EXCLUSIVE: Clint Eastwood Signs Brief Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

breitbart.com ^ | 2/27/13 | Mike Flynn

[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.

[ansel12]

Libertarians are not neutral, they are for homosexualizing the military and for homosexual “marriage”.

The libertarians exist to end/defeat political opposition to those positions, and to support/promote politics that supports those positions.

[Mad Dawgg]

"Libertarians are not neutral, they are for homosexualizing the military and for homosexual “marriage”."

Actually the libertarians I know have no such beliefs they do however believe it is not the Government's job to determine who can marry who.

In fact they believe that the very reason there is contention over gay marriage is because the government took it upon itself to reward marriage with monetary goodies. (Income tax and Social Security Benefits) Libertarians believe that if the government had not done such there would be no legal grounds for Gays or Group Marriage advocates to petition the government for equal rights and being awarded monetary goodies for their version of marriage.

[ansel12]

Quit the BS, libertarians are telling you their politics when they tell you that they are libertarian.

The libertarians exist/vote/run for office/speak/write/ participate in forums, to end/defeat political opposition to those positions, and to support/promote politics that support those positions.

[Mad Dawgg]

I see. OK tell me this... would Gay marriage advocates have a legal leg to stand on if the government did not hand out monetary goodies to people who engage in a Normal Marriage?

Libertarians believe Government should not be involved in such.

[ansel12]

Libertarians believe in this, it is why they are against conservatism and as a political group, fight conservatism and vote against it. Libertarianism is their politics, their agenda, their goal.

Throw open the borders completely; only a rare individual (terrorist, disease carrier etc.) can be kept from freedom of movement through “political boundaries”.

Homosexuals; total freedom in the military, gay marriage, adoption, child custody and everything else.

Abortion; zero restrictions or impediments.

Pornography; no restraint, no restrictions.

Drugs; Meth, Heroin, Crack, and anything new that science can come up with, zero restrictions.

Advertising those drugs, prostitution, and pornography; zero restrictions.

Military Strength; minimal capabilities.

[Bratch]

Romans 1
New International Version 1984

God’s Wrath Against Mankind

18The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.

21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

28Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

[ansel12]

Sodom and Gomorrah would have been made up of libertarians/liberals.

[fr_freak]

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

Yeah, as well as knowing that water is wet, the guys that founded this country also knew that you didn't just give the vote to any idiot. Thank God they saved as from that folly. Oh, wait, we gave the vote to women and every idiot over 18 with a pulse. Now we're shocked that all kinds of lunacy is being voted in?

Americans had a chance to see this kind of cultural rot coming. Nobody before 50 years ago would ever have imagined in their most feverish dreams that two queers would get "married", but when polygamy rose, they could have recognized then that a uniform definition of marriage was necessary. My guess is that it wasn't taken care of at the federal level because people still respected the 9th and 10th amendments back then, but as I recall, they made a change of the definition of marriage as one man-one woman in the Utah constitution in order for Utah to gain statehood.

We also tried to get the definition of marriage as explicitly one man-one woman in the CA constitution (Prop 8), but our corrupt judiciary put that on hold, and now it is going to the US Supreme Court, and I'll be shocked if they don't (illegally) strike it down, because our entire federal government is overrun by communists.

So now that we can't depend on our own government to do a damn thing, how about if we just get them out of our business altogether? Or, we could just hold hands and have a good cry over how things should have been. Either that, or let's just get CWII on.

[fr_freak]

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.

That's the way it works in theory, but when is the last time you heard of any government in the US enforcing the marriage contract in any reasonable way? When a man gets a marriage license, does he sign a piece of paper that says that his wife can dissolve the union any time she feels like it, take the kids, and have the poor sucker pay her money for the rest of her life? Does that marriage license say that the ex-wife can prevent her own (ex) husband from seeing his own children just because she feels like it, while at the same time he has to pay her money for their upkeep?

Someone married in 1960 would have understood marriage to be one thing, only to have the government change the definition of marriage later on. For example, at the time of the marriage, the union could only be dissolved by proof of infidelity. 20 years or so later, the government arbitrarily changed those rules to where the marriage can be dissolved by either party for no reason. So, when the man agreed to get married, he was under one set of rules, and years later he was under another through no action of his own. How is that a valid contract?

Furthermore, pre-nuptial agreements actually ARE fully legal, signed contracts, yet how often does the government, during divorce, honor those agreements? From what I understand, judges toss them out for the most spurious of reasons whenever they do what they were designed to do - to keep the woman from financially ruining the man on a whim.

So how has government at any level been honoring and enforcing the marriage contract in any way for at least the last 50 years?

[gdani]

But remember, a libertarian is a liberal. A social liberal.

The Gipper would disagree -- "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism".

[ex-snook]

YOU'RE STUPID!

[sakic]

Paul Ryan is a Libertarian, too.

[sagar]

“Libertarian: a drug addled, baby-killing, boy-raping atheist.”

A libertarian can be drug addled atheist, but cannot kill or rape anyone. A libertarian does not want government intervention in ANY aspect of liberty... from good to bad, as long as the actions do not interfere with another individual’s rights and liberty.

Raping and killing others are about destroying others’ rights. Destroying your own body and rejection of superstition do not interfere with others’ rights.

This country is being destroyed by anti-libertarians who believe in government big enough to interfere with businesses and personal lives.

Get your stinking paws off of my business! That is the libertarian motto.

[ROCKLOBSTER]

“Libertarian: a drug addled, baby-killing, boy-raping atheist.” A libertarian can be drug addled atheist, but cannot kill or rape anyone. A libertarian does not want government intervention in ANY aspect of liberty... from good to bad, as long as the actions do not interfere with another individual’s rights and liberty. Raping and killing others are about destroying others’ rights. Destroying your own body and rejection of superstition do not interfere with others’ rights. This country is being destroyed by anti-libertarians who believe in government big enough to interfere with businesses and personal lives. Get your stinking paws off of my business! That is the libertarian motto.

I read the platform, I've listened to Boortz.

I stand by my comment. They believe in allowing abortion and faggotry. Which is exactly what I'm referring to.

[Lancey Howard]

Wow. If there was one guy I thought had shaken the stench of Hollywood, I thought it would be Clint.
Oh well. Say hi to all your fudge packing buddies, “Dirty” Harry.

[re_nortex]

Sodom and Gomorrah would have been made up of libertarians/liberals.

I think you know, ansel12, that I have always found your postings to be beneficial and most enlightening. You come armed with well-supported facts and often cite primary sources and/or statistics (sometimes with charts or graphs) to back up your assertions. Your credibility is unquestioned in my mind.

This succinct remark aptly of yours sums it up in a concise manner. I've long held the viewpoint that a God of Justice would not have spared the evildoers of Sodom and Gomorrah had its citizens favored low taxes and small government. There's more to authentic Conservatism than merely fiscal prudence and laissez-faire. That's why I've never been enamored of Ayn Rand, an atheist who who favored abortion. I see being pro-God and Conservatism as inseparable.

I guess my rather long-winded statements above really boil down to just this: well said and a hearty amen!

[ansel12]

Thanks, but you sure say it better than I do, that was a thought provoking post, and very well said.

[ansel12]

The Gipper would disagree -- "I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism".

LOL, read the interview, Reagan proceeded to explain how he is a social conservative and disagreed with libertarians.

It is funny to see that one sentence pulled out of a 1975 interview when presidential candidate Reagan was being interviewed by a libertarian publication for a small libertarian audience, 40 years in politics, and you have that one sentence that he said to a libertarian audience in 1975, that sure isn't much of a record is it?

[ansel12]

But remember, a libertarian is a liberal. A social liberal.

That is why they exist, for liberalism, they claim to share conservative economics, but their passion is serving the leftist social agenda, that is why they fight conservatism rather than support it.

Libertarians are soldiers of the left.

[sakic]

The contractual part of marriage is why priests cannot marry.