• Source: Gage Skidmore/Flickr
  • Rubio Tells Man And His Husband To Change The Law If They Disagree With His Anti-Gay Marriage Stance

    Campaigning In New Hampshire Florida Senator Apparently Unaware Of Last Year's Supreme Court Ruling

    Marco Rubio Monday afternoon visited the Puritan Backroom diner in Manchester, New Hampshire and happened upon two men and a woman sitting at a table. 

    “Why do you want to put me back in the closet?,” Timothy Kierstead, sitting with his husband and his mother, asked the conservative Florida Republican presidential candidate, according to the New York Times.

    “I don’t,” Rubio responded. “You can live any way you want.”

    The Times described the encounter as a "tense exchange," saying that Kierstead, 50, "told Mr. Rubio that he was married but complained that the senator’s position amounted to him declaring that 'we don’t matter.'"

    Mr. Rubio, who was standing with his youngest son, Dominick, 8, by his side, gently disagreed. “No, I just believe marriage is between one man and one woman.”

    “Well,” replied Mr. Kierstead, “that’s your belief.”

    Mr. Rubio continued: “I think that’s what the law should be. And if you don’t agree you should have the law changed by a legislature.”

    The Florida Senator, fresh off a disastrous performance at Saturday night's GOP debate, opted to not continue the exchange, saying he respected Kierstead's views. Kierstead reminded him same-sex marriage is legal nationwide.

    "Typical politician," Kierstead, who has three children with his husband, shouted after him. "Walk away."

    He later told the Times he is a registered independent but will vote for a Democrat because Republicans "want to take my rights away as a citizen of the United States."

    On Facebook a few minutes ago, Kierstead detailed the exchange, adding, "So i guess my 18yrs will be null and void if he wins NOT GETTING MY VOTE he is an ass."


    It must be noted that New Hampshire was the first state to pass same-sex marriage legislation into law, in 2009, without being forced to do so by a lawsuit or court ruling.


    Image by Gage Skidmore via Flickr and a CC license

    Get weekly news & updates
    Support our work DONATE

    Register to VOTE

    Showing 21 comments

    Please check your e-mail for a link to activate your account.

    • commented 2016-02-11 17:20:26 -0500
      “I think that’s what the law should be. And if you don’t agree you should have the law changed by a legislature.”

      Rubio’s comment is incoherent gibberish in any case. If he thinks one man and one woman is what the law SHOULD be, then he is conceding that it is NOT what the law currently IS. So, it is he who needs to seek legislative change. However, he also seems rather fuzzy on the point that the US Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land, and that Supremacy is ensured through jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court. If Marcito does not agree, then he should seek to have the Constitution amended. Further, the Supreme Court decision enforced the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution. If Rubio does not agree with equality, then he needs to work on having the 14th Amendment repealed (and maybe disinter Jefferson, revive him and ask him to revise the Declaration of Independence).

      I think the easiest solution would be to just send this wet behind the ears nobody packing. He doesn’t belong in the US Senate, much less the White House.

    • commented 2016-02-11 17:10:06 -0500
      Here is Rubio’s full comments:

      “I think that’s what the law should be. And if you don’t agree you should have the law changed by a legislature.

      Moreover, I think that’s what the law should be. And if you don’t agree you should have the law changed by a legislature.

      And to add to that, I think that’s what the law should be. And if you don’t agree you should have the law changed by a legislature.

      So, to conclude I think that’s what the law should be. And if you don’t agree you should have the law changed by a legislature.”

    • commented 2016-02-09 12:42:39 -0500
      He barely showed up for work as a Florida Senator. Ask him what he knows about Florida and he’ll probably answer, it’s mostly hot. Ask him his accomplishments in Florida. His answer-I used their money to get my home remodeled and renovated. Iowa has become a joke after seeing their Republican choices. They too must be as out of touch with reality as their candidates. Hope New Hampshire shows better judgement. Rubio just wants a free check so he doesn’t have to work, he doesn’t care about anyone else. His new name since the last debate has become Robot Rubio. He repeats the same sentence over and over. A practicing Trump.

    • commented 2016-02-09 11:59:43 -0500
      Apparently, Rubio did not understand that the legislature of New Hampshire passed a marriage law long before SCOTUS struck down all of the laws forbidding it.. What a buffoon.

    • commented 2016-02-09 11:17:28 -0500
      Fighting AGAINST other people’s rights instead of FOR your own or those of your consistency isn’t a nice thing to do, especially when bestowing rights on others doesn’t have any adverse impact on your own.

    • commented 2016-02-09 11:01:11 -0500
      If Republicans think this is going to be a wedge issue I think they’re mistaken. I think even most of the people who don’t really want gay marriage (who are more and more a minority) are tired of fighting about this. It might fire up their crazy base in the primary but it’s going to be a huge albatross in the general election.

    • commented 2016-02-09 07:54:20 -0500
      Daniel, that’s a fine definition. Of course the equality movement is not a bad thing. Sorry if I made it come across that way.

      In other news

    • commented 2016-02-09 03:20:48 -0500
      This article misses one VERY SALIENT point.

      “Mr. Rubio continued: “I think that’s what the law should be. And if you don’t agree you should have the law changed by a legislature.”

      They did. in 2009. It was signed into law in 2010.

      Rubio can’t even be bothered to remember that New Hampshire was one of the earliest states that legalized same sex marriage. The were one of the first 4 to do so.

    • commented 2016-02-09 01:41:22 -0500
      Keeva Kase, how about the “equality community” is a group who feel we or they should have equal rights? You make it sound like a bad thing.

    • commented 2016-02-08 21:54:33 -0500
      Laws which violate the Constitution are overturned by SCOTUS, and this is what happened in the Obergefell same sex marriage lawsuit. There is no need to “change the law” because it was not legitimate to begin with, and was already “changed”, i.e. overturned by the Supreme Court.

    • commented 2016-02-08 21:50:59 -0500
      Daniel – the “equality community” is a label describing a group of people who believe inequality is hell. Or something like that.

    • commented 2016-02-08 21:10:19 -0500
      @ KEEVA KASE, “Equality Community”? What’s that?

    • commented 2016-02-08 21:08:19 -0500
      Rubio’s an ass.

    • commented 2016-02-08 20:09:12 -0500
      Lee, amen, except that’s not my point it’s his. Cole, it’s not that this guy (I think you mean David Badash – great name by the way)‘s point is less valid, it’s that it doesn’t reflect an understanding that Rubio is a Senator who fights against marriage equality. And understands the process. Because his ethics are what they are, he’d rather have his voice heard than a court decide. Fair enough. But he’s fight a battle that’s going against him and that’s depressing, so he is using what he knows to be a good process – democracy. But to Lee’s point, as far as the law is concerned, game over. The vigilance strategy for the equality community (or any justice movement) is to never underestimate the other side. Saying he’s dumb underestimates Rubio. That said, I think he’s toast. :)

    • commented 2016-02-08 19:11:03 -0500
      So Rubio’s opinion is more important than this guy? Since when is Love inappropriate? God IS Love. Regardless of gender, love is in the human heart. This Rubio is an idiot.

    • commented 2016-02-08 19:09:52 -0500
      Keeva Kase — your point is that we aren’t covered by the 14th amendment’s guarantees. Congress should no more have to vote on our right to marry than the should have had to vote on the right of Richard and Mildred Loving. Only people who don’t think the LGBT community deserves full and equal protection under the law believe that.

    • commented 2016-02-08 18:55:37 -0500
      This article needs a lot of work. The point Rubio is making is that instead of SCOTUS deciding Obergefell, Congress should vote on the issue. It shows that he knows what he’s talking about when it comes to the marriage equality case. Enough to be dangerous. That’s what the equality community should be told, not that he is dumb. Because he’s not. He just has really bad policies.

    • commented 2016-02-08 18:54:46 -0500
      Those of us with well-developed critical thinking skills would find it strange that on the one hand, a politician would say one could live the way s/he wants, and on the other say s/he wants to pass a law that would take that choice away from the same person.

    • commented 2016-02-08 18:35:40 -0500
      Massachusetts was actually the first state to legalize gay marriage in 2007.

    • commented 2016-02-08 18:13:51 -0500
      Thank you, Mr. Kierstead, and God bless you and your husband for standing up to the Rube!
      I and my own husband have been together for over 22 years.

    • commented 2016-02-08 18:05:48 -0500
      Way to go guys!!! We certainly don’t need the likes of Rubio in the oval office! Thanks for putting him on the spot!

    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today:
    Your rights, your movement.
    Join today: