There is a lot going on social media that Republican front-runner Donald Trump will oppose same-sex marriage rights if he gets elected as President. Speaking on Fox News Sunday, Donald Trump said this to attract conservative voters (Christians in Iowa) . He has been a persistent opponent of marriage equality. However, he once said that he supported protecting same-sex couples from any sort of discrimination in workplace by adding sexual orientation to Civil Rights Act of 1964. He even supported First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) which would show more discrimination to LGBT people.
Origin: It all started in 31 January, 2016 when Donald Trump appeared in an interview with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday and disagreed with Supreme Court’s 5-4 Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015.
Where does Trump originally stand on marriage equality?
Well, that’s a billion dollar question! Trump has a mixed record as he has been supporting marriage equality consistently. To support his statement, he later said that he opposed it because he is a traditional guy, choosing to support domestic partnership benefits instead. He also opposed civil unions.
He would strongly consider appointing new justices who would oppose this rule, as he believes it should have been a state-rights issue. “It has been ruled upon. It has been there. If I am elected I would be very strong in putting certain judges on the bench that may be could change things, but they have a long way to go. I disagree with the court in that it should have been a state’s right issue,” he said.
Protecting LGBT’s from discrimination
Trump said that the federal law should protect LGBT’s from discrimination. He even said that the Civil Rights Act 1964 should include sexual orientation and there should be no discrimination against gays.
He even agreed with Kim Davis, a Kentucky county clerk, who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples (and was even jailed) but later denied saying he never supported her.
It is clear that Trump is cultivating his political base by saying that he would look into or ‘consider it’(Supreme Court’s decision). He didn’t raise this issue specifically, rather he just responded to a question by saying that he would think about it.