Trump says he's 'fine' with legalization of same-sex marriage

Politico ^ | November 13, 2016 | Eli Stokals

[Albion Wilde]

I think that the ruling should be overturned. This matter should be for state legislatures to decide. Hopefully, Mr. Trump’s SCOTUS picks will be of a mind to do that.

It's not easy for the SCOTUS to overturn a ruling. Part of the way Supreme Court jurisprudence works is the doctrine of stare decisis—that a law once passed sets a precedent and should remain decided. In principle, this makes the system relatively impervious to political winds. Unfortunately, the Court has already drifted far off the Constitution, starting in 1948. The trend has been for the peoplle to regard the SCOTUS as a super legislature that is in charge of everything, including the other two branches of government. Courts have eroded the duties of the legislatures, and the legislatures have either allowed or encouraged it, so that leftists can get what they want in spite of the consent of the governed.

The top law schools (of the type that typically supply the Federal appellate courts, and to a certain extent te State Supreme Courts, and that are full of progressive judges appointed by Clinton, Bush and Obama) have nearly stopped teaching the Consittution and the duty of the high courts to preserve and defend it; instead the focus is on radical case law and how to bring cases that will get around the system on behalf of politically correct "victims". So it will be no easy task for an incoming administration to turn things around, although a Trump/Giuliani/Sessions Department of Justice can have a marked influence.

With regard to gay marriage, two-thirds of the states over the past fifteen years or so went to the trouble to raise petitions and bills in their legislatures and pass laws specifically limiting marriage to one man and one woman, only to have the laws immediately struck down by their state supreme courts or in Federal applelllate courts. It would take a very well-crafted legal challenge to work its way to the SCOTUS in order to challenge "settled law." I see Trump's reluctance to start off fighting against gay marriage from the executive branch and even before he takes office as a strategic move. He is unlikely to change the mind of society, which has now been forced to accept gay marriage. Society itself has been indoctrinated and punished to accept far left notions of "fairness." Imposing a restriction would not change attitudes; it would harden resistance.

I compare this situation to what the nation went through with Prohibition. Drinking and even alcohol addiction was socially accepted by many other than Methodists and Baptists, even though it ruined many lives. It was prohibited by law, and then black marketing replaced the one social ill with many other organized criminal activities as well as furtive law-breaking by individuals. But as alcohol consumption has been legalized again, it is now fully recognized as a pastime that can lead to serious consequences and there are many avenues of treatment and therapy, as well as laws against drunk driving and so forth.

Right now, homosexuals can do no wrong, and the costs of gay marriage on the children manufactured by GLBT couples have not been counted; in fact, briefs submitted to the SCOTUS by the children of gays detailing their negative experiences were ignored by the Ogberfell decision that "legalized" gay marriage. Several states have legally forbidden counseling therapy of youths experiencing same-sex attractions. The entire education bureaucracy is so far to the left on this issue that the great majority of the nation's teachers and professors are brainwashed. You can see the fascism of the campuses in the daily headlines. This is the problem, and overturning a law can't fix it at this time.

That's why I am in favor of incremental change of the state-level decisions that make life a misery for Christians and Orthodox Jews. An entirely revised language of jurisprudence needs to be developed piece by piece as other factors come into play, such as the repeal of the Johnson Amendment so that churches can teach on the subject and avoid prosecution; the curtailment of kangaroo "human rights" commissions in many states acting outside constitutional bounds to inflict progressive agendas, and attrition from the Federal courts of progressive activist judges. It will take a daring U.S. president to start appointing Federal judges who studied at the law schools of Liberty University, Regent University, etc. instead of the Ivy League, but it must be done.