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.

First Prev
of 4
Next Last

“Serenity Now!”

Since: May 07

York Township, OH

#1 Mar 1, 2013
Eastwood is a traitor to conservatism.

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#2 Mar 1, 2013
Clint is a true conservative.

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#4 Mar 1, 2013
Brittle Fingers wrote:
Eastwood is a traitor to conservatism.
Well, surely you can find a couple empty chairs with which you can commiserate !
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#5 Mar 1, 2013
Brittle Fingers wrote:
Eastwood is a traitor to conservatism.
Seems to me that conservatives want to go by the constitution. Now since the constitution has the equal protection clause in it... seems to me Mr. Eastwood is being a TRUE conservative and abiding by the constitution
Bernie

Topeka, KS

#6 Mar 1, 2013
Either Clint Eastwood has turned senile in his old age or he's a closeted queer, either way it's a downright shame!!!
Pig Benis

Louisville, KY

#7 Mar 1, 2013
I've lost all respect for Clint Eastwood!!

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#8 Mar 1, 2013
"The less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice."
Clint Eastwood
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#9 Mar 1, 2013
Bernie wrote:
Either Clint Eastwood has turned senile in his old age or he's a closeted queer, either way it's a downright shame!!!
So if you are for ssm and homosexual rights you must be homosexual...
I am for black, women, and disabled rights but that does not make me a black wheelchair bound women... just an true american

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#10 Mar 1, 2013
“There has always been homosexuality, ever since man and woman were invented. I guess there were gay apes. So that's not an issue. The Republican Party should stand for freedom and only freedom. Don't raise hell about the gays, the Blacks and the Mexicans. Free people have a right to do as they damn well please."

Conservative Icon, WW 2 Hero, US Senator, Republican Presidential candidate, Barry Goldwater
Central Arkansas Guy

Camden, AR

#11 Mar 1, 2013

Since: Mar 09

Location hidden

#12 Mar 1, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you are for ssm and homosexual rights you must be homosexual...
I am for black, women, and disabled rights but that does not make me a black wheelchair bound women... just an true american
Very good.

“Serenity Now!”

Since: May 07

York Township, OH

#15 Mar 5, 2013
Maybe Eastwood should go visit the Democrat convention next time. He can sit next to his new buddy, President Hussein, along with whatever far-left liberal marxist they nominate in 2016.
come on now

Bolingbrook, IL

#16 Mar 5, 2013
Brittle Fingers wrote:
Maybe Eastwood should go visit the Democrat convention next time. He can sit next to his new buddy, President Hussein, along with whatever far-left liberal marxist they nominate in 2016.
You do realize t here are MANY conservatives who are for ssm. You see conservatives like the constitution, which allow s for equal rights for ALL american, not just the ones you are not prejudice against

“Serenity Now!”

Since: May 07

York Township, OH

#17 Mar 5, 2013
come on now wrote:
<quoted text>
You do realize t here are MANY conservatives who are for ssm. You see conservatives like the constitution, which allow s for equal rights for ALL american, not just the ones you are not prejudice against
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.

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#18 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.
"Consenting Adult" closes the door on your discrimination scenario against children, chickens and other animals. Try again.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#19 Mar 5, 2013
Brittle Fingers wrote:
First, I'm sure an overwhelming majority of those who define themselves as conservatives are against same-sex marriage.
Yes, that remains true, but the cracks in the monolithic opposition to same sex marriages by self-identified conservatives are clearly growing. Social conservatives are quickly marginalizing themselves by their own words and actions.
Brittle Fingers wrote:
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.
Shhh, don't tell anyone, but in most states, you can already marry children who aren't even of legal age to consent to sex. A mechanism exists in most states to allow it, even in instances where you illegally had sex before the marriage and one of you was carrying proof. What keeps it from getting any stranger than the law allows is the state's compelling interest in protecting minors from harm.
Brittle Fingers wrote:
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?
The problem, any limit beyond one spouse per individual at one time would be arbitrary and indefensible to construct. The state has a compelling interest in being able to regulate marriage which poly relationships would strip them of. Sorry.
Brittle Fingers wrote:
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.
Here you would be running a fowl of multiple marriage restrictions, not just one. Unless the hen of your dreams has proof that they are at least 18 years of age, they will also need parental and probably judicial consent to marry at some of the scary minimums currently allowed. Then there is the question of the affirmation consenting to the marriage required by law. Is your chicken delight saying I do or begging us to help them get away from you? I just love it when y'all bring up all these other what ifs as if you actually stumbled on an idea.
Brittle Fingers wrote:
These things may sound silly now, but the idea of same-sex marriage was unthinkable up until the last decade or so.
Actually dear, that was a silly thought pretty much at any point in human history. Same sex marriages and legally/spiritually/socially recognized same sex relationships have occurred on and off in the history of a number of different cultures. Both the Eastern and Western Christian Churches once offered their blessings for male couples in a rite known as brotherment.
Brittle Fingers wrote:
We have had a set definition of marriage for centuries. You change it, you open the door to all sorts of things.
Actually you don't and the "definition" of marriage hasn't been set for centuries, it has been changed and changed again throughout history.
lamer

Hopkins, MN

#20 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.
the majority whom call themselves conservatives today hardly know what conservatism is much less practise it. Conservatism is a great platform as along as you dont pervert it into what it is today. If there was an authentic conservative movement in this country then you wouldnt be losing to blacks, latinos, gays, women, indians, ect.

“Serenity Now!”

Since: May 07

York Township, OH

#22 Mar 5, 2013
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?)

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#23 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?)
And marriage equality doesn't fit your belief on the issue. If the will of the people were the only protection individuals had, only white landowners would be able to vote, there would still be slavery and women would not be allowed to vote!

“Equality marches on! ”

Since: Apr 08

Location hidden

#25 Mar 5, 2013
I see my Whack-a-doodle stalker is back. Keep posting your lunacy, it makes even more people scroll right on past when they see the location! Are you and David Moore a couple?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 4
Next Last

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.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Copyright lawsuits involving hit songs Jun 24 John McCharlie 3
News Appeals court: No right to carry concealed weap... Jun 12 WeTheSheeple 79
News Concealed carry in public not guaranteed under ... Jun 12 payme 11
News Could appeals court concealed carry ruling impa... Jun 11 RiflemanIII 1
News Federal Court rules Arizona cannot legally deny... Jun 11 Nopal 71
News Appeals courts agree on concealed weapons ban r... Jun 11 Bama Yankee 1
News Illegal immigrants kidnapping children to sneak... Jun 8 tomin cali 1
More from around the web