Posted on 03/03/2013 8:10:25 PM PST by SeekAndFind
He's one of the few big-time celebrities who is also a big-time Republican.
But Clint Eastwood has veered from the viewpoint of many Conservatives in one regard: the actor signed the American Foundation for Equal Rights’s “Friend of the Court” brief this week.
In doing so, the actor became one of over 100 prominent Republicans to support this gay rights organization's document, which it has filed with the Supreme Court.
n April, the highest court in the land will listen to arguments about the legality of California’s Proposition 8, an amendment that passed in 2008 and which declares “only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized" in that state.
Those such as Eastwood have affixed their name to this brief in the hope that this gay marriage ban will be overturned.
And recent poll revealed that 61 percent of CA residents would support marriage equality.
“Your post didn’t say anything, according to you the Pope was always tolerant of whatever people wanted to do with marriage, he never imposed any rules on anyone, Kings and peasant both could practice polygamy and gay marriage.”
My post said the Pope doesn’t have the power to change the definition of marriage. No bad Pope has even attempted it. Unlike the state, whose definition has changed and will keep changing, and will punished people for not buying into its current definition. Punishing people with the power of the state is what the ‘gay marriage’ fight is all about.
“As far as there not being any definition of marriage, just whatever people want to make up...”
Whatever people want to make up is how the state defines the institution. It is whatever judges, politicians, or the voting majority want to make up as concerns what they think marriage is at the time. Sometimes they make up an impossibility like ‘gay marriage.’ The difference between the state and someone’s faith coming up with ‘gay marriage’ is that the state has the power to punish you if you disagree.
“...then what about the military and benefits to married people, and divorce and child custody , states recognizing marriages etc”
It’s a trade off between benefits from the state and the state punishing those who will never accept ‘gay marriage.’ What two private people draw up as a contract between them is up to them.
But no, I don’t think it will ever happen, as the statists and homosexualists will never give up the power to punish those who don’t accept things like ‘gay marriage’.
Does the state define marriage for you?
Freegards
How Hollywood of him,he drank the Kool-Aid.
Suddenly a man who looked like a reasonable conservative turns out to be and empty-headed liberal, actor fool. Funny how the Hollywood types all seem to slip over the line after while.
I'm done backing a corrupt party. My vote is worth a lot to me. I'm praying for a strong third party. I'm sick of voting for a party that hates me and expects me to donate so they can screw up the country at a slower pace than the left is. Besides, I can look myself in the mirror and not hate who I have become.
Hezekiah King of Judah
18 In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah king of Israel, Hezekiah son of Ahaz king of Judah began to reign. 2 He was twenty-five years old when he became king, and he reigned in Jerusalem twenty-nine years....He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father David had done. 4 He removed the high places, smashed the sacred stones and cut down the Asherah poles....
5 Hezekiah trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel. There was no one like him among all the kings of Judah, either before him or after him. 6 He held fast to the Lord and did not stop following him; he kept the commands the Lord had given Moses. 7 And the Lord was with him; he was successful in whatever he undertook. He rebelled against the king of Assyria and did not serve him. 8 From watchtower to fortified city, he defeated the Philistines, as far as Gaza and its territory.
2 Kings
No “what ifs”. This has been happening for years. I was propositioned by a friend of mine to marry his sister. The going rate was $5K to “marry” an immigrant. The USCIS has changed the rules on marriage because of this. Now you have to be married two years before they grant the permanent green card.
RE: Now you have to be married two years before they grant the permanent green card.
No big deal. If the “marriage” were simply a private arrangement, you can date anyone you want without your “spouse” objecting ( He/she got his/her thousands, so what’s the big deal?). Then you can conveniently divorce after you get your green card.
If they’ve done it for opposite sex partners, they can do it for same-sex partners ( even for those who aren’t really gay ).
..... I agree ..... at this current period in history, there is only room at CPAC for those people who are worthy to cast the first stone. (John 8:7 KJV).
There can be no others if the GOP wants to remain pure.
Clint made a commercial endorsement in effect, Dirty Harry put his name on gay marriage, that makes it more acceptable and palatable to many people, it especially makes it more acceptable to males.
Again, lots and lots of nothing.
The Pope imposed his definition of marriage on people, unless you are saying that when the Pope had power over people that he let them make their own definitions of marriage.
In your world, Islam and gays and atheists, and anyone and everyone defines legal marriage.
You yourself can claim anything you want to, but it doesn’t mean that it carries weight when you are in the military, or when you divorce and have assets and children, or when you travel between states, or all the other things that require a shared definition of “marriage”.
“In your world, Islam and gays and atheists, and anyone and everyone defines legal marriage.”
That sounds like your world to me. Gays, atheists, Muslims, and anyone and everyone can vote to determine how the state recognizes marriage right now, that’s how the state comes up with its definition. To the state, marriage is simply whatever judges, pols, or the voting public decide it is at any one time. Sometimes it coincides with the actual definition, sometimes they come up with impossibilities like ‘gay marriage.’
Does the state define marriage for you? I doubt if it does. I bet your faith would go with its own definition if the state tried to punish it for not accepting ‘gay marriage’ or some other impossibility the state is calling marriage at the time.
Freegards
In other words there is no such thing as marriage, it is without form or definition, it is whatever anyone says it is.
That should be interesting when it comes to law, and military couples and interstate travel.
Public opinion and demographics do not define what is defined by God.
Homosexual sex is intrinsically disordered and self destructive individually and societally -it is not worthy of promotion as normal let alone worthy of ANY social privilege.
There is NOTHING conservative about it and those supporting the government promotion of it are by default no longer conservative.
“In other words there is no such thing as marriage, it is without form or definition, it is whatever anyone says it is.”
No. There is no such thing as ‘gay marriage’, it is without reason or possibility, despite whatever the state says or punishments it may bring on those who reject its nonsense definition of ‘gay marriage.’
Freegards
According to you, if a gay church wants gay marriage, then so be it, just like polygamy, because churches, which of course would include non-churches and atheists, define marriage.
Your rule is that in America, churches, Mosques, and Mormon temples, atheist churches, gay churches, weird cults, and so on all define marriage. I don’t understand how that works when marriage needs to be recognized by the law, for instance in divorce, or with military benefits, pensions and so on.
Why wouldn't he know about Italian laws on marriage, he was Italian and should have known his country's laws before he was pope.
He should also have known about Roman marriage laws and ancient Greece and laws about marriage.
“According to you, if a gay church wants gay marriage, then so be it, just like polygamy, because churches, which of course would include non-churches and atheists, define marriage.”
As long as they don’t have the power of the state to punish me for not buying into their wackadoo marriages, I don’t care about their wackadoo couplings, my faith will never accept them. They do have the power of the state behind them in 9 states so far, because in 9 states the state accepts ‘gay marriage’ in its definition of marriage. And any gay church already has the power to declare its homosexual members married, they just can’t punish anyone for not buying it in the rest of the 41 states. Yet.
“Your rule is that in America, churches, Mosques, and Mormon temples, atheist churches, gay churches, weird cults, and so on all define marriage.”
Your rule is that the state defines marriage and punishes those who will never accept its ever-evolving definitions.
Freegards
How does your faith decide law when your wife changes the locks, and denies you seeing the children?
It doesn’t, just like it doesn’t when two people living together without being married according to the state have the same problem now.
How does your faith decide your actions when the state punishes you if you don’t accept state recognized ‘gay marriage’, like refusing to cater or rent your property for a state sanctioned ‘gay marriage’? What will your faith do if the state punishes it by not allowing state sanctioned marriages at all in that faith? I have a hard time beleiving that it won’t have any more marriages simply because the state won’t recognize those marriages.
Freegards
Like I said, you believe marriage is anything anyone wants to call it, which in effect means that marriage doesn’t exist, but the reality is that marriage and divorce law is necessary, there has to be legal definitions of marriage.
Your just ignoring that and repeating yourself over and over is a waste of time. The Mosque doesn’t define marriage in America, regardless of what you want.
The state doesn’t define marriage in America or anywhere else. Unless you think state recognition of ‘gay marriage’ makes ‘gay marriage’ or any other impossibility possible. But I doubt you do. I hope not.
Freegards
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.