While his campaign touts his outreach to gay Republicans, Florida Sen. Marco Rubio told David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network this weekend that anyone who believes that gay people have a constitutional right to marriage have a “ridiculous and absurd reading of the U.S. Constitution.”
“There is no federal constitutional right to same sex-marriage,” Rubio said, before criticizing gay rights advocates for supposedly trying to shut down debate over the issue.
It doesn’t exist. There is no federal constitutional right to same sex-marriage. There isn’t such a right. You would 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 is 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 a debate in society. They want courts to impose it on people and they are not even satisfied with that. They have 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 has existed before laws, that institution should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman.”
Herman Cain tried to clean up the running confusion over his position on abortion last night, but in the meantime opened questions about his grasp of the Constitution.
In an interview with David Brody last night, Cain said he’d sign a pro-life constitutional amendment if it crossed his desk as president.
“Yes. Yes I feel that strongly about it. If we can get the necessary support and it comes to my desk I’ll sign it,” he said. “That’s all I can do. I will sign it.”
The only problem with that statement? Presidents don’t sign constitutional amendments — they’re passed in Congress and then need to be ratified by the states, and the president plays no formal role in the process.
Candidates have in the past pledged to support such an amendment, but it’s not clear what signing one would mean.
This is presidential material? And the biggest thing right-wingers could complain about then candidate Obama was his pronunciation of the word Pakistan (which was the correct pronunciation in English!)
In an interview with the religious right Christian Broadcasting Network (CBN), GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain badly bungled Uzbekistan’s name and said his standard answer to “‘gotcha’ questions” would be that he doesn’t have answers.
BRODY: Are you ready for the ‘gotcha’ questions that are coming from the media and others on foreign policy? Like, who’s the president of Uzbekistan?…
CAIN: I’m ready for the ‘gotcha’ questions and they’re already starting to come. And when they ask me who is the president of Ubeki-beki-beki-beki-stan-stan I’m going to say, you know, I don’t know. Do you know?
And then I’m going to say how’s that going to create one job?
Cain added that Uzbekistan was “insignificant” to U.S. national security interests:
Knowing who is the head of some of these small insignificant states around the world — I don’t think that is something that is critical to focusing on national security and getting this economy going. When I get ready to go visit that country, I’ll know who it is. But until then, I want to focus on the big issues that we need to solve.
With U.S.-Pakistan tensions on the rise, the Obama administration is in discussions with Uzbekistan about increasing military supply routes to the U.S.-led Afghanistan war through the former-Soviet republic, whose authoritarian president — Islam Karimov — has some human rights issues.
Cain’s mocking and ignorance of Uzbekistan come at the tail end of a tough week for the former pizza chain CEO on foreign policy, even as his star slid up a notch in the Republican nomination contest.
Pat Robertson and the Christian Broadcasting Network have been heavily promoting the so-called “Teavangelicals,” or the ties between the Religious Right and the Tea Party. Following a report by David Brody, who hosted a panel on “Teavangelicals” at the Faith and Freedom Coalition summit, on the religious views of Tea Party activists Jenny Beth Martin of Tea Party Patriots and Amy Kremer of the Tea Party Express, Pat Robertson claimed that God sent the Tea Party to stop America from sliding into “chaos.”
I believe God loves America. I believe He remembers the sacrifice of past generations and how they’ve stood up and how this country has been a beacon of freedom around the world, and He doesn’t want this country to go into chaos. It’s heading that way, but is the Tea Party His answer? It would be. It’s almost like the humor of God that He’s going to bring a bunch of housewives in to change the government, isn’t that great?