fountainhall
January 20th, 2017, 10:16
Given all the lies that have spewed from his mouth during all the offensive rhetoric in the Presidential Campaign, it's really hard to believe anything Donald Trump says. And even when he says something, we are witnessing so many about-turns the guy's thoughts are constantly blowing in the wind.
Is it therefore worthwhile remembering what he said about gay marriage? In a 60 Minutes interview he said he was OK with gay marriage and that it had already "been settled" by the Supreme Court. Ah yes, Mr. soon-to-be President! But that Court, already split 50-50, has a vacancy. And all gay men should be extremely worried about one Judge under consideration
Last Saturday, Trump met anonymously (as reported by Associate Press) in Washington with Judge William Pryor of Alabama. It appears Pryor is on the short list. This is what this bigot is quoted as having said - not just about gay marriage - not just about fundamental gay rights - but about fundamental gay behaviour behind closed doors - in an earlier interview at the end of last year.
One of Donald Trump’s prospective picks for the Supreme Court believes gay people should be prosecuted for having sex because they are not protected by the constitution. While serving as Alabama’s Attorney General in 2003, William H Pryor Jr wrote a legal brief in defence of a Texan law – later struck down by the Supreme Court (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gay-sex-in-private-is-lawful-rules-us-supreme-court-110638.html) – which criminalised consensual gay sex.
He compared it to “polygamy, incest, paedophilia, prostitution, and adultery” and said the Alabama court had “never recognised a fundamental right to engage in sexual activity outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage, let alone to engage in homosexual sodomy”.
“Such a right would be antithetical to the ‘traditional relation of the family’ (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-why-do-people-cling-to-the-myth-of-the-nuclear-family-1024519.html) that is as old and as fundamental as our entire civilisation”, he added.
But he also said that anal sex (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-anal-sex-ban-repeal-discriminatory-section-159-liberals-a7418191.html) between heterosexual partners was acceptable because it was not as bad as homosexual sex.
He explained: “Texas is hardly alone in concluding that homosexual sodomy may have severe physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual consequences, which do not necessarily attend heterosexual sodomy, and from which Texas’s citizens need to be protected”.
He claimed that people did not have the right to engage in whatever consensual sex they liked behind closed doors because “homosexual sodomy has not historically been recognised in this country as a right; to the contrary, it has historically been recognised as a wrong. It is not a fundamental right”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-president-supreme-court-gay-rights-abortion-william-h-pryor-a7422416.html
It's going to be a tough ride (sic)!
Is it therefore worthwhile remembering what he said about gay marriage? In a 60 Minutes interview he said he was OK with gay marriage and that it had already "been settled" by the Supreme Court. Ah yes, Mr. soon-to-be President! But that Court, already split 50-50, has a vacancy. And all gay men should be extremely worried about one Judge under consideration
Last Saturday, Trump met anonymously (as reported by Associate Press) in Washington with Judge William Pryor of Alabama. It appears Pryor is on the short list. This is what this bigot is quoted as having said - not just about gay marriage - not just about fundamental gay rights - but about fundamental gay behaviour behind closed doors - in an earlier interview at the end of last year.
One of Donald Trump’s prospective picks for the Supreme Court believes gay people should be prosecuted for having sex because they are not protected by the constitution. While serving as Alabama’s Attorney General in 2003, William H Pryor Jr wrote a legal brief in defence of a Texan law – later struck down by the Supreme Court (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/gay-sex-in-private-is-lawful-rules-us-supreme-court-110638.html) – which criminalised consensual gay sex.
He compared it to “polygamy, incest, paedophilia, prostitution, and adultery” and said the Alabama court had “never recognised a fundamental right to engage in sexual activity outside of monogamous heterosexual marriage, let alone to engage in homosexual sodomy”.
“Such a right would be antithetical to the ‘traditional relation of the family’ (http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-why-do-people-cling-to-the-myth-of-the-nuclear-family-1024519.html) that is as old and as fundamental as our entire civilisation”, he added.
But he also said that anal sex (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/canada-anal-sex-ban-repeal-discriminatory-section-159-liberals-a7418191.html) between heterosexual partners was acceptable because it was not as bad as homosexual sex.
He explained: “Texas is hardly alone in concluding that homosexual sodomy may have severe physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual consequences, which do not necessarily attend heterosexual sodomy, and from which Texas’s citizens need to be protected”.
He claimed that people did not have the right to engage in whatever consensual sex they liked behind closed doors because “homosexual sodomy has not historically been recognised in this country as a right; to the contrary, it has historically been recognised as a wrong. It is not a fundamental right”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-elections/donald-trump-president-supreme-court-gay-rights-abortion-william-h-pryor-a7422416.html
It's going to be a tough ride (sic)!