Looks like I won't have to issue a "choicer challenge" to Marco Rubio:

It's not that Rubio is against gay marriage. No, no, no. It's just that Marco Rubio's own personal definition of marriage—which deserves to have force of law (why? Because)—excludes same-sex marriage. Rubio also believes that state legislatures, not courts, should be making decisions about marriage.

Odd that no one ever asks Rubio or anyone else who makes this argument the obvious follow-up question: Was Loving v. Virginia wrongly decided? State legislatures in a certain part of the country (won't name the part but it rhymes with "the mouth") were making decisions about interracial marriage—they had decided to ban it and to charge anyone who entered into one with a felony—until the Supreme Court declared those laws unconstitutional and overturned them in 16 states.

The usual response when someone asks the obvious-if-seldom-asked "What about Loving" follow-up question goes something like this: "But... but... (sputter, sputter) Loving was about a man/woman marriage!"

Yes, it was. Mildred Loving was a woman and Richard Loving was a man. And the State of Virginia sentenced both Mildred and Richard to a year in prison for the crime of falling in love and getting married. (The judge at their trial, after citing the Bible to support his decision, suspended the sentence on the condition that the Lovings leave the state of Virginia for 25 years.) In overturning the conviction of the Lovings, a unanimous Supreme Court did not rule that Virginia couldn't ban marriages between certain types of men and certain types of women because "man + woman = marriage 4 ever."

From the decision:

[If] the Equal Protection Clause does not outlaw miscegenation statutes because of their reliance on racial classifications, the question of constitutionality would thus become whether there was any rational basis for a State to treat interracial marriages differently from other marriages.... There is patently no legitimate overriding purpose independent of invidious racial discrimination which justifies this classification.... These statutes also deprive the Lovings of liberty without due process of law in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.

The Supreme Court found that the state of Virginia lacked a "rational basis" for depriving the Lovings of their basic civil right to marry and that depriving of the Lovings of their right to marry did not serve a nondiscriminatory purpose. Once again: The court's decision in Loving wasn't "man + woman = marriage 4 ever." The court found that marriage is a basic civil right and the state can't prevent two people from exercising their basic right to marry—or throw two people in jail for marrying—unless the state had a damn good reason. All Virginia had was animus, and animus wasn't good enough. Depriving people of their rights under the 14th Amendment (due process, equality under the law) because some people—even a majority of people—disapprove or hate their guts or think their marriage is sick or sinful doesn't justify marriage bans. "Irrational bias" ≠ "rational basis."

People arguing against marriage equality lack a rational basis to justify depriving same-sex couples of equal protection under the law. That's why they're losing—and that's why they're having to resort to arguments like these.

Also: Marco Rubio needs a better makeup artist. He looks like he got his face painted at an American Girl doll plant.

UPDATE: And speaking of Mildred Loving... here's what she had to say about marriage equality:

I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry... I am still not a political person, but I am proud that Richard's and my name is on a court case that can help reinforce the love, the commitment, the fairness and the family that so many people, black or white, young or old, gay or straight, seek in life. I support the freedom to marry for all. That's what Loving, and loving, are all about.