‘Not settled’: Social conservatives say Trump got it wrong on same-sex ‘marriage’
November 14, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Leading advocates of natural marriage are taking issue with President-elect Donald Trump’s assertion in a CBS “60 Minutes” interview Sunday that the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling endorsing homosexual “marriage” is “settled” law—while Trump supports the reversal of Roe v Wade.
Brian Brown, president of the National Organization for Marriage, tweeted in response:
In the CBS interview, Trump said LGBT fears that the Court’s 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision – which effectively imposes same-sex “marriage” on all 50 states – could be overturned by a Trump-dominated Supreme Court are “irrelevant” because “it’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.”
That contradicts statements Trump made on the campaign trail supporting a reversal of Obergefell, and appealing to “faith” voters for whom the imposition of radically redefined marriage is a major issue. In February, leading up to the South Carolina GOP primary, Trump called Obergefell a “shocking decision” and told Christian Broadcasting Network reporter David Brody that evangelicals could trust him to stand up for traditional marriage.
I think they can trust me. They can trust me on traditional marriage…I was very much in favor of having the court rule that it goes to states and let the states decide. And that was a shocking decision for you and for me and for a lot of other people. But I was very much in favor of letting the states decide.
Prior to the Supreme Court’s Obergefell ruling, 31 states had passed amendments upholding natural marriage and barring recognition of genderless “marriage” in their respective states. All were negated by the high court ruling, though in Alabama there is an ongoing legal battle led by Judge Roy Moore to preserve the authority of the state’s marriage amendment.
Here is the transcript of Trump’s remarks to CBS reporter Leslie Stahl in the 60 Minutes interview regarding the Supreme Court and both “gay marriage” and abortion, as reported by the Washington Post:
LESLEY STAHL: Do you support marriage equality?
TRUMP: It — it’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.
STAHL: So even if you appoint a judge that —
TRUMP: It’s done. It — you have — these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And, I’m fine with that.
[Post reporter Aaron Blake:] Just prior, though, Trump said he would appoint “pro-life” judges in hopes of reversing Roe v. Wade and sending the issue back to the states:
STAHL: During the campaign, you said that you would appoint justices who were against abortion rights. Will you appoint — are you looking to appoint a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?
TRUMP: So look, here’s what’s going to happen — I’m going to — I’m pro-life. The judges will be pro-life. They’ll be very —
STAHL: But what about overturning this law —
TRUMP: Well, there are a couple of things. They’ll be pro-life, they’ll be — in terms of the whole gun situation, we know the Second Amendment, and everybody’s talking about the Second Amendment, and they’re trying to dice it up and change it, they’re going to be very pro-Second Amendment. But having to do with abortion if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states. So it would go back to the states and —
STAHL: Yeah, but then some women won’t be able to get an abortion?
TRUMP: No, it’ll go back to the states.
STAHL: By state — no some —
TRUMP: Yeah, well, they’ll perhaps have to go, they’ll have to go to another state.
Even the strongly pro-LGBTQ Washington Post recognized the irony of Trump’s lax position on reversing the Court’s “gay marriage” ruling while voicing support for overturning Roe v. Wade—which, in tandem with a parallel case, Doe v. Bolton, legalized abortion-on-demand in the United States in 1973.
The Post headlined its article: “Trump says 17-month-old gay marriage ruling is ‘settled’ law—but 43-year-old abortion ruling isn’t.” The lead paragraph notes: “Donald Trump sent a message about his priorities to social conservatives Sunday on ‘60 Minutes’: On abortion, I'll keep fighting. On gay marriage, not so much.”
That observation is a largely unspoken reality--not just of the Trump campaign but the overall pro-life/pro-family movement. To the delight of GOP libertarians, homosexual “marriage” fell off as a major election issue and was far less discussed this election cycle than right-to-life issues (which also received scant coverage).
Moreover, the pro-life movement is far better financed and organized than the rag-tag army of groups fighting the immensely well-funded and powerful homosexual-transgender activist lobby.
Nevertheless, the Trump concession on “gay marriage” so early after his election is a big blow to social conservatives, even as it is a return to a more liberal position he stated prior to the CBN interview. In August 2015, Trump told the Hollywood Reporter that “anybody that’s making that an issue [of homosexual ‘marriage’] is doing it for political reasons. The Supreme Court ruled on it.”
The New York Times reported in April that Trump was easily the most pro-“gay” candidate in the GOP’s presidential field. Raised in New York City—a Mecca of “gay liberation”--Trump has a long history of taking liberal positions on homosexual “rights.” In an interview with the homosexual magazine The Advocate in 2000, mulling a Reform Party run for president, he was to the left of leading Democratic candidates in calling for adding homosexuality to the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
However, in his recent, victorious campaign, Trump promised many times to defend religious liberty, which many Christians believe has been undermined by “gay rights” lawsuits, so it is doubtful that Trump would take such a radical tack today as making “sexual orientation” a federal civil right.
Trump’s remarks contradict GOP platform
Furthermore, Trump’s remarks contradict the Republican Party platform, which states:
We do not accept the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage, and we urge its reversal, whether through judicial reconsideration or a constitutional amendment returning control over marriage to the states.
See important related articles:
Trump undermined Justices Scalia, Roberts, Thomas and Alito in saying marriage issue ‘settled'
Finished reading? You can make a difference, too!
Support pro-life and pro-family journalism with a donation today!
View CommentsClick to view or comment.