President Trump says gay marriage is settled law and he's "fine with it"!

[HereWeGoAgain]

Sorry libs...dont really give a shit about homos.
We have far more important things to worry about.

 

[bodecea]

Only an idiot of biblical proportions would think that gay marriage is actually "settled". Nothing is ever "settled". Just ask the 2nd Amendment.

If Trump does his job properly (and I highly doubt that he will), then gay marriage is going away by a Supreme Court which actually upholds and respects the U.S. Constitution.

and you thought he was with you....

 

[ScienceRocks]

Only an idiot of biblical proportions would think that gay marriage is actually "settled". Nothing is ever "settled". Just ask the 2nd Amendment.

If Trump does his job properly (and I highly doubt that he will), then gay marriage is going away by a Supreme Court which actually upholds and respects the U.S. Constitution.

and you thought he was with you....

Before 1987 and from 2001 through 2009 he was a democrat.

 

[Eloy]

President-elect Trump will be surprising most of those who voted for him.

 

[P@triot]

Only an idiot of biblical proportions would think that gay marriage is actually "settled". Nothing is ever "settled". Just ask the 2nd Amendment.

If Trump does his job properly (and I highly doubt that he will), then gay marriage is going away by a Supreme Court which actually upholds and respects the U.S. Constitution.

and you thought he was with you....

Uh....no I didn't sweetie. And you know that. So why the lies and why the fake laugh over someone you're losing your shit over.

If he appoints Ted Cruz to the Supreme Court and one other person who actually respects the rule of law, gay marriage will be going away nationally and will become a state issue. If he doesn't, we'll have to wait for another cycle.

 

[idb]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

 

[P@triot]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

Absolutely. Progressives have desperately trying to do that for years with the 2nd Amendment. Anything can be overturned.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Trump never said that he was agsinst gay marriage. That's why it was quite surprising when the left made up all the homophobia nonsense.

What he did say was that he would protect the Christian right to practice their religion.

 

[JBond]

thank you Milo for your one-man lobbying effort!

Anyone can believe in right to marriage or right to health care, or right to life
as a Political Belief.

But that doesn't mean people consent to judges and federal authorities
making it law for everyone.

That is their opinion of course...One day I hope to have single payer in this country with free college like in countries like Germany.

Matthew, run over to your neighbors and ask them for large amounts of their retirement fund. Grow some balls.

 

[JBond]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

It has changed many times.

 

[Silhouette]

President Trump says gay marriage is settled law and he's "fine with it"!

But the executive branch isn't in charge of future legal challenges which are coming to Obergefell. Definitely not settled law...not by a long shot. Not until states have exhausted the exploration of the Constitutional protections (or none that exist) using Hively v Ivy Tech & other case law..

 

[Super_Lantern]

It is "settled law" and there is nothing the president can do about it. However, president Trump can void the ridiculous Obama executive order that tried to force people to accept men in the ladies room and confused boys in the girls locker room.

Doubt that will happen. During the election cycle he told everyone they can use whatever restroom they want at Trump Tower

 

[emilynghiem]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!

this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.

 

[emilynghiem]

It is "settled law" and there is nothing the president can do about it. However, president Trump can void the ridiculous Obama executive order that tried to force people to accept men in the ladies room and confused boys in the girls locker room.

Doubt that will happen. During the election cycle he told everyone they can use whatever restroom they want at Trump Tower

Super_Lantern
he can make his own policy in his own buildings.
It's up to people, companies and schools to do the same:
make their own policies. What's wrong with neutral/unisex restrooms,
single stalls or family restrooms. People have come up with their
own solutions. This doesn't need to be legislated by govt.

 

[emilynghiem]

thank you Milo for your one-man lobbying effort!

Anyone can believe in right to marriage or right to health care, or right to life
as a Political Belief.

But that doesn't mean people consent to judges and federal authorities
making it law for everyone.

Well it's not like you have to HAVE to marry a dude .

Why wouldn't Emily want to marry a dude?

Ha ha The Great Goose
Maybe it's because I don't want marriage under the state.
If I get married I believe it should be a church ceremony only.
Whatever contracts I make are separate and the state shouldn't
assume authority by default. I think it should be the other way
around, where you have to AGREE to a state sanctioned contract.

Why can't we separate the two? That's what I think!

 

[idb]

Trump never said that he was agsinst gay marriage. That's why it was quite surprising when the left made up all the homophobia nonsense.

What he did say was that he would protect the Christian right to practice their religion.

So...you can be confident that he's not going to force anyone to marry someone of the same sex?
That is good news!

 

[idb]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!

this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.

Are you really saying that conservatives have never criticised SCOTUS rulings?
Really?!!

Don't make me Google...don't do it!!!

 

[idb]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!

this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.

Are you really saying that states never make decisions based on religion or politics?
Really?!!

Don't make me Google...don't do it!!!

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Great news! Personal freedom!

I hope he comes out and fights for the legalization of pot next.

I think he has already commented on pot, and he thinks it is an issue for the states.

 

[idb]

Can the SCOTUS determine that a law that has been judged constitutional by a previous SCOTUS is now un-constitutional?
Surely something is either constitutional or it isn't...how can that change?
Is it a fashion thing...like flared jeans?

idb someone else already answered literally, that yes this can change.
but in practice these days,
it seems the trend has been
if the court rules in favor of what liberals want, then the court is right.
So cases such as ACA and right to marriage, then this is considered "law."
And if they don't, as with the court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, they're wrong!

this is what happens when political beliefs are left to the govt to decide.
idb if you REALLY want a stable decision, the right one would be
for govt to REJECT to make such decisions on laws that involve
beliefs, whether religious or political. If these were relegated to
STATES and people to decide, then it would be up to legislative
process how to write or revise laws, and then of course they can change.

Surely the job of the SCOTUS is determining whether a law is constitutional or not.
A government can pass a law for whatever reason...political or religious...but if it isn't a correct law according to the Constitution it won't be allowed.
Surely that's the mechanism that's supposed top prevent poor laws based on ideology being made.