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

[Cripplecreek]

I've always been a fan of being myself but have never sought special treatment because of it.

My niece told me about the "LUGs" when she was in college. They were Lesbian Until Graduation and there were lots of on campus perks for them.

[sneakypete]

Lots of meaningless chatter in this thread.

Justice Antonin Scalia cuts to the chase and lays it out clearly and concisely.

"I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy," Scalia wrote in the opening paragraph of his dissent.

"Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court," Scalia said.

"This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves."[/b]

http://www.businessinsider.com/scalia-gay-marriage-dissent-2015-6

Scalia claimed that legalizing gay marriage was a policy decision — not one that the court should decide.

"Until the courts put a stop to it, public debate over same-sex marriage displayed American democracy at its best," he wrote.

Seems to me the part that is highlighted should be carved in stone somewhere.

[goodwithagun]

Homosexuality is a sin. If homosexuals are born that way, does that mean that God screwed up? Follow up question: Who wants to tell Him He messed up? Not I!

[MajorClay]

Please, NO

[Norm Lenhart]

I've always been a fan of being myself but have never sought special treatment because of it.

My niece told me about the "LUGs" when she was in college. They were Lesbian Until Graduation and there were lots of on campus perks for them.

I was waiting to bring that up until someone really pushed the 'can't change' thing hard.

Lets face it. And I have said this before. If you take away the sex, homosexuals are platonic best friends. No more or less. The act defines. The act is a behavior and 100% optional to living. No one ever died from a lack of homosexual intercourse. They have however died as a direct result of it.

Now since sex only has two purposes, pleasure and reproduction, homosexual sex is purely for pleasure. By simple science, it cannot produce offspring. Pleasure is behavioral. Some people learn to like the taste of a certain beer and henceforth, love it. Some people enjoy getting tied up, slapped and humiliated. They did not have genetic disposition to it.

So ultimately, there's just no scientific way around that. It is what it is. The problem is that 'what it is' is upsetting to people that don't want reality to be what it is.

[sneakypete]

Apparently some people are under the false impression that marriage is a Constitutionally protected right.

@txradioguy

And some people seem to be purposely blind to the whole "freedom of association" thing because it fits their personal prejudices to be blind to it.

[goodwithagun]

@txradioguy

I'm with @Jazzhead on this. Do you really think that someone would choose to be an outcast.

Emerson wrote, "To be great is to be misunderstood." If homosexuals were truly born that way they could look to Emerson and Thoreau and learn to live at peace with themselves. The problem is, they aren't born that way and they choose to be miserable people. I've met many homosexuals; none of them are gay.

[Hoodat]

   I've repeated several times that I do not view civil marriage as a "right" - but that once the state decides to marry individuals and afford them valuable benefits,  it must do so consistent with equal protection. 

Once again, this was already the case prior to the Court's ruling.  Now that preference has been forced into the equation while the right to self- governance has been denied by the tyranny of the court, equal protection is no longer in place.

This has been pointed out repeatedly, yet you continue to Give a false representation of the issue.

[Hoodat]

Your right to the equal protection of the law.

They share that same right.

[bigheadfred]

Same sex marriage is wrong. The answer is no. It isn't debatable.

Anyone who "thinks" it is debatable has given into shitty thinking and a penalty will be assessed at the end of the game--of life.

Next!

[cato potatoe]

Once again, this was already the case prior to the Court's ruling.  Now that preference has been forced into the equation while the right to self- governance has been denied by the tyranny of the court, equal protection is no longer in place.

Exactly - I'm ok with the gays getting married, but Trump said the SCOTUS ruling is settled law, while in the same breath advocating for a reversal of Roe vs Wade.  He did not attempt to explain when pressed, and it just made him look random and unprepared, as usual.

[TomSea]

There's no reason to pick a fight with the LGBT lobby, the nastiest one there is and it would have been a big distraction. Trump isn't Huckabee who couldn't even survive Iowa.

[thackney]

Homosexuality is a sin. If homosexuals are born that way, does that mean that God screwed up? Follow up question: Who wants to tell Him He messed up? Not I!

We are all sinning through our lives.  God gives us all our own unique characteristics and challenges.  I am not a mistake, merely a work in progress.

[goodwithagun]

We are all sinning through our lives.  God gives us all our own unique characteristics and challenges.  I am not a mistake, merely a work in progress.

We are all sinners. Pretending a sin isn't a sin by claiming that God made you that way does not fix it.

[jmyrlefuller]

@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.

Let's extend that line of reasoning.

So, let's assume that me being rejected by every woman I've ever pursued without so much as the dignity of even a first date is my fault. Why, then, is it not the fault of the homosexual for refusing to marry someone of the opposite sex? If it is a right for them to pursue marriage on their standards, why is it not a right for me?

[TomSea]

We are all sinners. Pretending a sin isn't a sin by claiming that God made you that way does not fix it.

I agree with you; but if I were playing devil's advocate, one could say drinking and dancing are sins, they are with some people. Then we are at the place of legislating morality.

Which brings us to the place of people like Trump who have had multiple marriages, others point, oh yeah, what about all of those marriages and people like you want to deny others the right to a faithful marriage.

[goodwithagun]

I agree with you; but if I were playing devil's advocate, one could say drinking and dancing are sins, they are with some people. Then we are at the place of legislating morality.

Which brings us to the place of people like Trump who have had multiple marriages, others point, oh yeah, what about all of those marriages and people like you want to deny others the right to a faithful marriage.

1. How are drinking and dancing sins? God didn't destroy a city for its drink and body movements.
2. I didn't vote for Trump so I have no need to Trumpsplain away his lack of faithfulness.

[Hoodat]

Personal preference has no place in this debate on equal protection.  At the moment you add preference, equal protection goes out the window.

[TomSea]

1. How are drinking and dancing sins? God didn't destroy a city for its drink and body movements.
2. I didn't vote for Trump so I have no need to Trumpsplain away his lack of faithfulness.

1. If you don't know that Baptists, some at least, Fundamentalists, see drinking and dancing as sins, you sure haven't been around.

2. Trump is not the only person to have multiple marriages, I understand it is quite common.  But I guess he makes a good scapegoat to pop off at someone.

[TomSea]

This is what was brought up in the editorial section, the new pot laws, a lot of people see that as sinful.

Did God destroy cities over it? Seems some argue that all sin is an abomination in God's eyes.

Romans 6:23

And I wouldn't quote the Old Testament of God destroying cities unless one is talking from a Jewish point of view.

James 2:10-11 [Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)] says:

    For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it. {11} For he who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” If you do not commit adultery but do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law.

IOW, if you commit one sin, you are accountable for all sins.

[Jazzhead]

Exactly - I'm ok with the gays getting married, but Trump said the SCOTUS ruling is settled law, while in the same breath advocating for a reversal of Roe vs Wade.  He did not attempt to explain when pressed, and it just made him look random and unprepared, as usual.

Great point.   They're either settled law or the court has the power to take rights away.   This is not theoretical -  folks have changed position in response to these rights, women have forty years of reliance in the case of the choice right.   And marriage equality has formed families.   

So tell me - should unelected judges be forcing these genies back in their bottles, or should the dirty work be done by the peoples' elected representatives?    The answer to me seems obvious.  But I also recognize that the courts are the easy way out of this nagging responsibility to govern ourselves.

Cultural change is inevitable;  the best philosophy is either to learn to live with it, or state your case through fellowship and persuasion.   Don't look to government to be a deus ex machina to bring back the old days.     



     

 

[TomSea]

Great point.   They're either settled law or the court has the power to take rights away.   This is not theoretical -  folks have changed position in response to these rights, women have forty years of reliance in the case of the choice right.   And marriage equality has formed families.   

So tell me - should unelected judges be forcing these genies back in their bottles, or should the dirty work be done by the peoples' elected representatives?    The answer to me seems obvious.  But I also recognize that the courts are the easy way out of this nagging responsibility to govern ourselves.

Or maybe we could just learn to live with each other.     

 

So, because slavery was settled law once upon a time, you are saying that was alright. I disagree.

Slavery lasted a whole lot longer than the abortion ruling you quote 40 years ago.

[RetBobbyMI]

Unless you are one who believes the courts can "make" laws, then nothing is ever "settled" law. And since no law is ever perfect, all can be challenged in some form or fashion!

[TomSea]

Slavery lasted 300 years, it was in our country at birth. I guess now I know it was okay because it was settled law.

[Norm Lenhart]

Slavery lasted 300 years, it was in our country at birth. I guess now I know it was okay because it was settled law.

Take it up with Donald. He's the guy thats good with 'settled law'.

So is Donald wrong?