OK, I take it back. I wouldn't vote for Rubio even if I were fucking him :)
In this interview, Rubio pretty much concedes that a constitutional amendment would be impossible. So his solution: Appoint Supreme Court judges who would overturn Obergfell.
In all honesty, I seriously doubt even this plan would work. By the time that would transpire for Rubio to get a new judge or two, plus have the issue work its way back through the federal courts, I doubt even conservative judges would vote to overturn it, unless Rubio appointed hard-core ideologues like Scalia. Reason: By then, same-sex marriage would be so well established that to allow states to ban it would cause tremendous social problems. Do you invalidate several thousand marriages? And if not, how is it fair to ban future ones in some states but not others?
In addition, you would have the very serious issue of just who would have standing to challenge same-sex marriages? By granting them, you aren't denying anyone else anything, so justices would almost have to make up legal grounds for a challenge.
The only likely challenge would be the religious freedom issue by those who have to issue them. I suppose that could de facto ban marriages in some areas, but not likely in a large-scale way.
It's a settled point of law. Rubio is just playing to the religious right.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/12/13/3731 … -equality/
Speaking of the good-looking Cuban, he and the less-good-looking Cuban, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, were the "stars" of the debate. The two sparred repeatedly. As both are apparently angling to be the "Trump alternative," it's clear they wanted to try to clear the way. Rubio scored a hard hit on Cruz over his voting in favor of the USA Freedom Act, which, most notably, barred the NSA from continuing to collect the metadata on phone calls that was exposed by Edward Snowden. Cruz may have created extra trouble by discussing numbers that may have been classified information. The heads of the Senate Intelligence Committee later Wednesday said they weren't investigating Cruz, but it's pretty clear that he raised eyebrows with this reply (from CNN):
"What (Rubio) knows is that the old program covered 20% to 30% of phone numbers to search for terrorists. The new program covers nearly 100%," Cruz said. "That gives us greater ability to stop acts of terrorism, and he knows that that's the case."
If Cruz did indeed disclose classified information, you can bet this won't be the end of it.
But while Rubio hit Cruz hard here, Cruz struck back by reminding GOP listeners of Rubio's biggest weakness: his co-sponsorship of the failed immigration bill that would have included a path to amnesty for some illegals. Now, this may actually work in Rubio's favor should he win the GOP nomination, but with the GOP faithful, which is dead set against amnesty of any kind, it's a major liability. Time will tell how much this hurts Rubio, who would probably be the strongest GOP nominee. (He leads Hillary Clinton nationally in one recent poll.)
The secondary squabbles came between Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. Bush had the line of the night, and one that may well haunt Trump, when he said Trump "is a chaos candidate, and would be a chaos president." Trump struck back by reminding Bush of his dismal standing in the GOP race.
Entertaining exchanges aside, the debate focused about 90 percent on foreign policy (mainly ISIS) and immigration, both as it pertains to Muslims and to Latinos. These are probably the two weakest areas for the GOP field, and it really showed. None of them came off as particularly knowledgeable. Whoever wins the nomination better learn in a hurry or Hillary will have him for lunch on foreign policy.
And now the inevitable winners and losers. Remember that this is from the view of a moderate to somewhat liberal mainly Democratic voter:
Winners: Jeb Bush and John Kasich -- the two former governors seemed to be most comfortable with this subject material and were the only ones who seemed to live in the real world of government and diplomacy instead of bluster and slogans. And I doubt it helped either one much at all.
Rolling along: Trump at times showed he didn't know foreign policy particulars very well, but for the most part he managed to bluff his way through with his usual bravado. I doubt he improved his standing much, but as none of the other candidates scored a clear win, he's a winner by default.
Fought to a draw: Rubio and Cruz battled it out, and the guess here is that both helped themselves -- and also suffered some damage. It will be interesting to see if either can move up into a clear second. They're close in the polls right now and clearly among the top four.
Nice try: Chris Christie kept reminding viewers that he was governor of New Jersey after 9/11 and was a real leader as opposed to a wishy-washy senator. Thanks, Chris, but we knew that already.
Along for the show: Carly Fiorina didn't know squat about foreign policy but tried to bluff her way through by sounding tough. A female Trump. That ploy worked in previous debates, but not this one. And Rand Paul, who has come off well (if you actually listened to him in limited opportunities) in previous debates, was pretty much an odd duck in this one. His more pacifist Libertarian view of foreign policy made him an irrelevant sideshow in this debate. At this point, these two may really be just running for the V.P. spot on the ticket.
Back to the doctor's office: Ben Carson, who had already been fading in the polls, was really exposed as the TOTALLY unqualified candidate that he is. Carson was clueless, and the best he could do was just babble on without answering questions in hopes that he could get through by boring the audience. Total LOSER in this debate. Carson's done and could well be the first of the (formerly) leading candidates to withdraw.
Cruz to me is by far the scariest of the GOP fearful foursome. The guy strikes me as a modern day Eugene McCarthy. I really think he may be genuinely evil. Carson is an idiot. Rubio sounds like a potential panderer in chief, but the worst part about him is that he is by far the most electable of the group because he looks and (if you don't listen too closely) sounds relatively reasonable.
Trump's Weimar America, by Roger Cohen DEC. 14, 2015
<http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/15/opinion/weimar-america.html?_r=0>
Perhaps there is hope if we are aware and keep having discussions like this with each other here and with others. It is a call of historic alarm that needs to be taken seriously. We must make sure everyone hears it. Those who say the sound is just noise, get them to take out their earplugs of apathy and take action. They will if we can get them to open their minds, listen, and speak.
We all have to get out and vote!