Clint Eastwood backs gay marriage in ...

Clint Eastwood backs gay marriage in Supreme Court brief

There are 72 comments on the Los Angeles Times story from Mar 1, 2013, titled Clint Eastwood backs gay marriage in Supreme Court brief. In it, Los Angeles Times reports that:

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

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Los Angeles Times.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#26 Mar 5, 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?)
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections." SCOTUS

Marriage is a fundamental right. Equal rights should never depend on popular opinion. As others have pointed out, we would still have segreation at least, among other discrimination if equal treatment under the law relied on the will of the majority.

James Madison wrote:“It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers, but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part … If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure.”

Or as Jesse Ventura put it bluntly, "You can't put a civil rights issue on the ballot and let the people decide … If you left it up to the people, we'd have slavery, depending on how you worded it."

John Adams, the second U.S. president, bluntly stated that "the majority has eternally, and without one exception, usurped over the rights of the minority."

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#28 Mar 5, 2013
Brittle Fingers wrote:
<quoted text>
First, I'm sure an overwhelming majority of those who define themselves as conservatives are against same-sex marriage.
But to your other point.....if that's the case, then why stop at same-sex marriage? Let's allow kids to get married then. If we don't, we're discriminating against young people. And hey, we can also allow three people to all marry each other. If we didn't allow that, wouldn't we be infringing upon all three of their rights? Or how about a man and a chicken? Animals do have some protection under the law....we'll need to expand their protection; otherwise, we're discriminating against them.
These things may sound silly now, but the idea of same-sex marriage was unthinkable up until the last decade or so.
We have had a set definition of marriage for centuries. You change it, you open the door to all sorts of things.
As others have pointed out, your fears are unjustified, unsupportable, and irrational.

Allowing gay couples to participate under the laws currently in effect does not change the current or future marriages of straight couples. The laws that determine "what" marriage is remain if full force and effect.

Gender is not a restriction, and only the restriction requiring one of each gender is removed.

Restrictions on age, informed consent, close blood relative, and not currently married, remain in effect. There is no reason to change any of those reasonable and court approved restrictions. More of the same does not require doing something entirely different for everyone.

Marriage it is a fundamental right of the individual.

The only eligibility requirement for fundamental rights is being human.

Reasonable restrictions may be made only when a compelling and legitimate governmental interest can withstand judicial scrutiny.

Most can agree with the courts that reasonable restrictions include age, ability to demonstrate informed consent, and not being closely related, or currently married.

While churches may place any restrictions they choose on their own ceremonies, the government can only restrict fundamental rights when a compelling and legitimate justification can be demonstrated.

Procreation ability has never been a requirement for marriage, and therefore fails as a legitimate qualification. Yet even that irrational excuse for discrimination ignores the fact that gay people can and do reproduce, and are raising children either biologically related or adopted. Denial of equal treatment under the law provides nothing to opposite sex couple families. It only harms same sex couple families needlessly.

Gay couples are seeking to be treated equally under the laws currently in effect, in the remaining states that do not yet recognize their marriages, and by the federal government.

Neither tradition nor gender provides a legitimate governmental interest sufficient for denial of this fundamental right.

As Justice Kennedy wrote about the founding fathers: "They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress."

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#29 Mar 5, 2013
Brittle Fingers wrote:
<quoted text>
First, I'm sure an overwhelming majority of those who define themselves as conservatives are against same-sex marriage.
But to your other point.....if that's the case, then why stop at same-sex marriage? Let's allow kids to get married then. If we don't, we're discriminating against young people. And hey, we can also allow three people to all marry each other. If we didn't allow that, wouldn't we be infringing upon all three of their rights? Or how about a man and a chicken? Animals do have some protection under the law....we'll need to expand their protection; otherwise, we're discriminating against them.
These things may sound silly now, but the idea of same-sex marriage was unthinkable up until the last decade or so.
We have had a set definition of marriage for centuries. You change it, you open the door to all sorts of things.
Are children legally able to demonstrate informed and responsible consent to the terms of the Marriage Contract? Can a chicken?

While there are gay kids, Gay people wishing to marry are not children, but full adult sovereign Citizens. Neither are gay people livestock.

All you have is what is called "appeal to tradition" and "slippery slope" arguments. The first has been ruled inadmissible in Federal Court Cases. The second is just fear-based and presents no evidence of any kind to go on, and so amounts to nothing more than the statement, "I'm afraid of my own baseless imaginings". An interesting and understandable factoid, but hardly evidentiary or supportive of a position.

So, despite your reasonable-sounding writing style, your post actually has no reason in it.

Now, are you actually reasonable enough to recognize this and concur?

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#30 Mar 5, 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?)
Conjecture is just imaginings.

Lack of evidence is just lack of evidence.

Reason is based upon FACTS.

Come up with some and we'll start to call your arguments reasonable ... instead of just trying to frighten yourself and other people with what-ifs.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#31 Mar 5, 2013
And now for a word from our sponsors:

Betes Noires

Waxahachie, TX

#32 Mar 5, 2013
Brittle Fingers wrote:
Eastwood is a traitor to conservatism.
Promoting monogamous, committed relationships is a conservative value.
brain camp

Nha Trang, Vietnam

#34 Mar 5, 2013
snyper wrote:
And now for a word from our sponsors:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =p20tOszLty8XX
dat is so hillllary!!! ;-000h, chic-fil-A themes song?!! ;-00

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#35 Mar 5, 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?
If you had actually taken the time to read what you are claiming to be replying to, you would have found that your question had already been answered. There will not be a "right" to child marriages, poly marriage, or inter-species marriage as a result of marriage for same sex coupes, for the same darn reason those rights were not seen as existing without them. The state has a compelling interest that is served in having the ultimate say over how young, how many or what species you may marry, there is no compelling interest of the state in what sex you choose to marry.
Brittle Fingers wrote:
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.
No dear, I'm just bright enough to be able to see the difference. It's tough to have respect for a law which serves no other purpose than to give your choice of irrational bigotries legal force over other people's lives. Laws regarding under-aged marriage protect minors, laws against plural marriages protect the rights of the individual which would be diminished by entering into such a legal relationship and protects the system by establishing a defensible limit and laws against marrying anything that can't consent to it ought to make sense even to you.
Brittle Fingers wrote:
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?)
That is what they are likely to end up with, but without the power to deny legal recognition to marriages of same sex couples performed elsewhere. We're likely to end up with the same rights as a couple of first cousins, except our marriages will have to be recognized if we move to Kentucky.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#36 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?)
"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?)"

For grins and giggles and for the sake of conversation, forget about loving v virginia decision. This was a issue was decided by SCOTUS (which imho ssm will be decided the same way).

Now If loving v. never happend... would you say that that 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?)".

There is little difference here except sex. In each case you had people who did not believe in two other people getting married. In both cases the marriages would have no effect on the public at large. In both cases the states assserted there right under the 10th amendment to do as they pleased... So If you would not be for stated outlawing interracial marriage, then tell me the difference.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#37 Mar 6, 2013
Betes Noires wrote:
<quoted text>Promoting monogamous, committed relationships is a conservative value.
True, but the majority of homosexuals are neither monogamous, committed, or conservative.
Betes Noires

Dallas, TX

#38 Mar 6, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
True, but the majority of homosexuals are neither monogamous, committed, or conservative.
So why wouldn't you support those relationships? Gays exist so you can either encourage promiscuous sex or marriage. take your pick. Clint decided what he thinks is best.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#39 Mar 6, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
True, but the majority of homosexuals are neither monogamous, committed, or conservative.
The majority of single peoople are neither monogamous committed or conservative... Funny how when they get married they become monogamous and committed... there is no reason to believe ssc would be any different
Betes Noires

United States

#41 Mar 6, 2013
The American Genocide wrote:
<quoted text>
Supporting ss anything is championing the further corruption and decrease of the human species entirely whether you like it or not.
Yes, underpopulation is a big threat to the Earth. LOL.
JrEsq

El Segundo, CA

#43 Mar 6, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
The majority of single peoople are neither monogamous committed or conservative... Funny how when they get married they become monogamous and committed... there is no reason to believe ssc would be any different
"..there is no reason to believe ssc would be any different"
You are basing that statement on the present limited state of SSM. SSM on a larger scale, motivated by the possible inclusion of newly awarded access to economic benefits, would encompass a broader sample of homosexuals, rendering your statement false.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#46 Mar 6, 2013
"The results of more than a century of anthropological research on households, kinship relationships, and families, across cultures and through time, provide no support whatsoever for the view that either civilization or viable social orders depend upon marriage as an exclusively heterosexual institution. Rather, anthropological research supports the conclusion that a vast array of family types, including families built upon same-sex partnerships, can contribute to stable and humane societies." (American Anthropological Association)

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#47 Mar 6, 2013
Gay people have always been around and have always formed relationships, no matter how well accepted or how severely punished. The reality is, gay people have formed bonds in the past and will continue to form relationships.

The question then becomes, are we going to accept reality and encourage strong, committed relationships around the shared values of family, fidelity, and responsibility, with the help of friends, family, and the government, or is it in the best interest of society to make laws that attack and demean such relationships, causing unjustified harm to those couples and their children.

Denial of equal treatment under the law provides no benefit to opposite sex couples. It only harms same sex couples needlessly.
Bubba Cooder

Alpharetta, GA

#49 Mar 6, 2013
Happy Anniversary 1913 wrote:
A man without a garden is a man without a mind.
A man without a hoe is a man without a garden
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#51 Mar 6, 2013
JrEsq wrote:
<quoted text>
"..there is no reason to believe ssc would be any different"
You are basing that statement on the present limited state of SSM. SSM on a larger scale, motivated by the possible inclusion of newly awarded access to economic benefits, would encompass a broader sample of homosexuals, rendering your statement false.
Not at all... I am basing it on the FACT that most married couples remain monogamous. Now tell me why that would differ from a osc to a ssc. Your predjudicial sterotype of a homosexual is false... as is your statement on a married ssc monogamy
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#52 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.
So how can one who idetenfies themselves as hetero... remain in a monagomous long term relatinship? Same way as a bi. Just because you are attracted does not mean you have to act on it.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#53 Mar 6, 2013
The American Genocide wrote:
<quoted text>
Supporting ss anything is championing the further corruption and decrease of the human species entirely whether you like it or not.
It's not about "like it or not".

It IS about proving your points and supporting your positions.

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.

California Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min District 1 197,024
News Brown seeks to broaden California's clean-energ... 4 hr Solarman 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 5 hr IB DaMann 54,513
IT IS TIME To BUILD A WALL To KEEP OUT The CANA... 9 hr Joe Balls 1
Election California Proposition 19: the Marijuana Legali... (Oct '10) 14 hr Tiger 16,025
News $2 more for cigarettes? California tobacco tax ... Sat JTTF 8
News Dead migrants found in abandoned truck near Aus... Sat Asian Guy 1
More from around the web