Posted on 11/13/2016 6:04:38 PM PST by Pinkbell
Donald Trump said he is “fine with” same-sex marriage but offered few specifics about his plans for the first 100 days of his administration during his first television interview since becoming the president-elect.
In an extensive interview with CBS’s Leslie Stahl broadcast Sunday night on "60 Minutes," Trump sought to ease the anxieties of LGBTQ Americans that a new conservative Supreme Court majority might overturn last year’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage.
Ducking a question about his personal view on the issue, which he dismissed as “irrelevant,” Trump asserted, bluntly, “it’s done.”
“These cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And I’m—I’m fine with that,” he said.
(Snip)
He acknowledged the possible reality of appointing a pro-life Supreme Court majority that could overturn Roe v. Wade. When pressed by Stahl, he agreed that some women will “perhaps have to go—they’ll have to go to another state.”
“And that’s okay?” Stahl responded.
“Well, we’ll see what happens,” Trump said. “It’s got a long way to go, just so you understand. That has a long, long way to go.”
(Excerpt) Read more at politico.com ...
Totally untrue, for starters. Donald Trump said it made no difference now, because it is the law and a non-starter. He did remind that on the trail he supported queers, but it was perfunctory, in that he does not want them drug behind cars.
I know that’s paraphrased and projecting only slightly, but TRUMP is not wild about the rear ends of perverts, was my take. Promote it? I think not.
I’m taking what he is saying now with a grain of salt. There is a lot of shrewd strategy going on here, with longer goals in mind.
Once he is President, I will look at his actions. That will tell the story for me.
You NAILED it.
Oh man. That HAS to be overturned. No way. God will destroy this nation.
Dred Scott was a technically correct ruling based on the Constitution. That doesn’t mean it was morally correct. The “gay marriage” issue was different. It was not only a false and unconstitutional ruling, it was also morally incorrect.
If Republicans are not going to support social conservative issues, who will?
They are baiting him into making a commitment of some kind and then if he changes later, he’ll lose either way, someone will be mad at him.
But he didn’t fall for it.
Exactly. 5 years ago I would have been upset by this. What the election of 2016 has taught me is that we were about 5 hours away from losing our country forever. Social issues for today, are secondary to the major mess that Obama has left us.
Constitutional Amendment.
I don’t know; I think Trump is laying some careful brick work, yet another wall. He’s clear what kind of jurists he’s going to nominate, and pretty clear that at this time he doesn’t want to touch this.
But should liberals go more insane, that will bring this topic before they court. They want to jump the wall to push the gays off with cases against bakers or churches and make the court reevaluate the decision, they won’t like the result.
Thing is, liberals are great doubling down on stupid. That such walls are built to be pushed over, that to somehow ‘protect’ gays, it is perfectly acceptable to sacrifice them for more votes.
Only one huge problem. Donald J Trump will have no problem articulating that in a speech
I didn’t agree with the ruling but nothing will be gained by fighting it out again. We have other issues that are more pressing.
Trump is not a social Conservative, if anybody thought he was they haven’t been paying attention.
“total lie by politico. I just finished watching 60 minutes and trump simply said the issue haf already been adjudicated.”
EXACTLY...and he also wouldn’t state is personal position on the issue.
He correctly understands two things about the issue:
1) His personal position on the issue means nothing, as the issue can only be decided (reversed) by the courts.
2) Regardless of which side he takes, he will anger people...so why declare a position.
Very shrewd on his part, I may add.
This isn’t a new position for Trump.
What he HAS promised is to protect religious liberty. So homosexuals can call themselves WHATEVER, but there is no reason for Americans with religious objections to homosexual behaviour to be FORCED to celebrate, endorse, or promote the same.
The first amendment cuts both ways, doesn’t it?
>>The US SC cannot make law. They can only interpret law.<<
That is just as theoretical as POTUS not being to legislate via XO.
It all started falling apart with the 17th Amendment. After that the USC was just a set of suggestions.
Look at the people he is surrounding himself with, from Pence and Bannon on down. Let’s step back and give him some time.
Trump was correct, though, when he said it was a matter for the courts. God willing, strong social conservatives like Mike Pence and others will pull administration policy in the right direction, and men such as Ted Cruz and Mike Lee can defend marriage from their seats on the SCOTUS.
Nothing new here. I have to take the bad with the mostly good.
I read that with Republican control of state legislatures at the current level, the GOP only needs to take control of one more state government to have bulletproof control of the Constitutional amendment process.
Sodomite “marriage” must not stand. This is an abomination.
Justice will not denied. The sodomites will push this to the point where heteros will have no choice but to shut them down. Freedom cannot co-exist with sexual deviancy. One must prevail. Both cannot.
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.