Posted on 09/04/2015 5:12:31 AM PDT by GIdget2004
Bottom line, host Joe Scarborough said, is that if Supreme Court makes a decision, that’s the law of land, right?
“You have to go with it,” Mr. Trump said. “The decision’s been made, and that is the law of the land.”
“She can take a pass and let somebody else in the office do it in terms of religious, so you know, it’s a very … tough situation, but we are a nation, as I said yesterday, we’re a nation of laws,” he said. “And I was talking about borders and I was talking about other things, but you know, it applies to this, also, and the Supreme Court has ruled."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Trump’s big sister is a federal judge. I wonder what she’d advise him. /s
Good luck with that. I will defend the rule of law, not anarchy and win at all costs.
“Trump has not examined this issue clearly otherwise he wouldn’t have opened his muth and inserted his foot so quickly.”
He was asked about it yesterday in the afternoon, and his response was basically “I don’t know enough to comment.” This “law of the land” answer was from an interview this morning. I think this WAS his “examined” answer. Surely he and his people knew it would be asked when he agreed to go on MSNBC this morning.
While she is not using as a defense, the fact is that it is not possible to legal issue a same sex marriage license in Kentucky right now. The marriage license laws need to be rewritten by the Kentucky legislature. The clerk is the only one in this entire mess that is actually obeying the law.
Rand Paul and Huckabee were both very good yesterday.
But Trump is no polished speaker. He throws pieces of thoughts together. He spoke of an accommodation: “let somebody else in the office do it...”
The Scotus ruled on homosexual marriage. But they didn’t rule on how their ruling had to be implemented.
Rand Paul’s idea of individuals signing contracts and filing those contracts is an excellent idea. We do pre-nups already, so why not just go there for everyone. The get their lawyers, and they sign their contract, and they file it, and all the clerk’s office has to do is record the filing of a contract. Then the couple does or doesn’t have a wedding.
I’d love to see the major denominations agree on a unified matrimony certificate that can be acquired only from those participants, can only be heterosexual, and any denomination’s access can be revoked if they even hint at deviating from the agreement.
Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, liberty is the underpinning of our system. You take that away, there is not getting away from socialism or whatever other “-ism” that follows.
Then if she felt so religiously violated by it, she could have resigned her post.
How would people on this board feel if a border sheriff “objected” to having to arrest illegals who are “looking for a better life”, and just let them waltz in?
Would you support that sheriff, or would you demand disciplinary action be taken?
No he is caving to a tyrannical unconstitutional court opinion which created a law in opposition to the laws of Nature.
Show me the statute that the clerk violated. Show me where the court is given power to jail this woman.
Trump has shown that the only backbone he has is to attack Jeb Bush and say what we want to hear on immigration. But what if the Supreme Court tells him to sit down and shut up. Will he cave?
Time to rethink my previous support.
I agree 100%. Resigning is the honorable thing to do if she feels that issuing state licenses is somehow a violation of her religious tenets.
Read the full article. Trump didn’t really answer the question, which is not great but short of saying she just needs to issue the marriage licenses. He more or less said other people in the office can do it, or applicants can drive to another municipality to do it, but that since her name is on the certificate, that was the problem.
Trump can be inarticulate with things, and i believe he was equating this to a conscientious objector analogy without saying so, which is how this debate should be framed. If one can claim objector status to a war on religious grounds, or one can request religious accomodations at work, then if the USSC wants to fiat this, then governments are going to have to provide religious accomodations to those who don’t want to comply...
Well its a valid point. Trump is basically saying he agrees with Feds who will arrest people for standing up forbtheir religious beliefs. Now I’m not a bif Kim Davis fan at all but I think the punished her because the didn’t like her tone and demeanor. You can look at her and tell she’s probably not the nicest person around but hey they just arrested her for exercising her religious rights. You can see they are just kicking the can to push the envelope here and it will result in more Americans being arrested as they use this exvuse to do it. The next step will be to not allow persons with a Christian faith to hold office. Can’t you see where this is going? There is more to this issue than meets the eye. These are dangerous waters they are stepping into.
Good luck with that. I will defend the rule of law, not anarchy and win at all costs.
Have you been asleep the last 7 years? There is no rule of law. The law is whatever Obama decides it is.
Do you think when the courts ruled that schools couldn't be segregated by race that the little black kids had to wait until the legislature re-wrote the laws before they could go to school?
Disappointing but It’s still early. I think Trump will take a “moderate” view on a few more issues too.
A moderate/conservative candidate is better than a GOPe/Dem, though Cruz would be better.
Thank you.
You mean travel to some other county? Or other people in the same office?
So you’d rather we just continue with anarchy thats based on your political beliefs??
Had a feeling he would say this. Doesn’t shock me that he supports Godlessness when he talked about Communion in such a disrespectful way.
If people withdraw their support for Trump because he’s advocating following the law, then this country deserves to go down the tubes. I happen to think the amount of income tax I have to pay is an illegal abuse of power, and the money taken from me is being used for things that I find morally reprehensible. If we are honest, we are all complying with unjust laws to avoid prison and societal chaos.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.