Posted on 11/13/2016 6:04:38 PM PST by Pinkbell
I support traditional marriage. However, maybe this is the right answer. Tell people it's settled, and if a conservative court looks at it, they do. That would be in the future and would cause a lot of argument and division in a tough time if he said he's going to overturn it. On the converse, Marco Rubio, for example, was open with the fact he wanted it overturned regardless.
Thoughts?
total lie by politico. I just finished watching 60 minutes and trump simply said the issue haf already been adjudicated.
It’s a state’s rights issue.
First the wall for sovereignty. Them obamacare. Then....
The social issues have been big losers for Republicans.
SCOTUS ruled on this a year or two ago. Don’t think they’ll go back and reverse it at this point.
Rubio was just saying whatever he thought he had to say to get elected.
I disagreed with the ruling at the time it was made.
The US SC cannot make law. They can only interpret law.
He just merely said the issue was adjudicated. Which is fine. We have so much more items that are more urgent.
I disagreed with the Dred Scott ruling at the time it was made ...
SCOTUS was wrong.
It’s OK to say it.
Politico is twisting it. Basically what he is saying is that it’s up to the courts, not to him.
He will, hopefully, appoint some more constitutional-minded conservative judges, certainly better than those Democrat appointments. So, the courts will probably ease up, if not actually reverse the earlier decision.
Don’t believe anything that Politico headlines.
I saw the interview. I believe the direct quotes in the politico article are accurate.
Trump refuses to step into their traps. Isn’t that illegal?
“total lie by politico. I just finished watching 60 minutes and trump simply said the issue has already been adjudicated.”
Politico just lied as to what Trump actually said. Fathom that.
Politico uses America as its toilet.
My two Obama’s worth: No problem with gays getting married.
Problem with the state requiring churches to recognize those marriages.
Simple, not?
(Not, of course, to liberals, which really do not like logic.)
And note, progressives, that some Christian Churches will accept this, others will not. So, their “solution” will be to force all churches to accept it. And, being progressives, they will exempt the Muzzies. (Because the muzzles will shoot their ass.)
the left has a skewed understanding of all three branches of government. Leslie Stahl included.
The thing is that he indicated that he is opposed to Roe vs. Wade, so he admitted the court was wrong in that instance. He could say, as he said when was campaigning, that he believes the court was wrong in the instance of gay marriage. When he was campaigning, he said it should have been left up to the states.
Of course there are people marching in the streets now, and one of the groups is LGBT, so to say he’s putting justices on the court that will definitely overturn it when there is no way of knowing that (and when there is a lot of support for gay marriage in this country - more than for Roe vs. Wade), would likely make things worse from a protesting standpoint.
>The social issues have been big losers for Republicans.
Yep. Let’s get the illegals, islam and Constitution solidified.
Gay marriage is a trap. Trump should avoid the trap. MARRIAGE is a state issue, not a federal /presidential issue. Second, you got a supreme court ruling already, so what is the question now? OR MUST YOU CRAM IT FURTHER DOWN THE PUBLIC’S COLLECTIVE THROAT???
Trump tends to be socially liberal, whether we like to think so or not. He doesn’t really care about same sex marriage.
From gay marriage in 2015 it was a quick trip to gendermonium in 2016.
It looks like we will have to live with Trump's position for now. But there is no reason for conservatives to support gay marriage or to forget its importance. And Trump's nominees to the Court may end up overturning Obergefell.
For example ...
Suppose you have a good medical insurance plan at work, and you also have a close friend of the same gender (or either gender, for that matter) who is uninsured. There's nothing that prevents the two of you from "getting married" just for the sake of getting him insured through your employer's group plan.
There are probably dozens of similar situations where there are legal and financial advantages to being "married" to someone even if you have no romantic interest in him.
If the Federal government wants to turn the institution of marriage into a farce, I can play that game too.
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.