The right to define
"Just because I believe states should have the right to define marriage in a traditional way does not make me a bigot," Rubio said. (source)
Well, Rubio, when I hear you say that DOMA should be struck down (instead of defended), then I'll believe that you think states have the right to follow Maryland and Maine and Washington and DC and the rest in defining marriage as "non-traditional" - whatever the hell you think that means. Once, "traditional" would have meant within the race or religion; once it would have meant one man-quite a few wives (ask Mitt Romney. Or David).
But till then, I'm going to think you mean "states should have the right" to agree with you. That is, after all, the way that usually works with you guys.