This reader...

You need to do something along the lines of what you did with Santorum to wreak havoc on Marco Rubio. I don't think #IdFuckMarco is quite catchy enough but make this a priority. He's by far the scariest because he seems reasonable.

...is reacting to the comments Marco Rubio made yesterday on Meet the Press:

Asked Todd: “Are you going to work to overturn the same sex marriage?”

Said Rubio: “I disagree with it on constitutional grounds. As I have said–I think it’s bad law. And for the following reason. If you want to change the definition of marriage, then you need to go to state legislatures and get them to change it. Because states have always defined marriage. And that’s why some people get married in Las Vegas by an Elvis impersonator. And in Florida, you have to wait a couple days when you get your permit. Every state has different marriage laws. But I do not believe that the court system was the right way to do it.”

When asked if he’d pursue a constitutional amendment, Rubio adds:

“As I’ve said, that would be conceding that the current Constitution is somehow wrong and needs to be fixed. I don’t think the current Constitution gives the federal government the power to regulate marriage. That belongs at the state and local level. And that’s why if you want to change the definition of marriage, which is what this argument is about….It’s not about discrimination. It is about the definition of a very specific, traditional, and age-old institution. That definitional change, if you want to change it, you have a right to petition your state legislature and your elected representatives to do it. What is wrong is that the Supreme Court has found this hidden constitutional right that 200 years of jurisprudence had not discovered and basically overturn the will of voters in Florida where over 60 percent passed a constitutional amendment that defined marriage in the state constitution as the union of one man and one woman.”

Rubio adds that he doesn’t believe it’s settled law:

“It is the current law. I don’t believe any case law is settled law. Any future Supreme Court can change it. And ultimately, I will appoint Supreme Court justices that will interpret the Constitution as originally constructed.”

I'm old enough to remember when pundits left, right, and center were telling us how GOP candidates would welcome the Supreme Court's decision in Obergefell—they would welcome it in secret—because opposing marriage equality was a losing issue. Polls showed a growing Americans now supported same-sex marriage, opposing marriage equality alienated independent voters, majorities of young Republicans and young evangelicals supported same-sex marriage, etc. But all the assholes running for the GOP nomination are pledging to roll back marriage rights for same-sex couples—even the candidate who says he's about the youth and the future. Says Paul Waldman at WaPo:

It’s particularly interesting to hear this coming from Rubio, who presents himself as the candidate of the future, full of youthful optimism and forward-looking vision. Like all the GOP candidates, he has to grapple with the fact that his party’s electorate is gripped by a profound unease about the direction of the country and the world, a sense that things are slipping away from them. It sometimes expresses itself as opposition to immigration or fear of terrorism, but it also comes out in their feelings about same-sex marriage. Many of those voters would like to turn the clock back to when they were younger and the world seemed less complicated, when their values were the country’s values.

Even as he says he’s the candidate of a new generation, Rubio would like to reassure those voters that he wants to lead them on that journey to the past. On an issue like same-sex marriage, it’s a difficult balance to strike—maybe an impossible one, particularly if you’ve got one eye on the general election, where a litmus test for overturning marriage equality isn’t going to play well at all.

Rubio's stance—I'll pack the Supreme Court with justices who'll let states decide whether or not to let same-sex couples marry—isn't going to withstand the scrutiny of the rightwing, evangelical voters its designed to appeal/pander to. Rubio is suggesting that gays and lesbians should only be able to marry in states where legislators and/or voters have legalized same-sex marriage. But oppponents of same-sex marriage don't want gays and lesbians to be able to marry anywhere in the United States, period, and for that they're going to need a constitutional amendment—and Ted Cruz is promising to give them not just one, but two constitutional amendments. One would ban same-sex marriage, the other would blow up the Supreme Court:

In an interview with Morning Edition host Steve Inskeep on Sunday in New York City, the GOP presidential hopeful doubled down on his belief that the court had overstepped its bounds in both the marriage decision and in upholding Obamacare. And as a result, Cruz said, the justices should be subject to elections and lose their lifetime appointments. "This week in response to both of these decisions, I have called for another constitutional amendment—this one that would make members of the Supreme Court subject to periodic judicial retention elections," said Cruz.

Rubio is pandering to rightwing crazies. Cruz is a rightwing crazy. And the crazies are going to pick one of their own.