Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

EXCLUSIVE: Clint Eastwood Signs Brief Supporting Same-Sex Marriage
breitbart.com ^ | 2/27/13 | Mike Flynn

Posted on 02/27/2013 3:12:39 PM PST by ColdOne

Breitbart News has learned exclusively that Clint Eastwood has signed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court, supporting the right of same-sex couples to marry. The brief, which will be released later this evening, has signatures from more than 100 Republican and conservative activists. It involves the case before the Supreme Court, seeking to overturn CA's Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in the state.

A well-placed GOP source provided Breitbart News with an early glimpse of the brief.

(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: clinteastwood; eastwood; fiscalconservatives; homosexualagenda; libertarians; moralabsolutes; socialliberals; sodomite
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last
To: re_nortex

Dittoes

If you are not socially conservative then you are no real conservative.

Period.


41 posted on 02/27/2013 4:11:27 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

From Wiki — “Twice married, Eastwood has fathered seven children by five different women.”

Our culture is so far gone that many consider him a conservative.


42 posted on 02/27/2013 4:14:28 PM PST by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
I'm confused. Is the libertarian position that judges should decide who can marry or voters should decide?

That is a question of process, not substance, so the libertarian position would likely be neutral on that particular question, in a sense. I say in a sense, because the broader libertarian position on same-sex "marriage" would be that neither judges nor voters should decide, because, for the most part, government should not decide who can marry; it should be left to individuals/churches/etc. (Not arguing for that position, just speculating what it would be)

43 posted on 02/27/2013 4:14:58 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Exactly. I could not agree more.


44 posted on 02/27/2013 4:15:36 PM PST by heye2monn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak
Marriage should have remained, in the eyes of the American public, an institution which belonged to God only and was validated by God only.

The government or church authority has always decided what marriage is, and the US government got involved in the 1860s when a new religious cult introduced polygamy, and got large enough that intervention was called for.

Today, we don't want Islam, or Mormonism, or atheists, or the church of NAMBLA defining marriage.

45 posted on 02/27/2013 4:16:15 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
That is a question of process, not substance,

Welcome to the Constitution.

As to the process of getting judges to declare who can and cannot be married, the greatest damage that has been done to the fabric of this nation has been accomplished by judges. The solons who handed down the Dredd Scott decision all but started the Civil War. And the judges who handed down the Roe v. Wade decision started the culture wars.

If I were a libertarian, I would think thrice before going to the Supreme Court to accomplish cultural objectives which have been lost in the Court of Public Opinion.

46 posted on 02/27/2013 4:27:08 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

Get real. “The State” has always had laws on marriage going back thousands of years. You figure you can just toss them. These laws were reasonable and just until it came to the present day gay agitators who will be happy with what you have to say on this.

Governments here exceed their bounds and do all kinds of meddling. But defining marriage as between a man and a woman and issue a legally binding license is a very basic duty of gov’t here and worldwide


47 posted on 02/27/2013 4:41:07 PM PST by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: dennisw

It is the breakdown of the traditional family that is the number one cause of the growth of the Federal Leviathan. Government has become the “parent.”


48 posted on 02/27/2013 4:43:46 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
Welcome to the Constitution.

Of course, I understand that the Constitution establishes the procedural framework for who should make these sorts of decisions, and how. All I was saying is that libertarianism, as a governing philosophy, generally has more to say about what government should and should not do, than it does about the process of how government should make decisions.

49 posted on 02/27/2013 4:47:21 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
But defining marriage as between a man and a woman and issue a legally binding license is a very basic duty of gov’t here and worldwide

Fine, then it should have been in the federal Constitution that marriage is one man and one woman. Without that, letting marriage be under the control of the government left us open to a whole host of problems, which we're seeing now. Keep in mind that there is a difference between a government recognizing a marriage, and defining it. There is also a difference between most governments in history and ours, as in, dictatorships vs. republic. Our government could have been structured to recognize marriage that was sanctioned by churches or synagogues or whatever, but instead it took it upon itself to have the power to not only define marriage, but license it, regulate it, and preside over the terms of its demise. Heck, even Henry VIII had to abide by the Catholic Church's rules of marriage until the ol' Church of England was established.
50 posted on 02/27/2013 4:51:53 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Where’s a chair?


51 posted on 02/27/2013 5:00:15 PM PST by exit82 ("The Taliban is on the inside of the building" E. Nordstrom 10-10-12)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak; dennisw
Gov't is involved with marriage because marriage is a contract - and almost certainly the single most important contract anyone will enter into during the lives.

I don't know what the current libertarian position is on contracts but it used to be that people understand you look to the courts to enforce contracts and you look to the law (both common law and statutory law) to determine how a contract should be enforced. Common law is built up thru the courts and statutory law is created by legislatures. So, yes the gov't is involved in marriages and it is hard to see how it could be any other way than it is.

I'm getting old though so maybe things have changed in the past decade or so.

52 posted on 02/27/2013 5:04:54 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: fr_freak

Fine, then it should have been in the federal Constitution that marriage is one man and one woman

Yes. This should have been included in the Constitution same as clauses stating that water is wet and the sky is blue. When The Constitution was written there was zero doubt what constituted marriage so why would it be included? Maybe today everything is up for grabs, but not back then

53 posted on 02/27/2013 5:28:23 PM PST by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

The one thing that the majority of African Americans and Hispanics voted for correctly... so sad.


54 posted on 02/27/2013 5:29:49 PM PST by Viennacon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

Religions also draw up marriage contract, some terms need to be set or its a free for all like we have today with the gays and other wackos. With all kinds of free lancers and wise guys who think they can do a better job inventing the wheel

Here is the Jewish marriage contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketubah Which among other things sets out the responsibilities of the husband and protects the wife


55 posted on 02/27/2013 5:33:53 PM PST by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

Noam Chomsky is a left libertarian
Clint Eastwood is a right libertarian

“A libertarian is a liberal who wants a tax cut”


56 posted on 02/27/2013 5:40:48 PM PST by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Religions also draw up marriage contract,

The key word is contract. Either religious courts or civil courts end up having to enforce it. So no matter what you do, some third party authority ends up having to enforce its provisions.

57 posted on 02/27/2013 6:26:37 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

No surprise. The new plutocracy imposes the pathologies more common its own members on all Americans and forces all Americans to pay the costs of those pathologies.

As for Libertarianism, it’s much like feminism. Each Libertarian claims to be for or against whatever will help with infiltration, disruptions of conservative discussions and with recruiting bandwagons of dupes to insult and defame real conservatives. Most of them are descended more recently from other countries, hopped from the northeastern states to the west coast, and now oozing all over our country to soil it with European religion, culture and more than one kind of balkanization.


58 posted on 02/27/2013 6:51:03 PM PST by familyop (We Baby Boomers are croaking in an avalanche of rotten politics smelled around the planet.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
Then why are they signing an Amicus brief asking judges to decide the question?

I'm wondering the same thing.

59 posted on 02/27/2013 7:05:53 PM PST by Jane Long
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne; AdmSmith; AnonymousConservative; Berosus; bigheadfred; Bockscar; Convert from ECUSA; ...

Thanks ColdOne.
60 posted on 02/27/2013 7:38:06 PM PST by SunkenCiv (Romney would have been worse, if you're a dumb ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-86 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson