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?
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.
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.
Thoughts ... he’s learning! When we get the new supreme court judges in there ... then ... “we’ll see” won’t we?
I saw this. I heard what he said.
What I think I saw was some discomfort with the question and Trump seemed to try to avoid giving a specific answer.
IMO, he has other things on his plate that are a much higher priority. I also think he may leave this for later, maybe to the American people rather than the SC, maybe to the states, maybe to the legislature? At any rate, I don’t think this is where he wants to focus his attention. I also think he doesn’t want to stir up a lot of additional and unnecessary animosity. He has enough to battle right now.
Some you of guys are not very bright. If Trump is going to put right to life jurists on the Supreme Court, you can bet these same jurists likely will overturn same sex marriage. It was not Trump who created these liberal constructs and it will take time to unwind them.
Leslie Stahl’s inept questioning let him off the hook completely.
Proper follow-up question: “So if Congress passes a bill to ban same-sex ‘marriage,’ will you sign it?”
Luckily she’s a dumb reporter and appears to think that SCOTUS is the final say on everything.
I am against gay marriage..civil unions are another matter. It has been decided by the Supreme Court,,at least for now. Why stir up a hornets nest? There are some more pressing problems than the social issues at the moment, although in some respects they are intertwined. But that is for another day.
I am fine with his answer. He is president of all us Americans. If the gay wants to join the fight in saving the country and quit worrying whom they screw perhaps we will get somewhere.
There can be a conservative solution to this:
* homosexuals can get married 2 people only like heterosexuals
BUT
* you don’t get preference in adoptions
* the state doesn’t have to pay for you to use in vitro fertilization or any other tech to make a baby
* no polygamy regardless of genders involved
* no transgenders in the military, no homosexuals in straight units
* no transgenders getting rights over normal people
* counseling for gender dysphoria gets legalized again for all levels
* counseling for a child with same sex attraction but doesn’t want to, whether due to molestation or religious reasons, is made legal again in states where it isn’t right now
* counselors who don’t want to counsel same sex relationships can refuse such
* medical professionals lose the gag order where someone saying they are the opposite gender can only be referred for hormones and surgery
* the government changes its contract preferences to stop using the Out and Equal Index and similar far left metrics as a measure of “LBGT diversity”, so that companies no longer socially engineer the workforce to get preference for contracts - and this is something Trump can do via Executive Order just as it was put in place by Obama
"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.”
This is why I’ve been questioning Trump’s knowledge of Congress’s constitutional Article I, Section 8-limited powers in other threads. But I’ll also include the 19th Amendment in this example, that amendment uniquely giving the feds the specific power to strengthen sex-related rights, but only in the context of voting issues.
Regarding gay marriage and abortion, the bottom line is this where the constitutionally limited powers of the feds come into play. Even if Trump, all members of the RINO-controlled Congress, and all Supreme Court justices were pro-gay “marriage” and pro-aborion, so what?
What patriots have been slow to wise up to is this. The constitutional reality is that the states have never expressly constitutionally delegated to the feds the specific power to regulate marriage or abortion, these issues uniquely 10th Amendment-protected state power issues. So any official federal action, including executive orders or actions, taken for or against theses issues is unconstitutional.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
With all due respect to frat houses, the feds have been acting like drunk frat boys running the country.
This is why I’ve been arguing that constitutionally low-information Trump is probably in “wrong way Riegels” mode.
Roy Riegels wrong way run in the Rose Bowl
Patriots need to steer Trump in the direction of Section 8 so that he can at least get the corrupt feds out of the marriage and abortion businesses.
Consider that millions of unborn children have died because patriots have been asleep at the wheel with respect to getting a grip on the fed’s constitutionally limited powers.
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 Genie is out of the Bottle, like any Entitlement.
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.
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.