By Jae C. Hong, AP
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., shown here in April campaigning with GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney, told 'Christianity Today' that a politician's faith should inform his policies.
By Cathy Lynn Grossman, USA TODAY
Can Florida Sen. Marco Rubio cut the mustard with GOP conservatives, particularly evangelicals, as Mormon Mitt Romney's running mate when his views on a hot topic like gay marriage are so ... open?
That's an interesting spin out of Sarah Pulliam Bailey's interview with him in Christianity Today. He details his faith journey in/out/in/out/in Catholicism. But none of the faiths he's experienced, including the Mormon church and an evangelical church, would condone legalizing gay marriage.
Asked, "Are Christians who oppose gay marriage fighting a losing battle?" Rubio replied that the Bible is pretty clearly against it. However, he goes on to say...
The debate is about what society should tolerate, and what society should allow our laws to be. I believe marriage is a unique and specific institution that is the result of thousands of years of wisdom, which concluded that the ideal -- not the only way but certainly the ideal -- situation to raise children to become productive and healthy humans is in a home with a father and mother married to each other. Does that mean people who are not in that circumstance cannot be successful? Of course not.
It's not a discriminatory thing. I'm not angry at anyone because of it, but I also have to be honest about what I believe marriage should be in our laws.
One point Rubio made clear is that he won't join in casting doubt on President Obama's Christianity or the sincerity of the way Obama interprets his faith in policy. He told CT:
I've never criticized anyone for having their faith influence their public-policy decisions. If your faith is real, burning inside of you, it's going to influence the way you view everything. That belief influences your job and the responsibilities you have.
DO YOU THINK... Romney needs to balance the GOP ticket religiously? Can an elected official hold one view in faith and another in policy?