If Trump loves gay weddings so much, what's he going to do if SCOTUS takes them away?
Briefly

If Trump loves gay weddings so much, what's he going to do if SCOTUS takes them away?
"The only thing that Donald Trump has ever been consistent about in his life is his devotion to money, so it should surprise no one that his private take on marriage equality has nothing to do with rights, dignity, or love. In this week's piece on the A-Gays, one Trump associate was quoted as saying that Trump once summed up his thinking on same-sex marriage this way: I love the gays. They pay the most for the weddings.""
"That is vintage Trump. You can take away politics, religion, constitutionality, but for him, it all comes down to the checkbook. But don't kid yourself thinking, "Wow, Trump is for marriage equality," because he surely didn't open Mar-a-Lago's doors to gay couples out of principle. Instead, he did it because those pricey, ca-ching, ca-ching Palm Beach weddings for same-sex couples were highly profitable."
"But here's where the irony comes in. The Supreme Court has been asked to overturn its 2015 Obergefell case, thanks to a petition filed on behalf of that homophobe , the Kentucky county clerk who made a name for herself out of denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. If the Court uses that case to weaken or even overturn legalized marriage equality nationwide, the issue could be tossed back to the states. And in Trump's world, that's where things get dicey."
Donald Trump prioritizes profit over principle in his approach to same-sex marriage, welcoming lucrative weddings at Mar-a-Lago for financial reasons. A quoted remark encapsulates that view: "I love the gays. They pay the most for the weddings." The Supreme Court faces a petition to revisit Obergefell (2015), which could weaken or overturn nationwide marriage equality. Returning the issue to individual states would enable many red states to ban same-sex marriage again and enforce state constitutional bans. Trump's tendency to invoke "states' rights" serves as a rhetorical escape that could produce devastating outcomes for marriage equality.
Read at Advocate.com
Unable to calculate read time
[
|
]