Note to David Harsanyi: If Marco Rubio - the third of The Three Republican Obama-Clone Stooges (unqualified freshman senators with presidential delusions), along with Ted Cruz and Rand Paul - is "probably the GOP's best hope", then the GOP is bleep out of luck for 2016.
All Three Chipmunks answered the "Would you attend a gay wedding?" gotcha wrong - again, since marriage is, by absence of constitutional enumeration, a State issue, it isn't a relevant question to ask of a presidential candidate, and that's what all three of them should have said - but Senator Rubio showed just how wet behind the ears he truly is by trying to give the "right" answer to the question by answering in the affirmative, as though that was going to appease the Democrat-Media Complex. Instead, as any 'Pubbie should be aware by this time, that simply whetted the press appetite for more - "blood in the water" and "feeding frenzy" are appropriate metaphors - and now guarantees that Rubio is going to be asked nothing else, as his own base grows more agitatedly disgruntled at his obseqiously squishy-at-best answers, he is knocked permanently off-message (unless he always intended to run on a single-issue pro-sodomarriage platform), and his candidacy goes spiraling down the drain. And don't forget that his being the face of amnesty a couple of years back already had his bid facing a significantly uphill battle.
So, right on schedule, there was the Florida junior senator on Deface The Nation yesterday, where he was asked another of the typical pro-rump ranger gotchas, and couldn't resist doubling down on his blunder from last week:
Republican presidential candidate Marco Rubio says he does not believe sexual orientation is a choice for the "enormous majority of people."
<sigh>
The Florida senator's comments came Sunday on CBS's Face the Nation, where he said that it should be up to States rather than the Supreme Court to define marriage and that he considers marriage to be between a man and a woman.
Why didn't he say that last week and leave it at that? Tell Bob Schieffer or whomever that he addressed this question then and to refer to that answer, and to otherwise stop asking him irrelevant questions? As it is, that constitutionalist stance is hopelessly lost in the suicidal fog of his pro-homosexual rhetorical appeasements, and his claim to support traditional marriage is woefully lacking in credibility.
"I also don't believe that your sexual preferences are a choice for the vast and enormous majority of people. In fact, the bottom line is, I believe that sexual preference is something people are born with," Rubio said.
That, Senator, is simply not true. There is no "gay gene". At best, homosexuality is a mental disorder, but even if that is presumed, moral volition still very much plays a role in the decision to pursue a "lifestyle" of debauchery and sexual perversion - one that the rest of society isn't being given a "choice" to oppose, or even passively disagree with on religious principle. In short, no, homosexuals and their twisted tangential derivatives are NOT "born that way"; they CHOOSE that path, and are morally and otherwise responsible for the consequences. Or at least, they ought to be.
And you, Senator, are supporting homosexuality, and its vicious, bigoted war on marriage and Christianity, by naively parroting their false nostrums thinking it's going to earn you any media brownie points - or so I must conclude from stories like this one. Either Salon didn't get the memo about your "gay" Stockholm Syndrome, or they're not convinced of it, or they're luring you into burying yourself even deeper in this disastrous detour and burying your campaign before it can even get out of the starting blocks.
Do yourself a favor, Senator Rubio: stop answering these damned queer questions. Or, given that you're both unqualified and constitutionally ineligible for the presidency, keep answering them, and do Governor Walker a favor.
No comments:
Post a Comment