Not a Trump supporter and didn’t watch the 60 Minutes interview, but from what I’ve read and seen about the interview, he has no intention in rolling back gay marriage. Am I getting bad info?
No, he said that. I mean, he says a lot of things, and some of them are true, but, yeah, he said it’s settled, because the Supreme Court said it’s okay.
He also said he wants to appoint folks to the Supreme Court who’ll reverse Roe, as if that hasn’t been settled for decades as opposed to, y’know, months.
Yeah, that’s where I was going. I imagine it’ll be hard to find a supreme court nominee that will pro-life but OK with gay marriage.
Would that be the same Trump that just appointed homophobic right-wing religionist Ken Blackwell as his Domestic Policy Advisor?
Its not a battle he can win, so he is not fighting it. P
Perhaps he learned something from taking on Jon Stewart.
The point is that he doesn’t have to fight it himself. All he (or more accurately the people standing immediately behind him) has to do is to get two additional right-wing justices on the Supreme Court (one to replace Scalia, which will be a wash, and one to replace a retiring or dead liberal or swing justice who voted with the 5-4 majority), and leave it to the anti-SSM crowd to bring lawsuits until the issue reaches the SC again, giving them an opportunity to undo that ruling.
Then, I presume, all the state bans that were in place before will become automatically effective again, and we’re back where we were a couple of years ago.
So he can make nice all he wants with his public face. The people he appoints or rubberstamps in his administration are going to do their best to make sure this decision is overturned
Anyone trying to reach the SC would have a steep uphill climb. The would have to establish standing and prove that they were harmed by the original ruling. Even ideologue SC justices would require those to be in place to consider a case.
Maybe, but only because nominees tend to be older. Younger conservatives have much less opposition to LBGT issues than older generations.
Do you really think that will be hard to find?
A spouse has rights to determine medical treatment, so one option is to find a married same sex couple where a child and the spouse disagree on medical treatment for a patient in a coma. Child argues that same sex marriage has injured him by denying his rights to control medical decisions for his parent.
Or a spouse in a same sex marriage dies. The surviving spouse inherits under default laws, but if it wasn’t for the marriage, inheritance would have defaulted to the children. Children argue that they have been injured by losing their inheritance.
The same argument could be made by child of a first wife when the inheritance goes to the second wife.
If you look at the way that Republican candidates for most offices have been answering questions in the past couple years about gay marriage it’s fairly clear that they’re not likely to fight this one much. Public opinion has changed so rapidly that they simply want to let it go.
That doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen, but I think it’s pretty unlikely.
The reason we’ve heard so much about transgender bathroom access lately is that the culture war wedge has been moved elsewhere.
Yes, one could, but the validity of heterosexual remarriage was not decided by a Supreme Court decision that’s younger than some of the things in my fridge. More tautologically, you’re arguing against the danger of a court overturning the decision that makes gay marriage equal to straight marriage, by pointing out a way that gay marriage is currently like straight marriage.
And the current attitude of the Republican party as a whole towards gay marriage isn’t really relevant. There’s enough homophobe ideologues out there who are more than happy to press a case against SSM regardless of what the current Congress wants. NOM and the FRC don’t need Paul Ryan’s okay to push a suit challenging the validity of Obergefell, and Trump’s court picks don’t even have to be particularly homophobic to over turn it. Put a couple Brickers on the bench, and gay marriage is gone from most of this country.
I doubt he will try to roll back anything, personally. Gay marriage is favored by more than 60% of the electorate, and going against the clear majority to take away people’s rights is not a good look.
You know that I favor same-sex marriage, yes?
Whatever your personal opinion, do you see a constitutional basis for striking down a law banning same-sex marriage, and if so, would you vote to so strike?
I do, but I also know you’re a strict constructionalist. I was under the impression that you felt Obergefell was a “good outcome, bad process” decision, and that there’s no constitutional basis for a right to SSM. Am I incorrect, and you feel that Obergefell was correctly decided? If so, my apologies - you’re very much the wrong person for my example: someone who would overturn Obergefell despite not being opposed to gay rights.
If a new case reached the Court in a few years, I could see Thomas voting to overrule Obergefell. I think that Roberts and Alito would rule in favor of stare decisis.
Overruling Roe would simply mean no more abortions (in some states) moving forward. Overruling Obergefell would adversely affect tens of thousands of people who relied on that opinion in structuring their lives. The judiciary would not allow such a thing.
As I recall, when Prop 8 passed here in California, the implementation only affected the ability for gay people to get married going forward - it didn’t retroactively dissolve the marriages that had already been undertaken during the brief window of legality before the legislation passed. A Supreme Court could, in theory, reverse Obergefell with a similar grandfather clause for people who had entered into marriages so their lives aren’t unduly disrupted.
Of course, the number of married gay couples in California when Prop 8 passed was much, much smaller than the number of married gay couples nationwide right now. The scale might be sufficiently larger that that logic doesn’t apply.
Donald Trump cares not one whit about gay marriage, pro or con. Hardly surprising he’d dismiss it as an issue that interests him.