“It's law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it's done. [On same-sex marriage] I'm fine with that.”
Sources (click to view full provenance)
Propose an edit to this promise's details
Suggest a sourced correction to the promise text, topic, scope, significance, or dates. Changing the promise text requires a source. Your suggestion is reviewed before it changes the record.
Free — it takes a minute. New here? Create an account and complete the Contributor Agreement once.
Assessments
evidence-backed verdictsThese are sourced verdicts from fact-checkers or community evidence reviews — not opinions.
Re-verified independently. The promise is narrow: Trump's 2016 statement accepting same-sex marriage as settled, 'done,' and 'I'm fine with that.' Judged on marriage-SPECIFIC action only, the evidence uniformly shows the promise kept: across two full terms Trump took no federal executive action to overturn Obergefell or repeal the Respect for Marriage Act; his DOJ did not file or join the 2025 Kim Davis certiorari petition (a private Liberty Counsel effort), which the Supreme Court he shaped denied on Nov 10, 2025 with no noted dissent; his press secretary stated rolling back same-sex marriage 'was never a campaign promise that he made'; and in July 2024 Trump personally drove the RNC to soften the party platform, removing prior 'one man and one woman' language. NO marriage-specific action against the promise exists. I am REVISING the prior PARTIAL (0.62) upward because its downgrade rested on scope creep -- it imported the administration's broader rollback of OTHER LGBTQ protections (transgender/gender-identity policy, a different subject) and Trump's never-recanted personal opinion (an attitude, not an action) to dock a marriage-specific promise. Under a consistent, party-neutral, action-based standard, a politician who never acted against the settled ruling and affirmatively reduced his party's formal opposition kept this promise. Confidence held at moderate (0.6) because 'I'm fine with that' is partly an attitude statement, his acceptance is widely read as tactical, and elements of his coalition (state legislators, Project 2025) continue to target Obergefell -- but none of that is a marriage-specific act by Trump against the promise, so it cannot support MISALIGNED/HOSTILE, nor justify holding at PARTIAL.
Your opinion on this assessment(clearly labeled opinion)
Sign in to vote.
Discussion
community opinionsComments are user opinions — not verdicts. They do not affect the official assessment.
Sign in to join the discussion.
Propose a correction
community accountabilitySee an error in the promise text, status, significance, or missing source? Submit a sourced correction — a reviewer will evaluate and apply it if accurate. Your submission must cite evidence; unsourced changes are not accepted.
Sign in or create an account to propose a correction.
Debate
sourced community argumentsThese are sourced community arguments — not StumpWatch assessments. Each cites a source and is community-contributed; it does not change the official status or rating above.
No arguments yet
Be the first to weigh in. Every argument cites a source and is reviewed before it publishes. Create an account to add one and help keep this promise honest.
Add a sourced argument
Cite a source for your point. Submissions are held for reviewer approval before they appear.
Sign in or create an account to add an argument.