The Shark Tank
Marco Rubio/ The Shark Tank

Rubio: “I believe the Supreme Court made a serious mistake today”

Rubio PSL

By JAVIER MANJARRES

 “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.”-Senator Marco Rubio

Rubio’s remarks on the SCOTUS decision to overturn DOMA speak for themselves.

“I believe the Supreme Court made a serious mistake today 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 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, as the Founders intended, not through litigation and court pronouncements.

“For millions of Americans, the definition of marriage is not an abstract political question, or some remote legal debate.  It’s a deeply personal issue. It’s an issue that I have grappled with as well.

“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.

“Rather than having courts redefine marriage for all Americans, my hope is that the American people, through their state legislatures and referendums, can continue to decide the definition of marriage.  It is through debates like this that the brilliance of our constitutional system of democracy, and the inherit goodness of our people, is revealed.

“My hope is that those of us who believe in the sanctity and uniqueness of traditional marriage will continue to argue for its protection in a way that is respectful to the millions of American sons and daughters who are gay. It is also my hope that those who argue for the redefinition of marriage to include same-sex marriage will refrain from assailing the millions of Americans who disagree with them as bigots.”-Senator Marco Rubio

Share and “Like” the story below, leave us a comment.   



About author

Javier Manjarres

As the managing editor of The Shark Tank, Javier was awarded the 2011 CPAC Blogger of the Year. Countless videos and articles from the Shark Tank have been featured on Fox News, The Hill, Wall Street Journal, and other national news publications. Javier has also appeared on Univision’s “Al Punto” and numerous radio shows, including being the weekly 92.5 Fox News' DayBreak with Drew Steele political contributor

Related Articles

2 Comments

  1. Donna-Marie June 26, 2013 at 2:18 pm

    I have no problem with same sex couples becoming a civil union. They should have the same treatment as man & women. I do not like the term marriage between same sex couples because the Bible states it’s between a man & woman. Call it a Civil Union and I would be o.k. with it. This country is built on equality. Do not deny them the benefits that married couples have. If you have been with a partner more than 10 years, you should be able to join into a civil union and reap all the benefits that a married couple have.

  2. G Speed June 27, 2013 at 12:20 pm

    You are so wrong—Your premise is the problem–there should be no state or gov’t benefits to marriage period. That is the reason for all this gov’t in your face crap—marriage is none of the govt’s business. It’s between families and whatever they want(chuch or not). It should be a contract between families only. Your comment (Donna Marie) just goes to show how the American mind has been clouded with pro-gov’t propaganda. Now Americans think the gov’t needs to be involved in family business and education and health care and insurance and you =name it– Shame on you.