Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No, I read about it. But what is your point? I was responding to the question of why LGBT people thought Trump would be a problem for them. That interview last year before the election was the reason.
Just because some of you dismiss something as irrelevant doesn't mean everyone else does, particularly when they are part of the minority in question.
TRUMP SAID in an interview, which I watched, that he would appoint a Supreme who would "look at" overturning the SSM ruling. That might not seem alarming to those of us who are straight, but to LGBT people, it was VERY alarming to hear that.
Now. I've said this before. I'm from the NY metro area. Worked in the city all my life, have seen Trump and his antics in the local news long before he had a TV show. I do not believe he is anti-gay. He is a New Yorker, and by and large, New Yorkers don't give a **** about that stuff. Further, he has appointed his friend Steve Roth, the CEO of Vornado, as one of the people to look over the improvement of infrastructure throughout the nation. He attended the wedding of Roth's gay son.
But...he said what he said in that interview, and LGBT people heard it and didn't forget. To me, it seems to have been a ploy to pander to the base he was cultivating, many of whom are indeed anti-LGBT and would have loved hearing that.
But don't be so dismissive of the feelings of your fellow Americans who heard what he said. They aren't making this up off the tops of their heads. He said what he said.
Same sex marriage is secure. With Trump's replacement of Scalia and possibly Kennedy, however, the Court won't be keen to create new rights for the LGBT community.
I completely agree that federal government should not be involved in social issues. Marriage is a religious construct and should never have been taken over and regulated by the government and abortion should never have been legislated by the SCOTUS.
The more issues the government takes on, the more political those issues become. I agree completely that if social issues were not controlled by the government, then there would be less of a division in the country and we would probably elect people more qualified to uphold the Constitution instead of electing those politicians who only pander to social issues to stay in power.
I think the opposite. Marriage is not a religious construct but a contract. Any religious trimmings should be separate from the legal binding.
Same sex marriage is secure. With Trump's replacement of Scalia and possibly Kennedy, however, the Court won't be keen to create new rights for the LGBT community.
Serious question--with workplace protections, marriage/ family rights in place, are there any legal areas where LGBT people are still being discriminated against? There are always going to be segments of society that reject other segments--I don't mean that. You can't force logic and compassion on individuals, but are laws sufficiently in place?
Per the article: “President Trump continues to be respectful and supportive of L.G.B.T.Q. rights, just as he was throughout the election,†and "While Mr. Trump remains opposed to the right of same-sex couples to marry. . . " A president opposed to gay marriage is not 100% supportive of gay rights. The two beliefs are incompatible. My wife and I are seriously discussing the possibility of moving overseas should SHTF. She and I are members of several minority groups, and are concerned about discrimination in this bizarre political climate we are now enduring.
Were you equally concerned when Obama was elected given he said he was against gay marriage during his campaign?
There are reactionaries on both sides of the political spectrum. I know plenty of conservatives and liberals who are pro-choice who would not themselves have an abortion. They just think that the choice should be left to the individual and their medical practitioner.
I think we would all, regardless of our beliefs, do well to take most "social" issues out of politics and stop trying to force our personal views onto legislation.
If women want abortions? Let them have them. Nobody says everyone has to have one.
If gay people want to get married? Let them. Nobody is telling others they have to get married to someone of the same sex.
In short, I would like to see these issues put to rest permanently, never to be dragged out into political discourse again.
I think it would do a great deal to heal some of the divide in this country.
Oh it's pretty easy to find people who take a live and let live attitude about one thing or another.... but they change their tune really quick when it's a different subject.
And I'm not pretending that I'm above or immune to that, but I try to use a Libertarian point of view on things whenever my conscious permits.
I fully support LGBT rights, gay marriage etc..
But it's not out of any sense of "social justice" that I hold these beliefs..... it's just that:
1. I really don't care....gays getting married just does not effect me or my loved ones in any way...it's simply a non-issue.
2. More importantly, because government simply has no right to regulate marriage.
There is nothing in the Constitution that gives the government any power to say who can marry who or why.
The problem comes when you try to get people to transfer this line of thought to other subjects that they are more passionate about.
For instance, Libertarian philosophy demands that you extend this same thought process to a Christian baker who does not wish to be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding.
It's a difficult concept for people to accept that they should not expect the state to impose their personal views on everyone.
Were you equally concerned when Obama was elected given he said he was against gay marriage during his campaign?
What is this continual bringing up of a former president's actions? No, I'm not concerned about Obama's stance on gay marriage, first of all because OBAMA IS NOT PRESIDENT. I also wasn't concerned then because gay marriage wasn't legal in my state or nationwide, so there was no ruling to overturn at that time. In other words, there was nothing to lose then. There is now, although the chance is small, I'm sure.
No, I read about it. But what is your point? I was responding to the question of why LGBT people thought Trump would be a problem for them. That interview last year before the election was the reason.
And the interview in November negates the one from last year. So can it with the "here's why the LGBTQ community is scared..." and then trotting out something that isn't even up for discussion anymore.
I never understood why LGBT folks were freaking out in the first place. Yeah, Pence said things back in the day, but Trump has ALWAYS been 100% for LGBT rights. He even held up he rainbow flag at one of his rallies.
When I went to the Womens' March in DC a few weeks ago, all these gay people were freaking out, like their rights were stripped. And I never understood why...
Nahh he is just spacing it out, he got more flak than he envisioned over his shenanigans .
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
