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 ...
Gay marriage is a vastly less urgent matter than abortion. Three thousand babies a day are being killed. Those getting “married” are a tiny sliver of the homosexual population. What matters is the religious freedom of those who do not want to assist in the “weddings.”
This is an issue used to intentionally cause conflict. It is a trap door issue that people on the right too easily fall into.
Marriage of a man to a women is the only union recognized by God. After the civil war marriage licenses were required to ensure racial purity. The state enforced the requirement and collected a tax. This action, in effect, gave man, not God, the legal and moral authority to define marriage. Since man defined marriage man can change the definition. We did this to ourselves.
Until Congress does something about it, he can not do anything. He is not a dictator so he gave the right answer.
“The US SC cannot make law. They can only interpret law.”
And not all the States have passed the new laws needed as a result of SCOTUS’ interpretation of the old law.
He has bigger fishes to fry at the moment. I think he just speaks whats on his mind. He's not an attorney so he may not understand the importance of it being a state or federal issue or why it matters. I just think he's just a no nonsense guy task / goal oriented guy that has a list of things to do and didn't consider it one of his primary problems. That could change if they go homonazis and try to force people to bake cakes for them or start booing chaplains from the military's or stating their beliefs though. That makes it a first amendment problem then which I would make him realize it was a real ptoblem his head and then begin strategizing towards fixing that problem.
No. God will destroy the sinner who does not repent and
do works meet with repentance.
President-Elect TRUMP has not taken office. Barack Hussein
Obama is still President at the moment for a while longer,
too much longer for my taste; but I didn’t make the rules.
If people’s hearts do not reject abortion and many other
sins, there is not any foundation for anything. Of course,
we are weary of Democrat rule and want EVERYTHING FIXED
RIGHT NOW. Patience - one of the fruits of the Holy Spirit.
No human being is ever going to be able to be a perfect
governor. Only CHRIST in the heart now and ruling and
reigning when he returns. Hope.
Problem with the state requiring churches to recognize those marriages.
I think that with a few fringy exceptions most liberals agree with that.
They just don't want to be denied the state benefits of marriage.
The ruling by SCOTUS is only a freeze moment in time. Some day, someone, who DOES have standing, is going to challenge the ruling, and it shall either be reversed, or vacated, as an irrelevancy.
The law, which in many ways has been interpreted as a reflection of popular opinion, is not a static and immovable fortress, but a marketplace, with its own fashions, styles, and trends. Right now the trend is to support hedonism and “feel-good” rulings, but eventually, the social experimentation is going to be once again held in low regard, and a series of reversals of existing rulings will chip away at the supposed “new normal”, as a different “new normal” displaces the formerly acceptable practices.
Remember, cocaine dissolved in alcohol, laudanum, was once freely available as a patent medicine, right over the counter, but it was finally ruled unacceptable, and was forced off the market as a result of the Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, and later tightening regulations on ALL opiates.
The efforts to regulate the patent medicine industry – specifically, to regulate the therapeutic claims that patent medicine firms made about their products – were largely unsuccessful. In US v. Johnson (1911), the Supreme Court ruled that therapeutic claims were essentially subjective and hence beyond the reach of this law.
This made a number of revisions to the original law, and it was not until 1938 that effective regulation of over-the-counter drugs was first applied, with the requirement that the product not be an outright fraud, unable to supply the intended effects.
The Genie is out of the Bottle, like any Entitlement.
The problem with homosexual “ marriage” is that it makes being a Christian a legal liability.
It also makes being an Orthodox Jew, a serious Muslim! Or even a Chinese Family Religion or any other number or world religions a legal liability
I can’t operate in a country that says two men, five women, or a man and his goat are marriages protected by law. Because to not endorse them is now to “discriminate” against them.
And we get fired or demoted or not hired and it’s all legal now, cause we are “bigots.”
It’s GOT TO GO.
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.
PING!
If President-elect Trump picks the kind of Supreme Court justices he promised and fights for them, they'll be justices inclined to overturn the Obergefell ruling when they get a chance.
And while we're on the subject, Ditch had better keep the Senate "in session" every day, even if it's a gavel in, gavel out session. if he doesn't, 0bama will make a recess appointment of Garland to keep Trump from having the opportunity to pick a constitutionalist justice.
Amen!! To every word of what you wrote. I voted for Trump but with my eyes open to the possibility of being let down later. But I will wait and see how well he does(or not).
You have to pick your battles.
It’s a religious issue. Marriage is and always has been between a man and woman. It’s up to those religions as to how they want to handle things. It’s also a state’s rights issue. Some states recognize so called common-law marriages, and some do not.
From the government’s perspective, marriage is simply a contractual agreement, and can be performed by a Justice of the Peace.
The individuals of the same sex who want to be married, can write up their own contract to sign and live together if they want - or they can just shack up, they didn’t have to have a “marriage license or church ceremony etc.”.
They don’t need to have a ceremony before a minister or a judge to have a legally binding contract. Now we talk about Gay Marriage and Traditional Marriage - Next I guess they’ll be objecting to that, because they want the term to be Traditional Marriage.
It’s all about tearing down religion and strong families, in order for the radical left to achieve their goals. While the courts may speak regarding what is legal and not legal for those who are paid with taxpayer dollars, they have no right to infringe on religious liberty regarding marriage, and I don’t care what the Supremes have said - Just because they made a decision, doesn’t mean it was correct.
I heard him say months ago that he would pick SCOTUS justices that would overturn Roe v Wade AND same sex marriage.
It’s “law” NOW. He’s not going to make a big thing of it at this point.
And he is also specifically for religious freedom - freedom to live and speak our beliefs. That does away with much of the tyranny of the fag agenda right there.
I merely answered the question posed. I’m fine with his response, and fine with him dodging any question the Presstitues ask him.
I am perfectly happy to sit back and watch what he does - the proof is in the pudding. Whatever he does will be better Mrs. Toon would do.
Unfortunately, it’s much more complicated than that, because not all Republicans are social conservatives. RINO Republicanism, Establishment Republicanism, and Elitist Republicanism all go against what conservatives want done, on a variety of issues.
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.