Trump: Fine with same-sex marriage

[Silhouette]

It's like abortion. They created the law and took it from states but they aren't going to repeal their own decision, it would be an admission they went too far. I haven't heard Trump speak out against gay marriage or gays in general. Just the opposite, like with the Florida shootings.

Yea. Of all the hysteria from the left i always thought the LGBT fear in particular was the most ridiculous. Trump has never been anti-LGBT and is the most pro-gay marriage of any republican candidate ever.

...a fact not well known at all among his supporters...

But the judges he appoints won't be. And since the executive branch isn't in charge of the fate of legal challenges, conservative Justices will be presiding over the question of "since children weren't invited to the Obergefell table, and since marriage is a contract created for children's benefits originally and perpetually, was Obergefell a fair hearing if it strips children for life, per contract, of either a mother or father, without their having even representation for their unique enjoyments at the Obergefell hearing?"

You're aware that a judge (or 5 Justices) cannot act both as judge and guardian ad litem for children's interests in a court proceeding? Since children's fates were unquestionably altered into time unknown via Obergefell in the most acute way, without their having unique and separate representation, the "we're doing it for the best interest of children" from 5 non-psychologists is not a legal proceeding.

The children involved in marriage should have had separate representation since marriage and it's specific constructs since time immemorial (mother and father) was created for them in the first place. A judge cannot act both as judge and lawyer for a party to a lawsuit.

 

[Some Guy]

...a fact not well known at all among his supporters...

But the judges he appoints won't be. And since the executive branch isn't in charge of the fate of legal challenges, conservative Justices will be presiding over the question of "since children weren't invited to the Obergefell table, and since marriage is a contract created for children's benefits originally and perpetually, was Obergefell a fair hearing if it strips children for life, per contract, of either a mother or father, without their having even representation for their unique enjoyments at the Obergefell hearing?"

You're aware that a judge (or 5 Justices) cannot act both as judge and guardian ad litem for children's interests in a court proceeding?

I guess i can only hope that someone wouldn't take it so literally as to say that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because a child wouldn't have a female and male influence right there in their life. Especially considering how many single mothers there are out there.

I don't know many gay people, but the ones i do know would make outstanding parents.

 

[Iceweasel]

It's like abortion. They created the law and took it from states but they aren't going to repeal their own decision, it would be an admission they went too far. I haven't heard Trump speak out against gay marriage or gays in general. Just the opposite, like with the Florida shootings.

Yea. Of all the hysteria from the left i always thought the LGBT fear in particular was the most ridiculous. Trump has never been anti-LGBT and is the most pro-gay marriage of any republican candidate ever.

...a fact not well known at all among his supporters...

But the judges he appoints won't be. And since the executive branch isn't in charge of the fate of legal challenges, conservative Justices will be presiding over the question of "since children weren't invited to the Obergefell table, and since marriage is a contract created for children's benefits originally and perpetually, was Obergefell a fair hearing if it strips children for life, per contract, of either a mother or father, without their having even representation for their unique enjoyments at the Obergefell hearing?"

You're aware that a judge (or 5 Justices) cannot act both as judge and guardian ad litem for children's interests in a court proceeding?

What do you mean a fact not well known? People that voted for him are uninformed? Support that. But no, presidents aren't "in charge of the judges decisions". Glad you got that figured out.

 

[Silhouette]

^^ Gay marriage was voted down twice in California and the Target Stores boycott was the largest organized boycott of a company in US history. There's your proof. It's called "pure math". You're suggesting an extrapolation of those numbers and those people = "Trump's supporters liked that he supports gay marriage and men in women's restrooms"? (official policy at Trump Tower)?

I guess i can only hope that someone wouldn't take it so literally as to say that gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because a child wouldn't have a female and male influence right there in their life. Especially considering how many single mothers there are out there.

I don't know many gay people, but the ones i do know would make outstanding parents.

Single mothers aren't part of a marriage contract. And since the question is about marriage's definition, you'd better be prepared legally to defend why the institution created to cure the ills of single parenthood, no longer cure the ills of single parenthood...all given the thumbs up by 5 non-psychologists on the USSC.

"...take it so literally.." What other way is there to take the most important institution in our country? Thanks for pointing out the non-chalance with which marriage was regarded (re: children) in Obergefell...

 

[Treeshepherd]

Trump had no problem with gay marriage.

On the other side of the coin, he won't be forcing the Catholic Church or any other religious institution to conduct gay weddings.
The 5-4 court has been cautious of over-reach where there are less restrictive options. A better solution, in their view, is not to force every bakery to bake gay wedding cakes when same sex couples can just go to another bakery.

 

[Silhouette]

Trump had no problem with gay marriage.

On the other side of the coin, he won't be forcing the Catholic Church or any other religious institution to conduct gay weddings.
The 5-4 court has been cautious of over-reach where there are less restrictive options. A better solution, in their view, is not to force every bakery to bake gay wedding cakes when same sex couples can just go to another bakery.

But, they would argue that that would be the same OK for bakeries to refuse service to blacks. Can you draw a clear legal distinction between the two where the Court would find it not OK for bakers to refuse to bake blacks a cake and bakers to refuse to bake gays a cake?

I can. It's called "behavior does not equal race"...a finding upheld recently BTW by the 7th circuit in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016). It said that homosexuality is not protected nor even insinuated as protected in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It found further that if those protections were to be had, a separate legislative Act must be ratified by Congress to cover homosexuals (behavior-based classes).

That decision will pave the way for either 1. Christians not having to bake cakes for gays or 2. Congress ratifying special protections for certain (the limit would be?) behaviors to force other people to help practice them or enable or promote them generally.

 

[sealybobo]

Good on him.

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

How do his fans feel about this?
.

Trump will be liberal on things that don't really matter to most of us. How is your taxes to the middle class. How is he on bringing jobs back home. How is he on high wages.

 

[Some Guy]

Single mothers aren't part of a marriage contract. And since the question is about marriage's definition, you'd better be prepared legally to defend why the institution created to cure the ills of single parenthood, no longer cure the ills of single parenthood...all given the thumbs up by 5 non-psychologists on the USSC.

"...take it so literally.." What other way is there to take the most important institution in our country? Thanks for pointing out the non-chalance with which marriage was regarded (re: children) in Obergefell...

I'm not prepared to legally defend anything. I'm not in law. Haha.

 

[sealybobo]

Trump had no problem with gay marriage.

On the other side of the coin, he won't be forcing the Catholic Church or any other religious institution to conduct gay weddings.
The 5-4 court has been cautious of over-reach where there are less restrictive options. A better solution, in their view, is not to force every bakery to bake gay wedding cakes when same sex couples can just go to another bakery.

I don't make cakes for coloreds or muslims or Mexicans or atheists

 

[sealybobo]

No darkies in my establishment

 

[Silhouette]

Trump had no problem with gay marriage.

On the other side of the coin, he won't be forcing the Catholic Church or any other religious institution to conduct gay weddings.
The 5-4 court has been cautious of over-reach where there are less restrictive options. A better solution, in their view, is not to force every bakery to bake gay wedding cakes when same sex couples can just go to another bakery.

But, they would argue that that would be the same OK for bakeries to refuse service to blacks. Can you draw a clear legal distinction between the two where the Court would find it not OK for bakers to refuse to bake blacks a cake and bakers to refuse to bake gays a cake?

I can. It's called "behavior does not equal race"...a finding upheld recently BTW by the 7th circuit in Hively v Ivy Tech (2016). It said that homosexuality is not protected nor even insinuated as protected in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. It found further that if those protections were to be had, a separate legislative Act must be ratified by Congress to cover homosexuals (behavior-based classes).

That decision will pave the way for either 1. Christians not having to bake cakes for gays or 2. Congress ratifying special protections for certain (the limit would be?) behaviors to force other people to help practice them or enable or promote them generally.

No darkies in my establishment

That's not going to solve the legal question...but it will force the differences between race and behaviors to be examined under a microscope...particularly where if they don't, the 1st Amendment could be irreparably harmed by not doing so..

 

[bodecea]

So you believe in special rights for christian business owners?

There are no special rights for Christian business owners. There is a general right for all citizens to freedom of expression of faith; which doesn't come with a time clock or location specification..

There isn't...that's why that bakery was fined. BUT they want special rights......to not to have to follow the business laws they agreed to by getting a business license in that state.

 

[martybegan]

So you believe in special rights for christian business owners?

There are no special rights for Christian business owners. There is a general right for all citizens to freedom of expression of faith; which doesn't come with a time clock or location specification..

There isn't...that's why that bakery was fined. BUT they want special rights......to not to have to follow the business laws they agreed to by getting a business license in that state.

No special rights involved. if gay people owned a bakery they could refuse to serve a catholic wedding under the proposed exceptions to PA laws for non nessasary/timely contracted transaction.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

Except incest and having sex with a minor are still against the law, hence, no, not so much. The underlying act, regardless of how infrequently it is prosecuted, makes the marriage

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 was only prosecuted when it was in relation to another sex crime.. but the fact it remained on teh books as illegal under most state laws gave impetus to banning same sex marriage. Once the underlying action was decriminalized, then there was no rationalization to deny licenses.

 

[JoeB131]

No special rights involved. if gay people owned a bakery they could refuse to serve a catholic wedding under the proposed exceptions to PA laws for non nessasary/timely contracted transaction.

So you want to make it okay to be a religious asshole, just not a regular asshole?

 

[bodecea]

So you believe in special rights for christian business owners?

There are no special rights for Christian business owners. There is a general right for all citizens to freedom of expression of faith; which doesn't come with a time clock or location specification..

There isn't...that's why that bakery was fined. BUT they want special rights......to not to have to follow the business laws they agreed to by getting a business license in that state.

No special rights involved. if gay people owned a bakery they could refuse to serve a catholic wedding under the proposed exceptions to PA laws for non nessasary/timely contracted transaction.

Not true...if they refuse to provide a cake because the customers are Catholic, they would be fined just as much if not more. Religion is also a protected class listed in PA laws....in fact listed a lot longer and in more states than sexual orientation.

 

[martybegan]

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.

Except incest and having sex with a minor are still against the law, hence, no, not so much. The underlying act, regardless of how infrequently it is prosecuted, makes the marriage

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 was only prosecuted when it was in relation to another sex crime.. but the fact it remained on teh books as illegal under most state laws gave impetus to banning same sex marriage. Once the underlying action was decriminalized, then there was no rationalization to deny licenses.

Same sex marriage didn't have to be "banned" until recently, because the concept never even entered into people's heads until the mid 1990's.

and in some states people can get married with parent's permission at much lower ages in some States, and those marriages are valid even in States with higher marriage ages.

And cousin sex is not illegal in most places, but cousin marriage is restricted in plenty of them. Your argument does not hold water.

 

[JoeB131]

Remember that after Trump gets to replace two court justices.

You think Trump is going to appoint Conservatives.. That's adorable.

 

[martybegan]

No special rights involved. if gay people owned a bakery they could refuse to serve a catholic wedding under the proposed exceptions to PA laws for non nessasary/timely contracted transaction.

So you want to make it okay to be a religious asshole, just not a regular asshole?

Or an irreligious asshole to religious people, as long as the only thing involved is hurt feelings.

 

[martybegan]

So you believe in special rights for christian business owners?

There are no special rights for Christian business owners. There is a general right for all citizens to freedom of expression of faith; which doesn't come with a time clock or location specification..

There isn't...that's why that bakery was fined. BUT they want special rights......to not to have to follow the business laws they agreed to by getting a business license in that state.

No special rights involved. if gay people owned a bakery they could refuse to serve a catholic wedding under the proposed exceptions to PA laws for non nessasary/timely contracted transaction.

Not true...if they refuse to provide a cake because the customers are Catholic, they would be fined just as much if not more. Religion is also a protected class listed in PA laws....in fact listed a lot longer and in more states than sexual orientation.

Notice I said "proposed exceptions" in my statement, and not the current status. Try reading a statement in full before you respond.