Trump: Fine with same-sex marriage

[yiostheoy]

Good on him.

Trump says he's 'fine' with legalization of same-sex marriage

How do his fans feel about this?
.

For the sake of stability in the legal process, SCOTUS rulings must be left standing as precedents.

Even though Roe v. Wade was bad law and should have properly been so decided as a Constitutional Amendment (which by the way would never have passed), the Burger court was liberal enough to have ruled on it as activists. They felt in their hearts that ladies should be in charge of their own coochies even though the US Constitution is completely silent on the matter, and so they dreamed up the "right to privacy" application to coochies even though right to privacy per se applies only to documents and papers in the Constitution.

Whether Trump can appoint enough new justices to the Court to overturn this precedent is going to be difficult.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg should croak any day now. With a Trump nomination this would make the "conservative" (meaning "strict constructionist") majority 4 to 3 with 2 swing voters -- Kennedy and Roberts.

Kennedy and Roberts are unpredictable, so the vote then could come to 5 to 4 against reversal of Roe.

Like I said, very difficult.

My personal view of Roe v. Wade is that it is bad unconstitutional law, but personally I don't give a ratz azz about it either way.

As far as same-sex marriage goes, I think they got that right. Since the Feds and the States already subsidize legal marriage for tax, social security, inheritance, and hospital purposes, there is no good reason to deny gay's, lesbo's, and trans' these rights.

Why not? Just because the Vatican in Rome says no ?!

We are not a colony of the Vatican. We are a free secular nation.

Ever since the defeat of the Spanish Armada, the Catholic Church has no longer ruled the world.

 

[Mac1958]

Good on him.

Trump says he's 'fine' with legalization of same-sex marriage

How do his fans feel about this?
.

For the sake of stability in the legal process, SCOTUS rulings must be left standing as precedents.

Even though Roe v. Wade was bad law and should have properly been so decided as a Constitutional Amendment (which by the way would never have passed), the Burger court was liberal enough to have ruled on it as activists. They felt in their hearts that ladies should be in charge of their own coochies even though the US Constitution is completely silent on the matter, and so they dreamed up the "right to privacy" application to coochies even though right to privacy per se applies only to documents and papers in the Constitution.

Whether Trump can appoint enough new justices to the Court to overturn this precedent is going to be difficult.

Ruth Bader Ginsberg should croak any day now. With a Trump nomination this would make the "conservative" (meaning "strict constructionist") majority 4 to 3 with 2 swing voters -- Kennedy and Roberts.

Kennedy and Roberts are unpredictable, so the vote then could come to 5 to 4 against reversal of Roe.

Like I said, very difficult.

My personal view of Roe v. Wade is that it is bad unconstitutional law, but personally I don't give a ratz azz about it either way.

Trump finally gained a few points with the pro-lifers when he promised his nominations would be pro life, President-Elect Donald Trump: "I'm Pro-Life, The Judges Will be Pro-Life" | LifeNews.com, so that's what will be expected of him.

I think you're right, overturning Roe vs. Wade is not in the bag, unless perhaps Ginsburg (who appears to be barely still with us) and another liberal justice retire. If it gets to 6-3 or beyond, it could happen.

What I'm finding intellectually dishonest is the way Trumpsters are spinning for his gay rights opinion by saying it's "settled law". My guess is that most of them would love to see Roe overturned, even though it's "settled law" as well.
.

 

[yiostheoy]

One can be for SSM, just not in favor of the mechanism used to force it on the rest of the country.

You are forgetting completely about the tax and inheritance issues.

You probably don't even know about it.

 

[Toro]

I think he's been pretty consistent on this.

He said he was for gay rights at the convention, which was pretty impressive.

His base has never been really socially conservative.

 

[JoeB131]

Quick! Kleenex for Joe, STAT! Hey Joe, newsflash: People of one religion can disagree with those of another; particularly when the other is a cult of deviant sex acts. Welcome to America!

Sil... Trump has said, he isn't going to give you homophobes and inch.

Bigots like you are on your way out... deal with it.

 

[JoeB131]

I think he's been pretty consistent on this.

He said he was for gay rights at the convention, which was pretty impressive.

His base has never been really socially conservative.

Naw, Trumpenfuhrer just went straight up for the racism...

actually, it is kind of practical. You can rail against the darkies all day in Trump's half of America, but you rail against the gays, you might get the stink-eye across the Thanksgiving Table.

I often think the only reason why Trump didn't scream about the gays is because he was too busy insulting women, blacks, Hispanics, Muslims, POW's, the disabled, etc. So many people to offend, so little time.

 

[JoeB131]

Trump finally gained a few points with the pro-lifers when he promised his nominations would be pro life, President-Elect Donald Trump: "I'm Pro-Life, The Judges Will be Pro-Life" | LifeNews.com, so that's what will be expected of him.

I think you're right, overturning Roe vs. Wade is not in the bag, unless perhaps Ginsburg (who appears to be barely still with us) and another liberal justice retire. If it gets to 6-3 or beyond, it could happen.

What I'm finding intellectually dishonest is the way Trumpsters are spinning for his gay rights opinion by saying it's "settled law". My guess is that most of them would love to see Roe overturned, even though it's "settled law" as well.

Actually, you can probably make a better case for overturning Roe than Obergefell, since Obergefell was pretty absolute- marriage is a civil right. (This isn't even original, this was already established by Loving v. Virginia).

Roe, on the other hand, did allow for restrictions on abortions. It was not an "abortion all the way up to the moment of birth" bill the way that the anti-choice nutters have portrayed it.

 

[martybegan]

Quite Frankly, my personal view is you don't have a real dog in this fight, you just know SSM by court fiat pisses off both Religious people, AND strict constructionists, and considering your asshat twat views on both groups of people, your support for SSM by court fiat is just basically your nasty nature on display.

actually, I have very dear friends who are gay and I get sick and tired of religious bigots abusing them.

and, yes, my disdain for religious people is based on shit like this.

because restrictions on marriage vis a vis race was an artificial construct that reared its head from time to time throughout history. Changing thousands of years of precedent, where marriage was usually between one man and one woman (and occasionally one man and multiple women, but this was a fringe view for most societies, or something only the rulers did, such as in China) is something that cannot be left to 5 of 9 unelected lawyers. Going State by State, changing the laws via legislative action, and using the feds ONLY to force States to continue to recognize valid licenses from other States was the constitutional pathway.

Guy, the problem with this philosophy is that through m ost of history, "Marriage' was an exchange of property, not a contract between two people who loved each other. the woman was property, she had little say in the marriage, and could be murdered by her husband for doing something like, sleeping with someone she actually wanted to sleep with.

The race restriction was an artificial construct because after they freed the slaves, they were horrified of the thought of a white woman choosing a black man and his larger dick.

They had no problem, of course, with white men using black women whenever they felt like it.

your hatred, not disdain clouds your judgement, and makes you the bitter old twat-hack you are.

And all your supposed points about race relations from slavery on does not negate my points about degree of change, scope of change, and the proper method to handle making SSM the law of the land, which is State by State legislative/referendum action, with Federal enforcement of valid licenses across state lines.

My view on legal plural marriages would be exactly the same.

 

[martybegan]

Good on him.

Trump says he's 'fine' with legalization of same-sex marriage

How do his fans feel about this?
.

One can be for SSM, just not in favor of the mechanism used to force it on the rest of the country.

What mechanism?

Legalization was spreading through the states before the SCOTUS even agreed to pick it up. Seems like that is a decent mechanism.

It was via two mechanisms, the courts, and the legislatures/referendums. I have no issue with the latter, but the former is just as wrong as Obergfell was, just at the Circuit/State Court level.

 

[martybegan]

One can be for SSM, just not in favor of the mechanism used to force it on the rest of the country.

You are forgetting completely about the tax and inheritance issues.

You probably don't even know about it.

How so? Even if Obergfell is overturned, a proper court would make sure currently issued licenses are still valid, and States would still be forced to recognize out of State Marriages the same as their own issued ones, regardless of their position on issuing SSM licenses.

Again, its called a compromise.

 

[JoeB131]

your hatred, not disdain clouds your judgement, and makes you the bitter old twat-hack you are.

And all your supposed points about race relations from slavery on does not negate my points about degree of change, scope of change, and the proper method to handle making SSM the law of the land, which is State by State legislative/referendum action, with Federal enforcement of valid licenses across state lines.

My view on legal plural marriages would be exactly the same.

except that bigamy is till a crime. Now, if you were to strike down the bigamy laws that all 50 states have, you might have a basis to stand on.

Once the courts struck down the sodomy laws, the door was easily opened to gay marriage, which has already been established as a right in Loving and others. This isn't even a complicated legal issue.

 

[martybegan]

your hatred, not disdain clouds your judgement, and makes you the bitter old twat-hack you are.

And all your supposed points about race relations from slavery on does not negate my points about degree of change, scope of change, and the proper method to handle making SSM the law of the land, which is State by State legislative/referendum action, with Federal enforcement of valid licenses across state lines.

My view on legal plural marriages would be exactly the same.

except that bigamy is till a crime. Now, if you were to strike down the bigamy laws that all 50 states have, you might have a basis to stand on.

Once the courts struck down the sodomy laws, the door was easily opened to gay marriage, which has already been established as a right in Loving and others. This isn't even a complicated legal issue.

Bigamy is usually only prosecuted in cases of fraud when it comes to multiple marriages, which are not plural marriages as one would expect them. The limit on plural marriage is that no State will issue a license for it.

Sodomy laws to me are of course intrusions into privacy, however Loving established that race is not a constitutional factor when issuing marriage licenses, it did not open a "carte blanche" to restrict ANY limits on the license. If it made Marriage a Strict Right (and you know I don't believe a court can do that), then cousin restrictions and age restrictions would have to go out the window as well.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Good on him.

Trump says he's 'fine' with legalization of same-sex marriage

How do his fans feel about this?
.

He's wrong about this.

The frog in the kettle is boiling

 

[JoeMoma]

One has to wonder how if this topic was posted before the election how easily it would've been for Hillary to eek out the win. Yet before the election, both sides neither one, for their own reasons...didn't want to bring that up.. Now it's everywhere. Odd, that.

It wasn't some grand secret that Trump courted gay voters this election season.. Hell, he had Peter Thiel deliver a speech at the RNC and held up a rainbow flag at a rally in Colorado. You keep deluding yourself into believing that gay marriage was a major issue this campaign season, but it really wasn't. Trump's message on jobs and the economy is why he won key swing states in the Rust Belt, not your personally obsession with gay marriage.

I've never known Trump not to be gay friendly.

 

[JoeMoma]

The Supreme Court ruled the this. Have you been paying attention?

The Supreme Court has also ruled on abortion.

Has the GOP been paying attention? Are we all good with that issue now too?

Question: Since when was the GOP so tolerant on gay marriage?

Answer: Last Wednesday!
.

It's much easier to be tolerant of gay marriage than abortion. Gay marriage does not involve the killing of the most innocent.

 

[Iceweasel]

Good on him.

Trump says he's 'fine' with legalization of same-sex marriage

How do his fans feel about this?
.

One can be for SSM, just not in favor of the mechanism used to force it on the rest of the country.

What mechanism?

Legalization was spreading through the states before the SCOTUS even agreed to pick it up. Seems like that is a decent mechanism.

It was shot down by the people in most of the states so judges were over ruling them by judicial decree. So calling it spreading through the states is quite a reacharound.

 

[martybegan]

Good on him.

Trump says he's 'fine' with legalization of same-sex marriage

How do his fans feel about this?
.

One can be for SSM, just not in favor of the mechanism used to force it on the rest of the country.

What mechanism?

Legalization was spreading through the states before the SCOTUS even agreed to pick it up. Seems like that is a decent mechanism.

It was shot down by the people in most of the states so judges were over ruling them by judicial decree. So calling it spreading through the states is quite a reacharound.

I actually supported it in NY, and was glad it passed. What I then hoped for was a Federal decisions enforcing full faith and credit, but alas the SC went full retard and once again overstepped its bounds.

 

[Iceweasel]

Good on him.

Trump says he's 'fine' with legalization of same-sex marriage

How do his fans feel about this?
.

One can be for SSM, just not in favor of the mechanism used to force it on the rest of the country.

What mechanism?

Legalization was spreading through the states before the SCOTUS even agreed to pick it up. Seems like that is a decent mechanism.

It was shot down by the people in most of the states so judges were over ruling them by judicial decree. So calling it spreading through the states is quite a reacharound.

I actually supported it in NY, and was glad it passed. What I then hoped for was a Federal decisions enforcing full faith and credit, but alas the SC went full retard and once again overstepped its bounds.

The SC should have upheld the Constitution and remained mute on it. States have always defined marriage, how close a blood relative could be, ages, etc. Wht didn't the SC decide on that? Because it was none of their business. But they succumbed to political correctness and activist pressure.

Since bullying is now deciding social standards I want the government to totally get out of the marriage business and recognize no relationship apart from the contract you made with whomever.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

It's an issue of some importance to me, for obvious reasons; however, there are far more pressing issues at hand. My biggest concerns revolve our debt and brining jobs back to my region.

There's far more pressing concerns for the Supreme Court. Those who think new justices are going to reverse Obergefell have no idea how the Court works. It's as if John Roberts were to say, "I know we have a full docket of cases pending that need our attention but we're going to put all that on hold so we can rehash something we already decided because THAT'S the best use of our time."

Anyone who believes that is either terminally stupid or a hopeless left wing (or right wing) political hack.

 

[JoeMoma]

Good on him.

Trump says he's 'fine' with legalization of same-sex marriage

How do his fans feel about this?
.

One can be for SSM, just not in favor of the mechanism used to force it on the rest of the country.

What mechanism?

Legalization was spreading through the states before the SCOTUS even agreed to pick it up. Seems like that is a decent mechanism.

It was shot down by the people in most of the states so judges were over ruling them by judicial decree. So calling it spreading through the states is quite a reacharound.

Younger voters tend to be for gay marriage. Thus momentum was with the legalization of SSM on the state level for most if not all states as the older people against gay marriage died off and younger voters came of age to vote.