Marco Rubio Whines That Conservatives Who are Intolerant Toward Others are Being Treated with Intolerance

marco-rubio-1When I state my belief that conservatives just don’t “get it,” I mean they really don’t get it.  And the worst part is, they only seem to be getting worse.  Once upon a time I spent most of my time debating Republicans on actual issues.  Now I spend more time trying to explain indisputable reality and facts to people who don’t seem to believe in either.

Take for instance Senator Marco Rubio’s recent comments where he said that people who oppose same-sex marriage, and in turn equal rights for homosexuals, are facing unfair intolerance from LGBT advocates.

Rubio said, “Today there is a growing intolerance on this issue, intolerance for those who continue to support traditional marriage.”

In other words, there’s a growing intolerance by many toward those who are ignorant and intolerant toward homosexuals.

Let’s think about this for a moment.  His “argument” is that people who support “traditional marriage” (you know, the same people who are actively trying to deny millions of gay Americans their equal rights) are being treated unfairly because people are fed up with their bigotry.

With that “logic,” I guess he feels it’s unfair to judge racists and bigots as well, correct?  You know, because they’re also just standing up for “their values.”

And I’m sure I’m not the only one who reads these words and can’t help but think this is something someone would have said in the 50’s and 60’s defending those who supported segregation.  Because it should be noted that religion was used by many to support bans on interracial marriage and the segregation of the races.

Oh, and he also says marriage should be left up to the states (aka states’ rights).  Another argument made by many in support of segregation and other racist laws.

But going by right-wing rhetoric, why should any government entity be involved at all?  If Republicans want to argue that marriage is based on religion, then shouldn’t it be left up to the individual churches whether or not to marry a couple?  Because right now in states that still have bans on same-sex marriage, if a church wants to marry a gay couple, they’re not allowed to legally do so.

So this “argument” by Republicans like Rubio doesn’t hold water on any front.  Which is why in practically every state where these bans are being challenged, courts are overturning them as unconstitutional.

If it’s all about religion, then no government should have anything to do with defining marriage.  Then if it’s about government, then that government has to abide by our Constitution which prohibits laws based on religion.

Either way, they lose.

So Rubio’s whining about the “intolerance” traditional marriage advocates are facing is laughable at best.

What he’s really complaining about is the fact that millions of Americans are finally fed up with conservative intolerance and we’ve finally decided to fight back.

Allen Clifton

Allen Clifton is a native Texan who now lives in the Austin area. He has a degree in Political Science from Sam Houston State University. Allen is a co-founder of Forward Progressives and creator of the popular Right Off A Cliff column and Facebook page. Be sure to follow Allen on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to his channel on YouTube as well.


Facebook comments

  • feistychic

    I like to say all the time that the only thing I am intolerant of, is intolerance. I tried to explain one time to someone about how intolerance of hatred and bigotry is not intolerance, and they completely didn’t understand what I was saying, like I’m supposed to tolerate the fact that Hitler had millions of Jews exterminated, because that was his belief? I just don’t understand why that is such a hard concept for some people to grasp.

    • Jim Bean

      The problem arises when you regard someone who openly disagrees with you as being intolerant. Today, anyone who disagrees with abortion or homosexuality (for example) are often regarded to as intolerant by those who believe their opinions are actually truths.

      • crabjack

        Jim, you do such and awesome job of reinforcing feistychic’s point. Good job!

      • PRIME79


      • Alvin

        The problem is not he belief it the implicit agreement with the law that restricts gay marriage… Believe what you like but don’t make someone else believe it… It’s funny how ppl are saying that now as a defense if you don’t like it don’t do it…bye avortion laws are a compromise eventually the law says you ARE KILLING A PERSON but gays not good enough

      • Jim Bean

        Gay marriage is an effort to force upon society that which does not come naturally. Therefore, the resistance is natural and the force is unnatural. Those doing the forcing accuse the forced of being intolerant as if they should be tolerant of being forced. Its all upside down.

      • jackcrackerman

        According to all scientific evidence, homosexual behavior occurs naturally in nature, therefore your argument is invalid.

        Me believing that a person is allowed to marry who they like be it male or female in no way effects you, but your stance on banning marriage for the gay community forces your religious views upon others.

      • Jim Bean

        Grizzly bears kill their cubs to make the sow come back in heat. Monkeys in the zoo throw feces at visitors. Doesn’t mean would should strive to normalize these behaviors in humans.

      • roy

        No one is forcing people to get gay married. No one is forcing people to have unwanted abortions. If they are, they are wrong. Freedom means tolerance of ideas you don’t agree with. It does not mean we should tolerate intolerant behavior and impose the majority’s values on all people. By imposing laws that prevent churches from marrying who they want to marry you are forcing conformity. By outlawing abortions on moral grounds you are forcing conformity.

      • Jim Bean

        I don’t recall churches leading the gay marriage or the abortion causes. I’m am not opposed to gay unions or abortion. I AM opposed to forcing individuals who don’t believe in abortions to contribute their money to pay for the abortions of others and I am opposed gays rejecting civil unions and demanding the term ‘marriage’ be applied. That has nothing to do with equality as it applies to similar treatment in similar circumstances. This is a demand for similar treatment of a dissimilar circumstance.

      • giankeys luvs shemale porn

        what about the EQUAL RIGHTS all all all americans should have?? ( see: constitution/bill of rights)
        F*CK religion

      • Laura Hurt

        your example should have been the other way around: people who are agreeing with abortion or homosexuality are regarded as intolerant, because those who are agreeing with abortion or homosexuality are in favor of freedom for people to choose their own side in the debate, while the people who are against it usually are the ones who are intolerant of people who think otherwise. People who are in favor of don’t want everyone to have abortions or be gay, while people who are against it, want everyone to stop having abortions and being gay. In other words: your example is exactly what feistychic has so much problems with to convince other people of: that saying that you are in favor of and that you don’t like to be told what to do by people who are against it, is not the same as being intolerant. You are exactly showing what feistychic is saying: you have no clue that intolerance of intolerance sometimes can be very helpful to spread true freedom.

    • disqusser10157

      This is because they know they hate people, and they believe they are justified in doing so. Frankly, what a real Christian is supposed to do is “hate the sin, not the sinner”, but I’m sure you’ve seen comments posted online saying that the posters hate gays, and that God hates gays. Consequently, since they HAVE to have SOME way of justifying their hatred, they adopt the oxymoronic notion that their hatred is justified, and that the fact that other people find their hatred to be offensive means that the OTHER people are intolerant, not themselves.

  • Daniel Homkowicz

    @jim bean Jim, really? There is a MAJOR difference in an open debate or disagreement about an issue; and intolerance. By definition, the oppression and denying rights to any individual(s) IS INTOLERANCE! I welcome open disagreement. I enjoy the results that come from intelligent and well intended compromise. No one, NO ONE suggests that any person should abandon their faith or morality. What is demanded, is the relinquish of power to force others to comply against their will. Intolerance. Oh, and by the way, to suggest in your writing that you hold some semblance of the “Moral High Ground” is an affront to anyone who would be willing to debate this issue with you.

    • Cemetery Girl

      But by their reasoning it is intolerant to deny their right to look down on other people and expect them to keep their relationships a secret. It is just so intolerant not to respect their attempts to take the country back to the 1950’s or earlier. When a man was just a “confirmed bachelor” that happened to have a secret boyfriend, the KKK were nice enough to light cross shaped bonfires on the lawns of the local black people, and a woman was supposed to be at home making a pot roast for her husband.

    • giankeys luvs shemale porn

      jim bean is a heavy drinker

  • Quacker

    It’s strange how the only argument they have is “religion”. Well, to say MY religion says this, so you are wrong, is pretty damn stupid. We are NOT the Middle East. NO ONE should have the right to deny someone anything because “your” religion is against it. If you are a church or some other non-profit religious group actively spreading your word, they you have a standing. But to simply try and pass laws banning things for people that may or may not follow your beliefs is just so…..ANTI-AMERICAN! Sheesh……

  • giankeys luvs shemale porn

    marco Rubio is not only a ” hair club 4 men ” customer,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

  • disqusser10157

    I have actually been involved in online debates with homophobes who have claimed, IN SO MANY WORDS, that anyone who calls someone else a bigot is, by definition, a bigot himself or herself. I usually follow up on this by asking whether, in a circumstance where someone utters a racial epithet calling a black person the N-word, I would be a bigot for calling the person who used the N-word a bigot.

    I have yet to receive a reply from one of these people.

    • Laura Hurt

      people like that are not good in answering questions with a reply that makes very clear that they were wrong with their first statement… it is impossible to get those people to really think and step out of their biblical righteousness and frozen aptitudes.

  • Jane Smith

    Republicans Cherry Pick the US Constitution. They ONLY back it IF it support their ideologies. Thus Far, it is ONLY the 1st and 2nd Amendments. I dont think they can count past 2.