Donald Trump refuses to answer gay-marriage question as he insists he's answered it '150 times'

*Trump orders reporter to sit down after refusing to say whether or not he supports same-sex marriage rights

*Promises ‘a long conversation’ via phone about the issue on Sunday

*In the past year Trump has taken both sides in the battle over the Supreme Court’s landmark decision legalizing gay unions

*He has alternatively called the ‘Obergefell v. Hodges’ case ‘the law of the land’ and said he would consider appointing justices to overturn it

*Trump insisted Saturday that ‘we have policy on’ gay rights but his campaign has published none

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump refused to answer a question about same-sex marriage during a press conference Saturday night, following his electoral split of four primary and caucus states with Texas Sen. Ted Cruz. asked Trump to say whether or not he favors marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples, and whether U.S. Supreme Court justices he might appoint would be expected to work toward overturning ‘Obergefell v. Hodges,’ the 2015 decision that legalized such unions nationwide.

‘We have policy on it. And I’ve said it very, very strongly,’ Trump replied, without saying what that policy is.

‘And I think you know it. And it’s all done and, you know, in a campaign how many times do I have to say it?’

Trump said in January during an interview on ‘Fox News Sunday’ that he wished the high court had left the issue to the states to resolve, and concluded that he ‘would strongly consider’ appointing justices to overturn the ‘surprising’ Obergefell decision.

That answer allowed him enough room to maneuver in a Republican primary full of rivals on the religious right, without saying unequivocally that a President Trump would work to reverse the Supreme Court.

He may need to stake out a more centrist position in a general election if the Democratic nominee works to marginalize him.

Earlier in his campaign, Trump told The Hollywood Reporter that changing the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling was a right-wing pipe dream.

‘Some people have hopes of passing amendments, but it’s not going to happen,’ he told the magazine in August.

‘Congress can’t pass simple things, let alone that. So anybody that’s making that an issue is doing it for political reasons. The Supreme Court ruled on it.’

That was still his stance in September, when he lamented the jailing of Kim Davis, a county clerk who had refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples.

He said then that Davis should have found a way to obey the law.

‘You have to go with it. The decision’s been made, and that is the law of the land,’ the real estate titan said in September on MSNBC’s ‘Morning Joe.’

Months before that, just two days after the Supreme Court decided the Obergefell case, Trump had said on CNN that he was tilting rightward on the issue.

‘Im [for] traditional marriage. It is changing rapidly,’ he told the network’s Jake Tapper.

The Trump campaign website today spells out detailed policy positions on health care reform, trade issues, taxes, veterans affairs, immigration and gun rights – but nothing on gay unions.


I do not trust Donald Trump at all. God Bless, Memaw

I can’t answer your poll. My choice is I wouldn’t vote for Trump ever because I don’t trust him. He’s given me a very bad feeling since I was very little. Never did like him and won’t purposely put him in the White House.

My poll addresses, not the trustworthiness of Donald Trump (of whom I also do not trust him), but on the concept of the importance of the same-sex issue itself from a presidential candidate’s ability to help shape the future of the direction of authentic marriage in this country.

While I admittedly voted “very important” in the sense that abortion takes precedence over same-sex marriage, they are both severely damaging to our society. The only reason abortion is higher priority in my mind is due to the lack of choice the unborn baby has in the decision.

I am concerned that same-sex marriage could become (if it hasn’t already) relegated to ‘I disagree with it but people can chose for themselves’ status due to the primary focus (abortion) continually being front and center. I believe the acceptance of same-sex marriage may very well spell the end of the family unit in our society and ultimately be the undoing of our nation.

A list of trump’s positions and quotes on the issue of gay-marriage from the Human Rights Campaign website which compares and contrasts all candidates’ stances on some of these social issues. Note this is in no way in affiliation with the trump campaign.

"Donald Trump: Opposes Nationwide Marriage Equality

Donald Trump has been a consistent opponent of marriage equality. While he once said he supported protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in the workplace by adding sexual orientation to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, more recently he expressed support for the so-called First Amendment Defense Act (FADA) which would expose LGBT people to more discrimination."

“Trump Said He Would “Strongly Consider” Appointing Judges To Overturn Same-Sex Marriage Decision. Asked on Fox News Sunday “WALLACE: But – but just to button this up very quickly, sir, are you saying that if you become president, you might try to appoint justices to overrule the decision on same-sex marriage?” TRUMP: “I would strongly consider that, yes.”

I agree with you that acceptance of gay marriage has serious negative consequences for our nation. But I also believe, like the abortion issue, perhaps the churches bear more responsibility than our government in the unraveling of social values. Where is the preaching? The breakdown of the social fabric is also due to how lives are lived on the individual level. We simply can’t blame everything on the government.

I don’t see us going back to a traditional understanding of civil marriage any time soon. The best we can hope for is to have religious liberty protected, and having a growing understanding of natural law and sacramental marriages.


I hear the preaching of the importance of authentic marriage at my parish. I can’t speak for other parishes though.

When abortion was legalized, the same held true that we didn’t go back to the traditional understanding of the sanctity of human life. My concern is that Christians are now fighting a two-front war and are choosing to battle abortion and allowing same-sex marriage to continue to take root by fighting the abortion battle exclusively.

I agree and I feel we are literally living Romans 1. Whether we wake-up before the nation is ruined, time will tell.

Catholic Catechism:

1867 The catechetical tradition also recalls that there are “sins that cry to heaven”: the blood of Abel, the sin of the Sodomites, the cry of the people oppressed in Egypt, the cry of the foreigner, the widow, and the orphan, injustice to the wage earner.

Every Catholic has a responsibility to learn their faith and to hold a well formed conscience. While the Church must preach the truth during all times and all seasons, it cannot force people to comply.

It is time for, WE THE PEOPLE, to wake up and look in the mirror.

The story of the Prodigal Son also applies well here–and the people of the USA are in the place of the Prodigal Son–we have thrown away the vast blessings God has bestowed on us and we have walked away from God in massive numbers. We now see the result of that with all the divisions, anger, moral confusion, and pain so many in the USA feel today. That is the direct result of our taking our inheritance and walking away from God.

Regardless of who the Republican nominee is, I will vote for him. I would rather see someone who may or may not try to overturn immoral laws than to vote for someone who we know definitely will NOT try to overturn gay marriages and abortion laws.

To me abortion is the number one issue and outranks immigration, defense, environment, economic policies, etc. Those issues can be negotiated to reach a common ground. You cannot reach a common ground or negotiate abortion. Either the baby is killed or not. This thing about partial birth abortion does not leave a child partially alive. It leaves the baby 100% dead. Nothing is as horrendous as the 55 million plus babies murdered since Roe Vs Wade.

Pope Benedict when he was still a cardinal stated, if I’m not mistaken "…When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favor of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons” . But the key words are “proportionate reasons”. I don’t know of any reason or reasons that can be “proportionate” and placed on the same level as the millions of innocent children brutally killed.

We know what we will get with Hillary and Sanders; approval of “women’s rights” to kill, so I will vote not so much for Trump but against Hillary or Sanders.

Very true. In every era the task of evangelization faces its own challenges. In our time we certainly have problems that have never been front and center before. With that said, the good news is no sin is so grave that it cannot be forgiven and no sinners are so far out of reach that God cannot wrought miracles in them.

I lean republican as well but there is great danger when you start voting simply party line regardless of who the candidate is. I will not vote if it comes down to Trump versus Clinton/Sanders. This is the first time I feel that way. If a write in candidate is available in my state or a decent third party I might reconsider. Voting is something I feel very strongly about, but I will not be forced into choosing the lesser of two evils, particularly when it affects our entire country.

I agree with you about prolife issues. Not much (or anything?) can outweigh them. I’m not convinced Trump is a prolife candidate though.

After DOMA was passed and then thrashed, this is a non-issue for the President.

Isn’t the only available option an amendment to the constitution?

Not necessarily. The ruling on same-sex marriage was a narrow 5-4 decision. Scalia, who voted in the minority on the issue leaves the current justices 5-3 on the issue.

The ages of the justices are as follows:

Voted for same-sex marriage:

Ginsburg (age 82)
Kennedy (age 79)
Breyer (age 77)
Sotomayer (age 61)
Kagan (age 55)

Voted against same-sex:

Scalia (deceased at age 79)
Thomas (age 67)
Alito (age 65)
Roberts (age 61)

It is very possible that the next president will appoint up to 4 justices in the next term - and since incumbent presidents often get reelected, that 4 is almost guaranteed. Also, it’s possible that the next president may replace 5 or 6 given the ages of Thomas and Alito would both be in their 70s by the time the next president would be finishing his/her 2nd term.

Another case before the Supreme Court could overturn the ruling provided the mix of the justices swings to the right - which it likely would if we have a conservative pro-authentic marriage justice (and by extension pro-life justice - as the two issues seem to be on the same side of the coin) in the White House.

Interesting post, yes I have heard the topic on Fox news a day or two ago. I think its more of inner party attack which these have been common lately.

November 2013 interview on MSNBC, "I am for traditional marriage, I am for a marriage between a man and a woman.”

November 2013 interview on MSNBC, "I am for traditional marriage, I am for a marriage between a man and a woman.”

And he’s stood by this deeply held belief, for all three of his marriages…


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit