champion” By The National Organization For Marriage. The National Organization for Marriage released a statement that read, “With a solid pro-marriage majority in both the House and the US Senate, populated by real marriage champions like Representatives Raul Labrador and John Fleming in the House and Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and newly elected Thom Tillis and Tom Cotton in the Senate, we are in a great position to advance critical legislation.” [The National Organization for Marriage News Release, 1/30/2015]

Rubio Respected The Court Ruling On Striking Down The Defense Of Marriage Act, But Said It Differed With His Personal Views. The Boston Herald reported: “Some GOP hopefuls are already seeking political cover should the court follow its own logic in the 2013 case that struck down part of the Defense of Marriage Act because it had ‘the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure’ married gays’ and lesbians’ personhood and dignity.’ Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio all say they respect court rulings, even if they differ from their personal views.” [Boston Herald, 2/2/2015]

Rubio Said “States Are Going To Have To Comply With Whatever” The Supreme Court Rules On Same-Sex Marriage. According to ABC News, “Rubio continued: ‘There's going to be a Supreme Court ruling in June of this year so they say and I think that would answer a lot of questions about the future of that question in our country and I think that unless that case is overturned by a future Supreme Court or by a constitutional amendment, which I don't see as likely, states are going to have to comply with whatever that ruling is.’” [ABC News, 2/10/2015]

Rubio Said That Although He Didn’t Know The Legal Arguments Alabama Was Using To Justify Non-Compliance With Federal Court Ruling, He Believed States Have The Right To Define Marriage Any Way They Choose.” Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., declined to comment on the specific case in Alabama, but noted that states will have to comply with what the Supreme Court decides on same-sex marriage this summer. ‘I've just read the headlines about what's happening in Alabama, so I'm not quite sure what the details are with regards to what the legal arguments the state is using as to why they don't need to comply with it,’ Rubio said. ‘I believe marriage should be between one man and one woman. I believe states - through their legal process, through their legislative process - have the right to define it any way they choose, although I would strongly advocate for what I believe should be traditional marriage.’” [ABC News, 2/10/2015]

Rubio Said “If A Majority Of People In Any Given State In This Country Petition Their Legislature To Change The Definition Of Marriage [To Include Same-Sex Couples] That’ll Be The Law Of The Land. And That Is What It Is.” In an interview with NPR, when asked about what ground opponents of marriage equality had given the rising majority of support for same-sex marriage, Rubio said: “First of all, if the majority of Americans support gay marriage, then you'll see it reflected in changes in state law, which has always regulated marriage. And so at the end of the day, if a majority of people in any given state in this country petition their legislature to change the definition of marriage to include the marriage of two people of the same sex, that'll be the law of the land. And that is what it is.” [NPR , 4/13/2015; AUDIO]

Rubio Said He Never Supported A Federal Constitutional Amendment To Define Marriage Because He Believes States Can Define Marriage And If People Want Marriage Equality They Can Petition Their State Legislatures. Asked about his opposition to same-sex marriage on CNN, Rubio said, “Well, a couple of points, number one, that is an issue that will largely be determined at the state level since marriage laws have always been defined by the states. I'm not, for example, ever supported a federal constitutional amendment to define marriage, because I believe states define marriage in their laws. And if in fact people feel that way as that poll says, then they can petition their state legislature to change the law.” [CNN, The Lead With Jake Tapper, 4/14/2015; VIDEO]

Asked About His Opposition To Marriage Equality Put Him In The Minority, Rubio Said “Well, They’re A Large Minority…We’re In A Republic. If You Want To Change The Marriage Laws Of Your State….Get Your Legislators To Change It.” Asked by CNN if Rubio’s opposition to marriage equality despite it’s popularity made him the candidate of yesterday, Rubio said, “The second point I would make is, I think there's still a significant number of Americans that believe that the definition of marriage should be that of one man and one woman as it has been for thousands of years. And that continues today.” TAPPER: “But, they're a minority.” RUBIO: “Well, they're a large minority. In essence still parts of this country that believe that way, but irrespective, we're in a republic. If you want to change the marriage laws of your state, go to your state legislature and get your legislators to change it. I don't believe the court system is the appropriate way to do it and I don't believe Washington and the Supreme Court is the appropriate way to do that.” [CNN, The Lead With Jake Tapper, 4/14/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Said Despite Opposition To Same-Sex Marriage, He Would Attend A Same-Sex Wedding, Likened It To Divorce And Second Weddings. Asked by Fusion’s Jorge Ramos whether he would attend a same-sex wedding given his opposition to marriage equality, Rubio said “‘If there’s somebody that I love that’s in my life, I don’t necessarily have to agree with their decisions or the decisions they’ve made to continue to love them and participate in important events,’ Rubio said. He compared it to attending ‘second marriages,’ which are not strictly allowed the Catholic faith. ‘If it’s somebody in my life that I care for, of course I would,’ Rubio reiterated on the question of attending gay weddings. ‘I’m not going to hurt them simply because I disagree with a choice they’ve made or because I disagree with a decision they’ve made, or whatever it may be.…. ‘If someone gets divorced, I’m not going to stop loving them,’ he said.” [Mediaite, 4/15/2015; Fusion, 4/15/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Said “I Don’t Think Same-Sex Marriage Is A Constitutional Right.” On CBS’s Face The Nation, Rubio said, “Well, first, it's not that I'm against gay marriage. I believe the definition of the institution of marriage should be between one man and one woman. States have always regulated marriage. And if a state wants to have a different definition, you should petition the state legislature and have a political debate. I don't think courts should be making that decision. And I don't believe same-sex marriage is a constitutional right.” [CBS, Face The Nation , 4/19/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Said Advocates Of Same-Sex Marriage Want To “Stigmatize” And “Ostracize Anyone Who Disagrees With Them As Haters” And Want Courts To Impose Marriage Rather Than Having A Debate. Asked by CBN’s David Brody if there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Rubio said it doesn’t exist, stating, “The advocates of same sex marriage refuse to go to the legislatures, because they can’t win that debate. They don’t want to have any debate in society. They want courts to impose it on people. And they’re not even satisfied with that. They’ve now gone further. They want to stigmatize, they want to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them as haters. It’s very simple. This is not a policy against anyone. I believe, as do a significant percentage of Americans, that the institution of marriage, an institution that existed before government, that existed before laws, that institution should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman.” [CBN, The Brody File, 4/26/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Said “Marriage As An Institution Existed Before Even Government Itself. The Institution Of Marriage As One Man And One Woman Existed Before Our Laws Existed.” At Faith and Freedom Coalition in Waukee, IA, Newsmax reported that “Outlining his family's immigrant history, Rubio talked about the importance of values for a strong society. “You cannot have strong people without strong values,” he said. ‘We should never have any policies that stand in the way of families,’ he said. ‘We should never have any policies that stand in the way of marriage.’ Rubio won his strongest applause when he talked about marriage between a man and woman. ‘Marriage as an institution existed before even government itself,’ he said to strong applause. ‘The institution of marriage, as one man and one woman, existed before our laws existed.’ Rubio didn’t mention same-sex marriage, but said the ‘ideal’ situation for a child is to be raised by a mother and father.” [Newsmax, 4/26/2015]

Rubio Said “You Have To Really Have A Ridiculous And Absurd Reading Of The U.S. Constitution To Reach The Conclusion That People Have A Right To Marry Someone Of Their Own Sex.” Asked by CBN’s David Brody if there was a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Rubio said, “It doesn’t exist. There is no federal constitutional right to same sex marriage. There isn’t such a right. You have to really have a ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex. There is no such constitutional right. Can a state decide to change their laws? Yes, but only through the political process, not through the court system, and that’s what’s happening now. The advocates of same sex marriage refuse to go to the legislatures, because they can’t win that debate. They don’t want to have any debate in society. They want courts to impose it on people.” [CBN, The Brody File, 4/26/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Warned That If You Are Labeled A “Homophobe And A Hater” For Opposing Marriage Equality, There’s A “Real And Present Danger” Mainstream Christianity Will Be Treated As Hate Speech. CBN reported that “‘If you think about it, we are at the water's edge of the argument that mainstream Christian teaching is hate speech,’ Rubio told CBN News. "’Because today we've reached the point in our society where if you do not support same-sex marriage you are labeled a homophobe and a hater.’ ‘So what's the next step after that?’ he asked. ‘After they are done going after individuals, the next step is to argue that the teachings of mainstream Christianity, the catechism of the Catholic Church is hate speech and there's a real and present danger,’ he warned.” [CBN, 5/26/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Calls For Appointment Of Justices “Committed To Applying The Constitution As Written And Originally Understood.” According to USA Today: “Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said that, while ‘this decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years,’ the nation must abide by the ruling. ‘As we look ahead,’ Rubio said, ‘it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood.’” [USA Today, 6/26/2015]

Rubio Said “Perhaps A Future Court Will Change That Decision [On Marriage Equality], In Much The Same Way As It’s Changed Other Decisions In The Past” In Explaining Opposition To Constitutional Amendment. Bloomberg reported that Rubio said: “‘I don't support a constitutional amendment. I don't believe the federal government should be in the marriage regulation business,’ the Florida senator told reporters after a speech the Cedar Rapids Country Club in Iowa. ‘We can continue to disagree with it. Perhaps a future court will change that decision, in much the same way as it's changed other decisions in the past. But my opinion is unchanged, that marriage should continue to be defined as one man and one woman. The decision is what it is, and that's what we'll live under,’ he said.” [Bloomberg, 7/8/2015]

Rubio Said “If I’m President, We Are Going To Have Supreme Court Justices, Who We Appoint, That Will Defend Liberty” And That President Should Protect Right “To Exercise Your Faith In Every Aspect Of Your Life.” On his campaign web site, Rubio says, “Religious liberty is the right to live according to your religious teachings and to have the opportunity to spread it to others, instill it in your children and live it in your everyday life. Those of us of the Christian faith understand we are called to be Christians in every aspect of our lives and we are called to influence the culture around us. In the new American Century, we need a president who understands that protecting religious liberty means understanding the Constitutional principles of the right to exercise your faith in every aspect of your life. If I’m president, we are going to have Supreme Court Justices, who we appoint, that will defend liberty and we’re going to have a Justice Department that will protect ALL Americans from discrimination.” [MarcoRubio.com, Religious Liberty Is Not Simply The Right To Believe Anything You Want, Accessed 11/13/2015]

Rubio Said He “The Most Important This The Next President Will Do” Is Appoint Justices To The Supreme Court Who Will Disagree With Current Court’s Thinking On Obergefell. In an interview with CBN, Rubio said: “And beyond it, I think one of the biggest things the next President is going to do is appoint justices to the Supreme Court -- justices who understand that the Constitution is a living and breathing document. It is a document of limitation and it’s supposed to be interpreted and applied based on its original intent. And there is no way that you can read that Constitution and deduce from it that there is constitutional right to an abortion, or a constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex. And what you have is a Supreme Court that wanted to reach a certain policy outcome and so creatively manipulated the Constitution to discover a right that for over two centuries, some of the most brilliant minds and legal history didn’t find. So you need judges that understand how constitutionally flawed that those two kinds of rulings and others have been and that’s what the most important thing the next President will do is appoint Supreme court Justices that actually will apply the constitution irrespective of their personal feelings about the issue.” [CBN, The Brody File, 12/5/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Said “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” By Supporting Marriage Equality. On Meet the Press, Rubio said a constitutional amendment to overturn marriage equality “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.” [NBC, Meet The Press, 12/13/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Said Marriage Equality “Is Current Law. I Don’t Believe Any Case Is Settled Law. Any Future Supreme Court Can Change It.” After declaring marriage equality “bad law,” Rubio said: “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.” Chuck Todd pressed, “So are you accepting the idea of same sex marriage in perpetuity?” Rubio responded: “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.” [NBC, Meet The Press, 12/13/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Signed A Pledge Vowing To Push For Passage Of The First Amendment Defense Act In His First 100 Days In Office. According to the American Principles Project, Rubio was one of six signers of their pledge to push for the First Amendment Defense Act in the first 100 days of their presidency. “American Principles Project has joined together with Heritage Action for America, the action arm of the Heritage Foundation, and FRC Action, the legislative affiliate of the Family Research Council, to invite each of the candidates running for President to sign the following pledge: ‘If elected, I pledge to push for the passage of the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) and sign it into law during the first 100 days of my term as President.’” [American Principles Project, Accessed 1/7/2016]

Rubio Said He Was “Not For Any Special Protections Based On Orientation.” According to Think Progress, when asked about the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, Senator Rubio said, “By and large I think all Americans should be protected, but I'm not for any special protections based on orientation.” [Think Progress, 6/13/2013; VIDEO]

Rubio Voted Against The Employment Non-Discrimination Act. In 2013, Senator Rubio voted against the Employment Non-Discrimination Act that the Miami Herald reported “would make it illegal under federal law for employers to discriminate against their employees based on the employee's sexual orientation or gender identity. These same basic workplace protections are already afforded to individuals on the basis of race, creed, national origin, gender, and disability status.” [S. 815 Employment Non-Discrimination Act of 2013, Vote #232 64-23, 11/7/2013; Miami Herald, 11/20/2013]

• Rubio Believed The Employment Non-Discrimination Act Went Beyond Protecting Workers. According to the Tampa Bay Times, Rubio’s office “said he opposed the Employment Non-Discrimination Act because it goes far ‘beyond protecting workers from discrimination based on sexual orientation.’” [Tampa Bay Times, 11/4/2013]
  

Rubio Said He Was Against Discrimination And That “The Best People Should Be Hired For Jobs.” According to BuzzFeed: “Rubio himself, though, softened his opposition to same-sex couples’ marriage rights with general comments opposing discrimination, saying, ‘I’m against discriminating against people. I think the best people should be hired for jobs.’” [BuzzFeed, 2/6/2013]

Rubio Said He Would Be Against His Own Immigration Bill If It Gave Same-Sex Couples Rights. According to CNN, Senator Rubio, when discussing his immigration bill said, “If this bill has in it something that gives gay couples immigration rights and so forth, it kills the bill. I'm gone. I'm off it.” [CNN, Political Ticker, 6/13/2013]

Rubio Said He Would Vote Against Any Bill That Included Same-Sex Provisions. According to the Rockford Register Star: “Backers of gay and lesbian rights wanted wording attached to the immigration reform bill to ensure that same-sex couples are covered in the new legislation. That wording probably would have doomed the bill's chances. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., said this month that he would vote against any bill that included same-sex amendments -- and Rubio is one of the bill's sponsors.” [Rockford Register Star, 6/27/2013]

Rubio Said If Same-Sex Partners Are Included In Immigration Bill “This Bill Will Fail. It Will Not Have The Support. It Will Not Have My Support.” According to the New York Times, “Senator Leahy’s bill does not seek to legalize gay marriage. Instead, it would allow an American citizen to petition for a green card for a ‘permanent partner.’ Senator Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican, is a co-sponsor of that bill. ‘Our legislation would simply update our nation’s immigration laws to treat binational, same-sex permanent partners fairly,’ she said on Tuesday…..But in an interview Tuesday with the conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, Senator Rubio was blunt in his assessment of the impact of any same-sex amendment. ‘This immigration bill is difficult enough as it is,’ he said. ‘If that issue is injected into this bill, this bill will fail. It will not have the support. It will not have my support.’” [New York Times, 5/1/2013]

Rubio Was An Original Cosponsor Of S. 1808, The Marriage And Religious Freedom Act. [S.1808 (113th), 12/12/2013]

Rubio Did Not Believe A Caterer Or Photographer Should Be Forced To Serve a Same-Sex Marriage. In an appearance on NBC’s Meet the Press, when discussing Arizona’s anti LGBT law that was veto by the governor, Senator Rubio said, “I don`t believe that gay Americans should be denied services at a restaurant or hotel or anything of that nature. I also don`t believe however that a caterer or photographer should be punished by the state for refusing to provide services for a gay wedding because of their religious believes. We’ve got to figure out a way to protect that, as well.” [NBC Meet the Press, 3/2/2014]

Rubio Agreed With The Supreme Court’s Hobby Lobby Decision. According to the Associated Press, Senator Rubio said, “The Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision is a re-affirmation of America's commitment to religious freedom and a reminder of why Obamacare is such a flawed law that needs to be entirely repealed and re-placed.” [Associated Press, 7/14/2014]

Rubio Said About Indiana RFRA Law That It Should Not Be Legal To Deny Someone Service At A Restaurant Or Hotel Due To Sexual Orientation, But A Photographer Should Not Be Punished For Refusing To Perform A Same-Sex Wedding. Asked about Indiana’s so-called right to discriminate RFRA law signed by Mike Pence, Rubio said, “‘No one here is saying it should be legal to deny someone service at a restaurant or at a hotel because of their sexual orientation, I think that’s a consensus view in America,’ Rubio said Monday on Fox News’s ‘The Five.’ ‘The flip side of it is: Should a photographer be punished for refusing to do a wedding that their faith teaches them is not one that is valid in the eyes of God?’” [The Hill, 3/30/2015; Fox, The Five, 3/30/2015; VIDEO ]

Rubio Said Interracial Marriage And Same-Sex Marriage Were Not Comparable “Because Here You’re Talking About The Definition Of An Institution, Not The Value Of A Single Human Being.” In an appearance on the Five, according to KHBS TV, “[Rubio] also rejected a comparison between same-sex marriage and interracial marriage. ‘That's not the same thing,’ he said. ‘Because here you're talking about the definition of an institution, not the [innate] value of a single human being. That's the difference between the civil rights movement and the marriage equality movement.’” [KHBS, 3/30/2015; Fox, The Five, 3/30/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Said, “When You’re Asking Someone Who Provides Professional Services To Do Something, Or Be Punished By Law, That Violates Their Faith, You’re Violating That Religious Liberty That They Have.” According to KHBS TV, in an interview on the Five discussing Indiana’s right to discriminate religious liberty legislation, “Rubio added: ‘I think people have the right to live out their religious faith in their own lives. They can't impose it on you in your life. But they have a right to live it out in their own lives. And when you're asking someone who provides professional services to do something, or be punished by law, that violates their faith, you're violating that religious liberty that they have.’” [[KHBS, 3/30/2015; Fox, The Five, 3/30/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Said A Same-Sex Couple Shouldn’t Want A Florist “That Doesn’t Agree With The Choice That They’ve Made.” Discussing religious liberty in Indiana’s RFRA law, Rubio said although discrimination is wrong, “But by the same token, it doesn't mean that someone's allowed to come to you and force you to be a participant in a ceremony that violates the tenets of your faith. And to be honest, in the real world, 99.9% of the time, a same-sex couple doesn't want a florist or a photographer at their wedding that doesn't agree with the choice that they've made.” [NPR, 4/13/2015]

Rubio Said While He Does Not Believe In Discrimination, There’s A Distinction Between Discrimination Someone Because Of Their Identity And Participating In An Event Like A Same-Sex Wedding That Violates Religious Belief. In an interview with NPR, asked about Indiana’s RFRA law changes, Rubio said, “I think there's a difference between not providing services to a person because of their identity, who they are or who they love, and saying, I'm not going to participate in an event, a same-sex wedding, because that violates my religious beliefs. There's a distinction between those two things. So, certainly, you can't not — it's immoral and wrong to say, I'm not going to allow someone who's gay or lesbian to use my restaurant, stay in my hotel, or provide photography service to them because they're gay. The difference here is, we're not talking about discriminating against a person because of who they are, we're talking about someone who's saying — what I'm talking about, anyway, is someone who's saying, I just don't want to participate as a vendor for an event, a specific event that violates the tenets of my faith.” [NPR, 4/13/2015]

Rubio Said There’s A Difference Between “Individuals Who Don’t Want To Be Compelled By Force Of Law” To Participate In An Event That Violates Their Faith And Discrimination. In an interview with NPR discussing the rising acceptance of same-sex marriage, Rubio said, “Separate from that, there's a constitutional protection of religious liberty that allows people to live by the tenets of their faith both in their public and in private life. That doesn't mean that you're allowed to go in and disrupt a gay wedding. But by the same token, it doesn't mean that someone's allowed to come to you and force you to be a participant in a ceremony that violates the tenets of your faith. And to be honest, in the real world, 99.9% of the time, a same-sex couple doesn't want a florist or a photographer at their wedding that doesn't agree with the choice that they've made. So we're really talking about an issue that in large part is really not going to manifest itself in daily life, but in the instances that it does, there are individuals that don't want to be compelled by force of law to participate in an event that puts them in the position of violating their religious faith. There's a difference between that and discriminating against an individual because of who they are.” [NPR, 4/13/2015]

Rubio Said “Mainstream Christianity Teaches That Marriage Is Between One Man And One Woman” And Asking Individuals To Provide Services To Same-Sex Weddings “Violates Their Religious Liberty.” Asked by NPR if a hotel owner could refuse to book a couple for their wedding night after a same-sex wedding, Rubio said, “That's not part of an event. Again, I mean, that's, there's a difference between saying, we're not going to allow you to stay in our hotel, common lodging establishment where people have a right to shelter, food, medical care, and saying we're not going to, what we're not going to do is provide services to an event, to an actual event, which is the wedding itself. And I think that's the distinction point that people have been pointing to, and, because mainstream Christianity teaches that marriage is between one man and one woman. People feel very strongly about that. And to ask someone to individually provide services to something of that nature, I think violates their religious liberty.” [NPR, 4/13/2015]

Rubio Said, “There's A Difference Between Discriminating Against The Person And Saying I Don't Want To Offer Services To An Event. The Same-Sex Wedding Is An Event. It Is Not A Person.” Rubio told Sean Hannity, “Well, so we need to separate this issue, because there's two issues at play. One is discriminating against a person because of that person's background, their preference, their ethnicity. That's wrong. We all believe that's wrong and immoral. So, no, I don't believe that a caterer can tell a gay person or a lesbian person we're not going to offer you services. There's a difference between discriminating against the person and saying I don't want to offer services to an event. The same sex wedding is an event. It is not a person. It is an event that is going on. And I don't think you can force someone to participate or provide professional services to an event that goes contrary to the teachings of their faith, in fact, forces them to violate their own religious conscience.” [Fox News, Hannity, 4/13/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Said Refusing To Provide Services To A Same-Sex Wedding Is Constitutionally Protected. In an interview with Sean Hannity, Hannity asked, “In other words, [refusing to provide services to a same-sex wedding] would be constitutional, but free exercise thereof in your mind?” Rubio responded, “Absolutely. The free exercise of religion doesn't just mean the exercise of it in your home. It means the exercise of it in your life. That doesn't mean you go around discriminating against people. But to decide that I won't participate in an activity -- in this case the same-sex wedding -- because it violates the teachings of my faith I think is something that is constitutionally protected.” [Fox News, Hannity, 4/13/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Was An Original Cosponsor Of S.1598, The First Amendment Defense Act. [S. 1598 (114th), 6/17/2015]

Rubio Said He Would Appoint Supreme Court Justices And Attorney General Prepared To Defend Religious Right To Discriminate. The Tennessean reported that in a meeting with Southern Baptists, “In his pre-recorded interview, Rubio promised to protect religious liberty if elected president through appointing Supreme Court justices and picking an attorney general ready to defend people’s ability to live by their religious standards. Bush echoed those promises.” [Tennessean, 8/4/2015]

Rubio Said Of Clerk Refusing To Issue Marriage Certificates “While The Clerk’s Office Has Governmental Duty To Carry Out The Law…There Should Be A Way To Protect The Religious Freedom And Conscience Rights Of Individuals Working In The Office.” The New York Times reported: “Senator Marco Rubio of Florida said on Wednesday that the government should respect the beliefs of the Kentucky county clerk who has denied marriage licenses to same-sex couples, arguing that society needs to accommodate public officials who object to carrying out duties they say violate their religious beliefs. ‘We should seek a balance between government’s responsibility to abide by the laws of our republic and allowing people to stand by their religious convictions,’ Mr. Rubio said in a statement to The New York Times, his first public remarks on the case. ‘While the clerk’s office has a governmental duty to carry out the law,’ he added, ‘there should be a way to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of individuals working in the office.’” [New York Times, 9/2/2015]

Rubio Said “If I’m President, We Are Going To Have Supreme Court Justices, Who We Appoint, That Will Defend Liberty” And That President Should Protect Right “To Exercise Your Faith In Every Aspect Of Your Life.” On his campaign web site, Rubio says, “Religious liberty is the right to live according to your religious teachings and to have the opportunity to spread it to others, instill it in your children and live it in your everyday life. Those of us of the Christian faith understand we are called to be Christians in every aspect of our lives and we are called to influence the culture around us. In the new American Century, we need a president who understands that protecting religious liberty means understanding the Constitutional principles of the right to exercise your faith in every aspect of your life. If I’m president, we are going to have Supreme Court Justices, who we appoint, that will defend liberty and we’re going to have a Justice Department that will protect ALL Americans from discrimination.” [MarcoRubio.com, Religious Liberty Is Not Simply The Right To Believe Anything You Want, Accessed 11/13/2015]

Rubio Equated President Obama’s Non-Discrimination Order With Transgender Bathroom Access And Promised To Reverse Them. According to CBN, “In an exclusive interview with The Brody File, Marco Rubio says as President of the United States he would reverse President Obama’s Executive Order on gender identity which he says led to the controversial ‘bathroom bills’ we have today. Rubio told me the following when discussing the moves he would make to protect religious liberty in America: ‘The executive orders would be to reverse the executive orders the president has made on things like gender equality in restrooms,’ Rubio says. ‘You’ve seen some local districts and others been forced to provide girls access to a boys’ bathroom and so forth. These sorts of things you’ve seen in Illinois for example, but also ensure that we’re not doing anything that at any part in our government that is putting organizations that are motivated by their faith or organized around their faith from having to violate the tenants of their faith and that includes government contractors. There are many government contractors and small companies who provide services to the government who are faith-based people, and they are being compelled to sin by government in their business conduct. That is not something we should be supporting.’” [CBN, The Brody File, 12/5/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Said He Would Reverse Orders By President Obama Banning Anti-LGBT Discrimination By Contractors Because Those Contractors “Are Being Compelled To Sin By Government In Their Business Conduct.” In an interview with CBN, Rubio said: “There’s no doubt that we need to be extra vigilant now about protecting the religious liberties of Americans and that includes having a justice department that’s vigilant about ensuring that those who hold traditional values are not being discriminated against. That includes reversing any administrative decisions made by this President that force religious, or religious motivated entities. You may not be owned by a church, but you are a religious school, or your mission is to spread the Gospel and adhere to God’s teachings ensure that people in the private sector and the not-for-profit sector are being protected in living out their faith….. Well, the executive orders would be to reverse the executive orders the President has made on things like gender equality in restrooms….These sorts of things you’ve seen in Illinois for example, but also ensure that we’re not doing anything that at any part in our government that is putting organizations that are motivated by their faith or organized around their faith from having to violate the tenants of their faith and that includes government contractors. There are many government contractors and small companies who provide services to the government who are faith-based people, and they are, they are being compelled to sin by government in their business conduct. That is not something we should be supporting.” [CBN, The Brody File, 12/5/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Vowed To Undo “Every Single One” Of Obama’s Executive Orders… “On My First Day In Office, They’re Gone.” According to the Des Moines Register, “FORT DODGE, Ia. – Marco Rubio promised to undo ‘every single one’ of President Barack Obama’s executive orders, and on Tuesday said that Obama is unconstitutionally limiting and undermining the Second Amendment. ‘On my first day in office, they’re gone,’ the Florida senator said to crowd in Cedar Rapids.” [Des Moines Register, 1/6/2016]

Rubio Said He Would Appoint Judges And Attorney General That Would “Defend Our Religious Liberties, Not Attack Them” And Vowed To Repeal “Every Single One” Of Obama’s Executive Orders. According to the Cedar Rapids Gazette, “‘My attorney general and the people that I appoint to the courts are going to be people that defend the Second Amendment, not try to undermine it,’ [Rubio] said. ‘And they’re going to be people that defend our religious liberties, not attack them.’ Then, Rubio said, he’d repeal ‘every single one of Barack Obama’s unconstitutional executive orders.’” [Cedar Rapids Gazette, 1/24/2016]

Rubio Raised Money For Group That Promoted “Conversion Therapy.” According to Mother Jones: “Rubio, a possible GOP presidential candidate in 2016, will deliver the keynote address at the annual fundraiser for the Florida Family Policy Council, a prominent social conservative organization that promotes so-called ‘conversion therapy’ to help LGBT individuals become straight. Conversion therapy has been condemned as a form of abuse by psychologists.” [Mother Jones, 11/11/2013]

• Headline: Marco Rubio Raising Money for Group That Tries to Turn Gay People Straight [Mother Jones, 11/11/2013]

Rubio Raised Money For Group That Promoted “Conversion Therapy.” According to Mother Jones: “Rubio, a possible GOP presidential candidate in 2016, will deliver the keynote address at the annual fundraiser for the Florida Family Policy Council, a prominent social conservative organization that promotes so-called ‘conversion therapy’ to help LGBT individuals become straight. Conversion therapy has been condemned as a form of abuse by psychologists.” [Mother Jones, 11/11/2013]

Rubio Told The Anti-LGBT Florida Family Council The Debate Should Be Which “Values And Morals Our Nation Should Focus On.” In a fundraiser dinner for the anti-LGBT Florida Family Policy Council, Senator Rubio said “The debate we should be having isn't whether or not we have a right to talk about values and morals in the public square, the debate we should be having instead is which values and morals our nation should focus on.” [Between the Lines, 11/21/2013]

• Florida Family Policy Council Opposed Adding Sexual Orientation To Fair-Housing Ordinance. The Orlando Sentinel reported: “Gays and conservative Christians are expected to clash today when the Orange County Commission considers adding sexual orientation to its fair-housing ordinance… The conservative groups are expected to argue that adding sexual orientation is unnecessary and affording gays and lesbians a protected status endorses that lifestyle. ‘There is no significant history or problem or issue with discrimination based upon sexuality in Orange County. To the contrary, this community is very tolerant and even accepting of gay and lesbian neighbors,’ said John Stemberger, president of the Orlando-based Florida Family Policy Council.” [Orlando Sentinel, 7/11/2006]
• Florida Family Policy Council Pressured Boy Scouts To Maintain Anti- LGBT Policy. The Associated Press reported: “Some conservative activists sought to organize e-mail and phone call campaigns aimed at pressuring the Boy Scouts to maintain the mandatory no-gays policies. Among them was John Stemberger, a former scout and now president of the conservative Florida Family Policy Council. ‘If the BSA departs from its policies on allowing openly homosexual scoutmasters and boys in the program it could destroy the legitimacy and the security of this iconic institution,’ Stemberger wrote to his supporters. ‘I pray that the BSA does not open a can of worms that would cause a mass exodus from a program that America needs now more than ever.’” [Associated Press, 1/29/2013]
• Florida Family Policy Council’s Stemberger Said It Was “Horrible” And “Tantamount To Abuse” For Society And Parents To Let Children Explore Sexuality And That “We Are Not Going To Tolerate Someone Who Is ‘Here And Queer; Loud And Proud,’ All Of That Nonsense.” Asked by Janet Mefferd how Stemberger’s new organization, Trail Life USA, would avoid running into the LGBT issues the Boy Scouts faced, Stemberger said, “Well first of all, we’re not going to allow open and avowed homosexuality. It’s really important that we distinguish between a mere same-sex attraction, which by the way 20-25 percent of young boys as they are growing up will experience some sort of gender ambiguity or confusion, or just needing to wonder who they are, needing affirmation, that’s not uncommon at all. But what’s horrible is to have the society and schools and even parents, which is tantamount to abuse in my judgment, saying ‘oh he is special, he must be gay, he must be gender confused, let’s let him explore.’ That is just absolutely nonsense and it’s an abuse to the child. We need to be reaffirming that child of their God-given biology that they are special, made in His image, and help them understand these things. So we’re not going to turn away a kid like that, but we are not going to tolerate activists. We are not going to tolerate someone who is ‘here and queer; loud and proud,’ all of that nonsense, that is completely inappropriate in a program where there’s children.” [Janet Mefferd Show, 9/12/2013, AUDIO]

Rubio Was Called A “Real Marriage Champion” By The National Organization For Marriage. The National Organization for Marriage released a statement that read: “With a solid pro-marriage majority in both the House and the US Senate, populated by real marriage champions like Representatives Raul Labrador and John Fleming in the House and Senators Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and newly elected Thom Tillis and Tom Cotton in the Senate, we are in a great position to advance critical legislation.” [The National Organization for Marriage News Release, 1/30/2015]

Rubio Said A Same-Sex Couple Shouldn’t Want A Florist “That Doesn’t Agree With The Choice That They’ve Made.” Discussing religious liberty in Indiana’s RFRA law, Rubio said although discrimination is wrong, “But by the same token, it doesn't mean that someone's allowed to come to you and force you to be a participant in a ceremony that violates the tenets of your faith. And to be honest, in the real world, 99.9% of the time, a same-sex couple doesn't want a florist or a photographer at their wedding that doesn't agree with the choice that they've made.” [NPR, 4/13/2015]

Rubio Said He Did Not Believe That “Your Sexual Preferences Are A Choice For The Vast And Enormous Majority Of People.” On Face the Nation, asked if homosexuality is a choice, Rubio responded by saying that he continues to oppose same-sex marriage and “I also don't believe that your sexual preferences are a choice for the vast and enormous majority of people. And, in fact, the bottom line is that I believe that sexual preference is something that people are born with.” [CBS, Face The Nation, 4/19/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Said He Did Not Buy Into Singer’s Pro-LGBT Agenda And “If I Were To Change My Position On Those Issues Or Even Waver On Them, I would Be In Direct Conflict With My Church And In Direct Conflict With What I Teach My Children….. So That’s Just Not Going To Happen.” According to the Brody File, “In an exquisitely calm demeanor and tone, GOP presidential candidate Marco Rubio explains to pastors in Iowa why he’s accepting financial support from billionaire donor Paul Singer, a major republican donor who is aggressively trying to encourage GOP politicians to support gay marriage. ‘When someone cooperates with my campaign, they are buying into my agenda. I am not buying into their agenda and that has been very clear in my history,’ Rubio told the pastors in a closed door meeting last week in Iowa. ‘Mr. Singer has never ever tried to change my mind or deeply discuss with me the issue. He knows where I stand on the issue.’ And for those that think Rubio will change his mind on marriage or the life issue? Well, he has some news for you. ‘If I were to change my position on those issues or even waver on them, I would now be in direct conflict with my church and I would be in direct conflict with what I teach my children. And at that point, I can tell you then I’ve lost the essence of who I am. So that’s just not going to happen...I have never changed a political position for a campaign donor.’” [CBN, The Brody File, 11/30/2015; VIDEO]

Rubio Said He Didn’t Think Indiana RFRA Bill Opened Up Discrimination And That No One “Should Be Force To Participate…In An Event That Your Faith Teaches Is Immoral And Wrong.” At an event in Waverly, IA, Rubio was asked about Indiana’s right to discrimiate RFRA legislation. Rubio said: “Well, I don’t agree that [Pence’s Indiana RFRA bill] opened up discrimination. I don’t believe that. I don’t believe in discrimination, but I can tell you this, you’re never going to--we shouldn’t have a country where a pastor is threatened for losing their tax-exempt status because they refuse to conduct a same-sex ceremony. I don’t think we need to live in a country where a baker or a florist is threatened with a fine because they refuse to participate in a specific event. Not serve people. It is sinful to discriminate against people. But to be forced to participate in a ceremony, in an event that your faith teaches is immoral and wrong, no one should be forced to do that. You shouldn’t be forced to do that.” [Marco Rubio, Waverly, IA, 1/18/2016]

Rubio: “The Ideal Setting In Which To Raise Children And Instill In Them Values Is When A Mother And A Father Married To Each Other, Living In The Same Home Raise Those Children Together.” “We should never have any policies that stand in the way of families. We should never have any policies that stand in the way of marriage. And in this whole debate about the definition of marriage, I remind everyone that marriage, as an institution, existed before even , that the institution of marriage as one man and one woman existed before our laws existed and that thousands of years of human history teach us a very simple truth: The ideal setting in which to raise children and instill in them values is when a mother and a father married to each other, living in the same home raise those children together.” [Marco Rubio, Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition Presidential Forum, Waukee, IA, 4/25/15]

Rubio Spoke Out Against Allowing Same-Sex Couples From Adopting, Saying Children “Shouldn’t Be Forced To Be Part Of A Social Experiment.” According to the Tallahassee Democrat: “The Department of Children and Families is under fire from children’s advocates for allowing foster children to spend the night in a conference room in Tallahassee, but legislative leaders said Wednesday that won’t change their minds about allowing gays to adopt. ‘Some of these kids are the most disadvantaged in the state,’ said House Majority Leader Marco Rubio of West Miami. ‘They shouldn't be forced to be part of a social experiment.’” [Tallahassee Democrat, 4/6/2006]

2010: Rubio Opposed LGBT People Serving Openly In The Military. According to the St. Petersburg Times: “Republican Marco Rubio, who faces a minor challenger in Tuesday’s primary, is the only candidate who opposes allowing gays to serve openly in the military.” [St. Petersburg Times, 8/22/2010]

• Rubio Supported Don’t Ask Don’t Tell Policy. According to the Miami Herald, on the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy, a Rubio spokesman said the former speaker “supports the current policy and doesn’t see any reason for it to change.” [Miami Herald, 5/29/2010]
• Rubio Opposed Allowing Gays And Lesbians To Openly Serve In The Military. According to the Palm Beach Post: “Gov. Charlie Crist’s U.S. Senate rivals skewered him Friday for saying he’d now support repealing the policy that bars openly gay people from serving in the military -- a reversal from what he told reporters on Monday….His Republican and Democratic rivals accused the newly independent Senate candidate of flipping, with Republican Marco Rubio noting Crist’s stance ‘comes stunningly just three days after telling Florida reporters he saw no need to change the policy.’ A spokesman for Rubio said the former state House speaker ‘supports the current policy and doesn’t see any reason for it to change.’” [Palm Beach Post, 5/29/2010]
  

2013: Rubio Said That The Repeal Of Don’t Ask Don’t Is The Law And That He Did Not “Think It’s Undermined Our Military Readiness.” In an appearance on CBS This Morning, when asked about opposing the repeal of the military’s Don’t Ask Don’t Tell law, Senator Rubio said, “Well, I’m not -- listen, we're not going to change it and I’m not saying we should change it. Ultimately, you know, that’s the law now that they've decided. I don’t think it’s undermined our military readiness. We’ve debated that and moved on from it. Here's the bottom line. What I’ve always said on don't ask, don’t tell, by the way, is that it's a decision that we should listen to the military commanders on, not the politicians. I believe that’s what I’ve said on that issue.” [CBS This Morning, 2/13/2013; VIDEO]