Clint Eastwood backs gay marriage in Supreme Court brief

Clint Eastwood and several other prominent California Republicans have signed a court brief urging the U.S. Supreme Court to back gay marriage. Full Story

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#55 Mar 6, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
How does one that identifies themselves as bisexual remain monogamous and in a long term relationship?
Take your time.
By valuing the grass on whichever side of the fence they are on.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#56 Mar 6, 2013
Brittle Fingers wrote:
Rick in Kansas and NE Jade,
You both are doing a good job in telling me what the law currently does and doesn't allow.(Legal consent, poly laws, etc.) But that's not the issue. The issue is how might some of (or all of)these laws change in the future as a result of redefining marriage?
There are laws in many places today that prohibit same-sex marriage. Why don't you respect those laws like you respect those dealing with age of consent, poly, etc.? The answer is because the laws prohibiting gay marriage don't happen to fit your own personal beliefs on the issue.
For the record, my position is that this issue should continue to be left up to each individual state. That way, the will of the people of each state decide.(That's what democracy is about, right?)
Does this make any reasonable difference?
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#57 Mar 6, 2013
The American Genocide wrote:
<quoted text>
Always deflecting and changing the subject at hand. Are we yewish?
Thank you for your further contribution to one of "The World's Biggest Lies."
Did not deflect a thing... simply stated that rather you are hetero homo or bi... you can look,,, but not need to touch.... where is the deflection....

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#63 Mar 10, 2013
The American Genocide wrote:
<quoted text>
The grass is always greener where the dogs are chitting.
Not when they piss on it. Burns the grass.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#65 Mar 10, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Just like all gays! They piss on the grass of marriage and destroy it! Why are you no longer sharing comments? Scared you'll be found out as a youngster by you're other posts, or are you to embarrassed and scared of what other people might think of you?
The grass of marriage?

Surely you jest!

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#67 Mar 10, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya momma tells ya that when ya say something silly thinking it is very insightful?
Is this supposed to make sense?

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#69 Mar 10, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
You've got poor reading comprehension for someone confessing to be an adult.
Your previous post made no sense at all. It was pure drivel. Nice dodge though. Care to try again?

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#70 Mar 10, 2013
Go ahead. Make my day.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#73 Mar 11, 2013
"In the courtís final analysis, the governmentís only basis for supporting DOMA comes down to an apparent belief that the moral views of the majority may properly be enacted as the law of the land in regard to state-sanctioned same-sex marriage in disregard of the personal status and living conditions of a significant segment of our pluralistic society. Such a view is not consistent with the evidence or the law as embodied in the Fifth Amendment with respect to the thoughts expressed in this decision. The court has no doubt about its conclusion:... DOMA deprives them of the equal protection of the law to which they are entitled."

http://metroweekly.com/poliglot/57794777-DOMA...

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#75 Mar 11, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
Idiot, the 5th amendment allows anyone to marry. Not anyone to marry anybody!
We are aware of that sweetie. The standard is and has been, that in order for the state to limit the right of that anyone to marry, by denying them the choice of the anybody they are choosing to marry, there must be a compelling interest of the state that is being served in doing so. They couldn't prove such an interest of the state was served by saying your anybody couldn't include that special convicted felon of your dreams, that the state could reasonably deny you the right to consummate with, ever, why would you imagine that the bans on same sex marriage even stand a prayer?

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#77 Mar 11, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
People of the same sex cannot actually marry. They just cannot bond.
And btw, why bother talking down to someone older than you? Why such a need to talk down to everybody? Its a bit annoying.
WTF do you mean by bond?

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#79 Mar 11, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
So ignorant aren't you for someone who confesses to be an adult! LOL! I suppose Rick would be proud of you.
ad hominem reply dismissed.

NEXT

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#81 Mar 11, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
People of the same sex cannot actually marry. They just cannot bond.
What on Earth are you babbling about? Cannot marry according to what or whom? Cannot bond?
Largelanguage wrote:
And btw, why bother talking down to someone older than you?
Because you are an idiot, your age has nothing to do with it.
Largelanguage wrote:
Why such a need to talk down to everybody?
I only talk down to folk who insist on exercising their right to be an idiot, dear. That's why all my posts to you sound that way. I'd hope you would have figured that out on your own by now. Hope dashed.
Largelanguage wrote:
Its a bit annoying.
It's meant to be, sweetie. You not only missed the bus, you missed your connection.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#83 Mar 11, 2013
"The Court finds that neither Congress' claimed legislative justifications nor any of the proposed reasons proffered by BLAG constitute bases rationally related to any of the alleged governmental interests. Further, after concluding that neither the law nor the record can sustain any of the interests suggested, the Court, having tried on its own, cannot conceive of any additional interests that DOMA might further."

"Prejudice, we are beginning to understand, rises not from malice or hostile animus alone. It may result as well from insensitivity caused by simple want of careful, rational reflection or from some instinctive mechanism to guard against people who appear to be different in some respects from ourselves."

Conclusion: DOMA, as it relates to Golinski's case, "violates her right to equal protection of the law under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution"

Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi...

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#84 Mar 11, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Marriage is about bonding. What is called gay marriage is not really marriage. Looks like you've got a weakness, I thought you would have heard that arguement in the past. Come on!
What is bonding?

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#87 Mar 11, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Sharing and forming views, emotions, sharing how you feel, sharing your emotions, and feelings, getting to know the person and appreciate them for who they are. Didn't know this sonnyboy?
Are you trying to say homosexuals can't do these things?

Here is what you posted previously.

<Marriage is about bonding. What is called gay marriage is not really marriage. Looks like you've got a weakness, I thought you would have heard that arguement in the past. Come on!>

I would say it's quite the opposite based upon your definition of bonding wouldn't you?

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#88 Mar 11, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Ignorant dirtbag!
Is this supposed to be a rebuttal?

Sorry, that's an epic FAIL.

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#90 Mar 11, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
To men cannot bond, you can only share and form with the opposite sex, but a lacks something of women, and women lack something of men, and therefore a man and a women would fit perfectly together!
Here is your definition of bonding.

<Sharing and forming views, emotions, sharing how you feel, sharing your emotions, and feelings, getting to know the person and appreciate them for who they are.>

Are you saying two men or two women can't do these things?

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#92 Mar 11, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, they can't.
Yes they can't? What's that supposed to mean?
You are kidding me right?

Since: Aug 11

Santa Cruz, CA

#94 Mar 11, 2013
Largelanguage wrote:
<quoted text>
A man and a man cannot bond.
According to your definition two men can bond better than a man and a woman. What you are saying makes absolutely no sense. In fact, men bond with men and women with women much better than with the opposite sex.

Your own definition:

<Sharing and forming views, emotions, sharing how you feel, sharing your emotions, and feelings, getting to know the person and appreciate them for who they are.>

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Wedding Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Same-sex marriage could increase Minnesota's an... 11 min ambientbake 5
Evangelicals with gay children challenging church 3 hr Fa-Foxy 10
Proof Even Jennifer Aniston's Friends Have No I... 5 hr Benny 1
Gay couples exchange vows in Montana after ruling 6 hr Frankie Rizzo 21
Homosexuality and the Bible (Aug '11) 10 hr chris toal 26,032
BC denies accreditation to anti-Gay Christian l... 10 hr RDL 79
Texas Couples Ask U.S. Court To Allow Same-Sex ... 12 hr Obvious 6

Wedding People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE