Donald Trump will restore marriage to being between one man and many women

Iowa votes tomorrow, and Donald Trump spent the weekend getting some last minute pandering in to solidify what the Des Moines Register showed as being a narrow lead heading into the caucuses.

Criticizing the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision, Trump suggested that he, as president, would appoint Supreme Court justices who would overturn the ruling.

Donald Trump, screenshot via YouTube

Donald Trump, screenshot via YouTube

As Trump said, quoted by Politico, “It has been ruled upon. It has been there. If I’m elected I would be very strong in putting certain judges on the bench that maybe could change thing, but they have a long way to go…I disagree with the court in that it should have been a states’ rights issue.”

Trump has been married three times. He has never had any problem reconciling this fact with his stated support for “traditional” marriage. Perhaps because the Bible includes plenty of instances in which one man marries more than one woman.

Not that it matters. Donald Trump may be transparently irreligious, but between this and his op-ed rejecting the premise of a right to privacy, he’s now at least as far to the right as culture-warrior-in-chief Ted Cruz. We can point and laugh all we want about how silly Evangelical voters are for thinking that Trump is or could ever be one of them, but at the end of the day there is absolutely no space between them on matters of public policy.

The man has no principles, but as long as his self-interest lines up with the conservative Christians, it appears as though conservative Christians will take it.

That wasn’t all Trump had up his sleeve by way of desperate last-minute pitches to Iowa voters. Trump also said that after the campaign, and perhaps his presidency, was over, he would “buy a farm and settle down” in Iowa. That is, of course, provided that he wins the caucuses (not kidding — he really did make his retirement to Iowa contingent on winning the state).


Jon Green graduated from Kenyon College with a B.A. in Political Science and high honors in Political Cognition. He worked as a field organizer for Congressman Tom Perriello in 2010 and a Regional Field Director for President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012. Jon writes on a number of topics, but pays especially close attention to elections, religion and political cognition. Follow him on Twitter at @_Jon_Green, and on Google+. .

Share This Post

  • koolaidyarn

    With no specification of the gender of the virgin in question?

  • David Bailey

    Biblical definition of marriage can be found in Deuteronomy, Ch. 22, where it is described as being “between one man and a VIRGIN”. How come the “traditional marriage” crowd isn’t calling for THAT standard to be reimposed?

  • FLL

    The Constitution also doesn’t mention the rights of interracial couples to marry (decided by the Supreme Court in 1967) or the rights of non-white children to attend the same schools as everyone else (decided by the Supreme Court in 1954). Those are not “state matters” either. Nice try, Sparky.

  • Don Chandler

    Trump will say anything to get elected. But he’ll do anything he wants regardless of the moral implications…like lying about the wall…about Muslims cheering in New Jersey after 9/ll…like most everything that comes out of his cakehole.

  • Butch1

    I think that comes the closest to whom he really is, Becca. Almost like Midas, what he touches “turns to sh*t instead.” Only he can declare bankruptcy, and like the Phoenix, arise from the ashes. We end up having to pay fines and the IRS back.

  • Butch1

    I think he is leading the field . . .

  • Butch1

    They like rich people and the persona and they like bullies. He encompasses all three.

  • Butch1

    Considering it’s a moot point I doubt we will be revisiting a civil rights case any time soon.

    I have a great idea, I’ll stay out of your bedroom if you’ll stay out of mine. I won’t try and destroy your marriage rights if you don’t try and destroy mine.

    If you religious bigots continue to try and undermine our rights I can guarantee we will start looking into yours for something to go after and you may not like it. (perhaps your tax exempt status for starters) ;-)

  • Butch1

    Good! More of these need to be circulated to the far-religious right; this would turn off at least the women voters in that group. ;-)

  • Butch1

    I think this is his typical pandering for votes and doesn’t really give a fig about “gay marriages” one bit. This was a shot over the bow of the far religious right to see if he could gather some anti-gay votes from them. Any vote is a good vote as far as he’s concerned.

  • 2karmanot

    Hillary’s incrementalism is much like Obozo’s—-an empty glass.

  • 2karmanot

    First lady Melania Tramp ….Move over Martha Washington!

  • nicho

    Aviation wasn’t mentioned in the constitution. Should each state have its own rules and its own air traffic control system?

  • nicho

    And mixed race marriage was seen as a “states rights” issue. Anything racists and bigots oppose is considered a “states rights” matter.

  • nicho

    And my Uncle Hector was “pretty sure” that branch was strong enough to hold him. He was wrong too.

  • Mike_in_the_Tundra

    “A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring.” – Alexander Pope

  • Mike_in_the_Tundra

    “Not sure why being married more than once has anything to do with him being a Christian or not, that is just nonsense.”

    Although Jesus never said a thing about same gender people marrying, he had plenty to say about divorce. Matt. 19:9

    Using your rational, a lot of biracial marriages should not exist. Loving v. Virginia set a precedent about marriage not being a state issue.

  • Opinionated Cat Lover

    Once upon a time, slavery was seen as a state issue. In fact, the advocates, your ideological predecessors, screamed ‘states rights’ before they threw their 4 year long temper tantrum.

    The biggest mistake the GOP ever made was embracing those fools and ceding the moral high-ground to the Democrats for cheap votes. But if you can’t oppress the blacks, at least you can oppress the gays, right?

    Right.

  • Solution1776

    No, I am not a Constitutional scholar, but that doesn’t mean I cannot have some knowledge of it. Since the Constitution doesn’t mention the rights of same sex couples, it is a state issue. I am pretty sure anything not explicitly addressed in the Constitution is considered a state matter.

  • nicho

    Oh, good. A constitutional scholar weighs in. I also think Trump would be good as president. It will be the end of this charade of democracy we have. Then, after the revolution, we can get down to business and end this nonsense of the government being run by gun nuts, religious freaks, Israel, and the mega corporations. Trump, once sent to a reeducation camp, will at least have done some good.

  • nicho

    Well, not wanting the rich and corporations to pay an taxes is big on their list.

  • Solution1776

    Trump said the issue of gay marriage should have been left to the states…exactly right as per the Constitution. Not sure why being married more than once has anything to do with him being a Christian or not, that is just nonsense.

    TRUMP 2016!!!

  • nicho

    Oh, for heaven’s sake. Grow up. What candidates say during the campaign and what they do once in office have no relation to one another.

    George HW Bush — “No new taxes.” Then he raised taxes.

    Obama — “Understand this: If American workers are being denied their right to organize and collectively bargain, when I’m in the White House, I’ll put on a comfortable pair of shoes myself. I’ll walk on that picket line with you, as president of the United States of America. Because workers deserve to know that someone’s standing in their corner.” Bwahahahahahaha. Never happened.

    Obama: “I will run the most transparent administration in US history.” Stop it, Barry, you’re killing me. My sides hurt. I can’t stop laughing.

    Hillary, to her credit, isn’t promising much of anything (at least to us). It’s too hard, she says. What’s scary is that she’s promising half a loaf — and will deliver about 25 percent of that, if we’re lucky — and if her bosses on Wall Street let her.

  • kurtsteinbach

    Cognitive dissonance moves fastest through a vacuum, like the one between Donald Hitler Bunker’s ears; it also has no effect whatsoever on stupid people. . . .

  • He’s a malignant narcissist on a megalomaniacal bender.

  • Because these people are even more idiotic, falling for the most transparent of insincere pandering?

  • Trumpy’s pandering is so ham-handed and blatant, I truly cannot figure out how there are people who can’t see it.

    I mean, we’re not even talking “high-quality, gold-encrusted luxury”-grade pandering. He’s like a guy who spends a few minutes with a legal pad before talking to any crowd and, with nothing but the existing contents of his own brain decides he’s going to indulge whatever moronic prejudices and notions those people might have.

    Thus he panders to evangelicals by claiming the Bible is a close second in greatness to his own Mammon-worshiping book, but clearly doesn’t know a single word of what’s in the Bible. He panders to the mouth-breathing xenophobes by ranting about Mexicans and Muslims and how he’s going to single-handedly stop all immigration. And here he is, pandering to Iowans by blatantly lying about plans to retire there, as if Trumpy would ever be happy in the American midwest living on a farm.

    Right…
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umS3XM3xAPk

  • Don Chandler

    Iowa was one of the first states to make same-sex marriage legal…states rights. How could he live there? Well, at least now he has thrown down the gauntlet.

  • kurtsteinbach

    So Donald Trump is worrying about his on again, off again lead or lack of lead in Iowa, so he panders to LGBT marriage haters, color me unsurprised and non-shocked. Just to an an fascinating twist to this, he promises to move to Iowas if he wins the state. That there would be reason enough not to vote for him. Everybody, Meet Donald Hitler Bunker. . . .

  • Jimmy

    I swear if Republicans didn’t have god, gays, guns, and abortion they wouldn’t have anything to talk about. Donald Trump is the very epitome of the pandering politician and Republicans are lapping up like rapid dogs. Why do people still vote for these idiots?

  • Elizabeth Ann Stewart

    Don’t know that Trump’s a psychopath, but I’m inclined to think that he’s senile, and of course, he has a narcissistic personality. I’m amazed that so many people would even consider putting such a person in charge of our nuclear arsenal. One of his temper tantrums and poof– there goes the world.

  • Quilla

    Um…sorry?

  • Mike_in_the_Tundra

    That’s really unfair to psychopaths.

  • Quilla

    Psychopath.

    That explains it.

© 2017 AMERICAblog News. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS
CLOSE
CLOSE