Rubio says he does not support a constitutional amendment to restore states’ ability to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman:

“I don’t support a constitutional amendment. I don’t believe the federal government should be in the marriage regulation business,” the Florida senator told reporters after a speech the Cedar Rapids Country Club in Iowa.

I am not sure if he meant the second sentence as an explanation for the first, or if there’s an implied “on the other hand” in it. I can’t make sense of it as an explanation for his refusal to support an amendment, since the point of the amendment would be to get the federal government out of the business of defining marriage for the country.

Meanwhile, an aide to Walker says the issue is going to work in his favor:

Another adviser said Walker’s call for a constitutional amendment to give states the right to define marriage would end up being a plus, saying Rubio and Bush probably hurt themselves among social conservatives by not reacting more vigorously to last month’s Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage.