So Marco Rubio, alone among potential R presidential candidates as far as I know, understands that sexual preference is not a choice. Good for him. Given the proclivities of his potential voters, it seems brave and principled; also rare commodities among his fellow supplicants. (There's plenty of time for him to change on this one, though, as he has with so much else.)
... During an appearance on CBS' "Face The Nation," Rubio, who launched his 2016 presidential campaign last week, said that he believes the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman. The Florida senator also added said that same-sex marriage was not a constitutional right and should be decided by state legislatures, not the courts. Despite his position, Rubio added that he didn't think being gay was a choice. "I also don't believe that your sexual preferences are a choice for the vast and enormous majority of people," he said. "In fact, the bottom line is I believe sexual preference is something that people are born with."...Now all he needs to do is reconcile the irreconcilable: if sexual preference is inborn, and since the bible declares homosexuality an abomination punishable by eternal damnation and no cake or pizza at weddings, not to mention diesel repair when the need arises, how can his god be a loving one? Explain, please, Marco. Along with the basis for rejecting same-sex marriage.
But who cares? Rubio has tried to position himself pretty much everywhere, sort of a Schrodinger's hep cat. I've heard it said that he's everyone's second choice for president (everyone being Republicans, of course.) Guess it's better than last place, but it doesn't seem likely to get him very far. Maybe #2 on the ticket? Having such a generally reasonable view of the origins of sexual preference seems unlikely to get him through the primaries. But veep is about general elections and appealing more broadly.
Guess we'll have to stay tuned.