GOP President-Elect Donald Trump Says Same-Sex Marriage Is 'Settled' Law

[sneakypete]

This is meaningless.  The President doesn't get to choose how the Justices he appoints will rule on specific issues after they are on the Court.  At that point, they are free agents and don't answer to his preferences.

So as long as he appoints good conservative justices - which is something he has only confirmed since the election - that's all that matters

Tempest in a teapot - at the most.

@Maj. Bill Martin

You would think that people who haunt political bulletin boards,most of whom are over 40 years old,would understand this,wouldn't you?

[sneakypete]

Civil marriage equality is settled law in the sense that it has been affirmed as consistent with the equal protection clause of the Constitution.   I agree with Trump - there's no going back.   There will likely be clarification along the margins;  e.g., in areas where the current laws respecting public accommodations may conflict with religious liberty,  but it's hard to ground a right more firmly than in the equal protection clause of the Constitution. 

"Settled law" is more properly the ancient legal concept of "stare decisis"  -  and that's something anyone with a conservative view of the role of the courts in our system ought to embrace.   A proper conservative first and foremost applauds a court that interprets the law rather than makes it,  that defers to the verdict of the peoples' elected representatives rather than acts as an unelected legislature unto itself.   While I concede that the SCOTUS's decision affirming marriage equality was probably premature -  the states had been quickly moving on their own to confirm the right -  the grounding of the decision in the equal protection clause was sound as a judicial and Constitutional matter.   Besides - a gay couple's right to marry under the civil law harms no one,  and affects no couple's heterosexual marriage. 

As for the abortion issue,  a conservative court cognizant of stare decisis will realize that every woman of child bearing age has had the liberty, for her entire adult life,  to decide for herself whether to reproduce.  Overturning that right would be as disruptive a move by an unelected court as one can imagine.   If the abortion right is to be overturned,  it should be done by the people, in the manner provided for in the Constitution -  by an amendment ratified by two-thirds of the state.     

@Jazzhead

WELL SAID!

[sneakypete]

In all fairness, as a single person not entirely by choice, I am denied those same equal protections (I'm not going to rehash that discussion again, but I use it to bring up the point). That SHOULD raise serious questions about whether the topic is covered under "equal protection" if it is inaccessible to so many, arguably more than those seeking same-sex marriages.

@jmyrlefuller

I don't know,or need/want to know your personal circumstances that leads you to believe you have no choice but to remain unmarried,but I am inclined to believe it is a matter of your own personal choices. Just look around you at some of the people getting married. If they can do it,so can you if you really wanted to be married.

SOOOOO,in a very real sense,nobody is denying you equal protection under the law but yourself and POSSIBLY those evil,rich,supermodels who refuse to marry you so you can live in the manner you deserve to live.

I can even identify with that.

[sneakypete]

I didn't watch Trump's "60 Minutes" interview last night, but according to what I'm seeing on Ben Shapiro's Twitter, there were three takeaways:

Most of Obamacare will be kept
Gay marriage is okay
No prosecution because the Clintons are, quote, good people and he doesn't want to hurt them.

@CatherineofAragon

First off,they may or may NOT be "gay",but what they ARE is "homosexuals". Generally speaking,I can't think of a single group of Americans that are LESS "gay" than homosexuals.

Having settled that,WHAT is your problem with homosexuals getting married? Are you afraid the government is going to require YOU  to marry one?

Or maybe you  think homosexual marriages will make your own marriage "less meaningful" in some respect?

I honestly don't see how this affects anyone BUT homosexuals and divorce attorneys.  I say "Let's see how damn "gay" they are when they show up in divorce court!"

[sneakypete]

If Bannon is the man I believe him to be, then Donald will get a quick tutorial on judicial review. As long as there are states who assert their sovereignty, then there is no such thing no settled law at the federal level. Of course, there must be a majority of SCOTUS to hear challenges to previous rulings.

Which was more than enough reason for me to vote Trump. 

Sessions for SCOTUS!i

@don-o

I am not a lawyer,and don't even play one on teebee,but you cut to the heart of the thing. Marriage IS  a states rights issue as long as no one is being denied the right to marry someone that wants to marry them. States even have the right to establish minimum ages for marriage. I suspect that within a few more years the age of consent to marry in De-Troit will be 6 years old given the number of Muslims living there.

Goats aren't people,so there is no minimum age for Muslim-goat marriages.

[sneakypete]

Furthermore, I don't think the gays understand how complicated and devastating 'marriage' can be.

@240B

I suspect Divorce Court will cure any misunderstandings they may have had on that issue. Let's see how damn "gay" they are after a divorce court judge gets done with them.

[sneakypete]

Tell her constituents what they want to hear,   meanwhile let the normal course of investigations and prosecutions grind the Clinton's into dust. 

@DiogenesLamp

You would think most people would understand the fact that neither Trump nor any other President would want to jump feet-first into THAT snakepit. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by being seen to meddle in that mess. Let the system handle it like they are supposed to handle it,and keep your hands clean.


"Trump's M.O.  is  having multiple positions on anything contentious.  "

For a guy as bombastic and new to politics as he is,he sure is looking like a fast learner,ain't he? Frankly,I am shocked. I really and truly thought he was stupid. I am now beginning to suspect he purposely promotes that image so people underestimate him.


"Here's my advice for dealing with Trump.    Pay very little attention to what he says,   just watch what he does.    He is a long term schmoozer and he tells people what he thinks they want to hear right up until he drops a hammer on them."

That is the conclusion I am coming to,also.

[sneakypete]

The existence of "Gay Marriage" undermines the social foundation of Western Culture.    It sabotages the belief system underpinning Western society,  and as a consequence affects many other issues beyond "gay marriage."

@DiogenesLamp

Only for people that think that. IMHO,most people don't give a damn one way or another,and I have yet to see anyone give an example of how "allowing" homosexuals to enjoy (?) the right to marry just like the rest of us harms or demeans YOUR marriage in any way,or affects YOUR rights in any way.

[sneakypete]

@DiogenesLamp

Head fake?  For what?  He's president-elect now.  He ran on repealing Obamacare; no need to pretend otherwise.

@CatherineofAragon

Maybe you haven't noticed,but he is NOT the actual president yet,and trying to pretend that he is would only make it harder for  him to form his cabinet and get ready to take over the controls. He would gain NOTHING from entering into the fray now. Let him focus right now on what he needs to be doing right now,and worry about the rest of it once he is in a position to maybe do something about it?

Right now he has no more authority to do anything about current laws or regulations than you or I do.

[sneakypete]

"Marriage is not a right."

Say WHAT????

 "You are wanting to bastardize something that has nothing to do with gay "rights" and give them a protection that I'm not afforded."

Who says you don't have the same right to marry the man of your dreams that everyone else has?

Providing of course that he also wants to marry you.

"I want MY constitutional "right" to marry."

WHO is denying it to you?

"Where do I go to get redress?"

First you have to prove that someone is preventing you from marrying. Good luck with that one.

[sneakypete]

The 'way it is' is that for you and yours, there is no hill worth dying on. Every time a wedge issue arises, you side with the liberal position. You wrap it up in names like compromise but at the end of the day abortion is still legal, marriage is now open to homosexual and you have done nothing but aid the left with capitulation."

The HELL you say! AMERICANS are being ALLOWED to marry other Americans that want to marry them? SAY IT AIN'T SO! We MUST stamp out this "freedom stuff" before it gets out of hand,and people start believing they should be allowed to live free and make up there own minds about things affecting their own lives. We MUST nip this freedom crap in the bud!

[Cripplecreek]

@Cripplecreek

How so? This is the first time I have heard that.

In 2012 he had this to say.



on 60 Minutes this weekend when asked about the electoral college he said that if someone gets 100 million votes and someone gets 90 million, the guy with the most votes should win.

[sneakypete]

Not long ago, and entire society that once boasted making the scriptures available to the world and having the most cathedrals -

@INVAR

And people woke up and realized that organized religion is the enemy of freedom,so the laws changed.

[sneakypete]

Ted Cruz sponsored, co-sponsored the fetal pain bill, no abortions after 20 weeks.

Wouldn't you know, there were purists that said "Ted, you are allowing abortions in the first 20 weeks".

If that is what your purist political philosophy brings one, so be it. Lesser abortions is better than more.

@TomSea

You would think most adults would understand something that basic,wouldn't you?

I honestly think there are some people who just aren't happy unless they are pissed off.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Ted Cruz sponsored, co-sponsored the fetal pain bill, no abortions after 20 weeks.

Wouldn't you know, there were purists that said "Ted, you are allowing abortions in the first 20 weeks".

If that is what your purist political philosophy brings one, so be it. Lesser abortions is better than more.

Church ladies are ruining the GOP and have been for a while now IMO.

[sneakypete]

TomSea makes posts about extra special reasons he would rather compromise on marriage and abortion than stand up for the right to life and traditional marriage.

Ahhhh,traditional marriage! Are you afraid you will find some hot 6 year old and not be able to marry her,even if you buy her with a whole damn herd of goats?

[sneakypete]

That's beautiful and all, but still takes away nothing from the fact that Donald Trump is a New York liberal.  His policies prove it - policies that you continue to ignore no matter how many times they are brought up.

@Hoodat

WHAT policies? According to MY calendar,he won't be President and have policies for another 60 days or so.

[sneakypete]

My apologies for that, TRG.   The term was used in the thread discussion, but not by you.   Am I too close to the subject?   Well, millions of folks know gay couples well and think it's wrong to treat them as second class citizens.   The woman who won the SCOTUS decision had several hundred thousand dollars in taxes at stake.   A failure to recognize marriage equality causes real people real tax dollars,  and it's within the power of government to rectify that.   And it has nothing to do with "morality".

I disagree. It is immoral for a government to deny any group of American citizens rights that other groups of American citizens are free to enjoy,and name ONE issue more personal than who you choose to marry or have as a mate? Not only is it immoral,it is un-Constitutional for for the government to do this. They just don't have that legal right.

THAT needs to be understood before anything else even remotely related is even discussed. We either have the freedom to choose who we can live with and love,or we have no freedoms at all. There is no right more basic or important than this one.

[sneakypete]

Bullshit already.  We already had equal protection before the court decided to legislate from the bench.

@Hoodat

No,we didn't. If we did,there would have been no cause for the clause.

[sneakypete]

I thought the good book said, to give unto Caesar what is Caesar.

Another idea is just to get 'marriage' out of the government's hands.

Who knows, maybe in 8 years of a Republican presidency, the pendulum will eventually swing the other way.

@TomSea

Marriage has ALWAYS been under the control and regulation of the government in the west. The Catholic Church was the most powerful branch of government,and they not only kept marriage and birth records,they also had to approve of the marriages or they didn't happen. This was pretty much a necessary evil because somebody had to keep track of marriages and births for inheritance purposes,and back then there were few people alive that knew how to read,write,and keep written records.

I don't know how this was handled in Asia,but I would like to hear if any of you know.

[sneakypete]

Words have meaning. Marriage is a very old word with a specific meaning.....

@DB

Yes it is,and it predates Christianity by thousands of years.

[sneakypete]

Hey! Anyone know what Trumps position on gay marriage is?

I can't find anything on the site about it.

@Frank Cannon

Frank,are you asking if he is a "top" or a "bottom"?

If you are,I have to tell you that not only don't I know,I don't want to know.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

SP,


Are you going to respond to every single GM post on this thread? 

[sneakypete]

In 2012 he had this to say.



Trump doesn't have a right to change his mind? Haven't you changed your mind about some things in the last 4 years.

on 60 Minutes this weekend when asked about the electoral college he said that if someone gets 100 million votes and someone gets 90 million, the guy with the most votes should win.

I didn't watch 60 Minutes and don't know the context that caused him to say that,but if he said it as the plain bold statement as you  present it,that's puzzling.

[sneakypete]

SP,


Are you going to respond to every single GM post on this thread? 

Dunno. Did I miss any?