Why Trump Shouldn't Worry Gays

[kindy64]

From a libertarian POV... read the whole thing for a list of predictions.

http://nypost.com/2016/11/13/why-trump-s...orry-gays/

I was not a Trump backer in last week’s election, but you don’t have to support him to see the pattern. Since he began testing the political waters in the 1980s he has repeatedly and visibly distanced himself from the rut much of the GOP was mired in on this set of issues.

In his acceptance speech in August, when GOP conventioneers heartily applauded his pledge to “do everything in my power to protect our LGBTQ citizens from the violence and oppression” of jihadist ideology, he departed from his script: “I have to say, as a Republican, it is so nice to hear you cheering for what I just said. Thank you.”

By now it’s part of his brand, and no one cares more about protecting his brand than Donald Trump. I suspect to do that he’ll prove quite prepared to rein in the unwise impulses of some of his appointees.

[InbetweenDreams]

Well Trump says a lot of things....so do all politicians. One thing they always promise are jobs (although it seems the ones that do get created end with "Do you want fries with that?"), promise this, say that. I don't think Trump will be any different. He'll ultimately do what is popular, which will likely be the only reason why LGBTQ rights aren't on the chopping block.

A lot of right-wingers seen that same-sex marriage was forced on to them...from what I remember hearing. I think it just seems that gay marriage isn't that much of an issue since it [i]really[i] does not effect straight people...Christian or not... Seems that group of people have a bigger problem with abortion and Muslims.

[Gemini]

My concern is that he'll be appointing a conservative Supreme Court judge. If any states decide to challenge gay marriage in the courts, there's a strong possibility that the federal law could be repealed and the decision would go back to the states.

He was very evasive when asked about LGBT rights in his 60 Minutes interview with Leslie Stahl. When asked about gay marriage, he said that it doesn't matter what he thinks because it's already a law. When she asked what his stand would be if the law was challenged, he said he would need to "decide when it happens".

He was almost flippant when asked about repealing Roe v. Wade. He said that it wouldn't hurt women because the decision would then go back to the states. She asked him what would happen to women who lived in states that forbid abortion, and his response was, "So let them go to another state".

We need to remember that complacency is dangerous. Througouth history, a lot of pretty dreadful things have happened while the majority of people sat around saying, "That could NEVER happen".

[kindy64]

Just to clarify there isn't a federal gay marriage law, the Supreme Court overturned state level bans of same sex marriage. So, the court could theoretically overturn its decision. An amendment or law is required to make it permanent.

In the United States of America, same-sex marriage has been legal in all states, Washington, D.C., as well as all U.S. territories except American Samoa, but not on Indian lands, since June 26, 2015, when the United States Supreme Court ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges that state-level bans on same-sex marriage are unconstitutional.[1][2][3] The court ruled that the denial of marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the refusal to recognize those marriages performed in other jurisdictions violates the Due Process and the Equal Protection clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The ruling overturned a precedent, Baker v. Nelson.

I agree that no one should be complacent about anything the government does. All those lefties who were crowing about Obama's ability to make things happen with a "phone call and a pen" should feel ashamed for giving that much power and trust to one man, regardless of their political stripes. Now we see the hypocrisy as people are suddenly worried about checks and balances, an engaged/investigative media, and limiting federal overreach, when it seems like just a few weeks ago they were all for executive branch power, as long as a Democrat was in control.

[meridannight]

Does anybody know what his stance on drugs is?

[InbetweenDreams]

Does anybody know what his stance on drugs is?

Assuming that this is a credible source, seems like it may be but here's what I found...

http://www.ontheissues.org/2016/Donald_Trump_Drugs.htm

Definitely similar to how he has been on other issues, kind of flip flops on everything...

[matty7]

Does anybody know what his stance on drugs is?

well he's fine with molesting women so if hook him up with Rohypnol then your all good buddy