Skip to comments.EXCLUSIVE: Clint Eastwood Signs Brief Supporting Same-Sex Marriage
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 ...
Turning your back on G-d at your age, Clint? Bad timing.
Guess he had something for Clyde after all....
Seriously, Clint, WTF???
Turning your back on G-d at your age, Clint? Bad timing.*snickers* You've got that right.
Clint Eastwood is not to be trusted. He was rightly reviled here by most FReepers for his “Second Half” commercial in the February 2012 Super Bowl. It was a thinly disguised pep talk for Obama supporters. Then his “empty chair” monologue redeemed him in the eyes of many. Not me. He’s still a liberal at core. This latest stance by Eastwood on behalf of sodomite “marriage” reveals that he’s nothing more than Hollyweird pusher for the homosexual agenda like his buddy Mitt Romney.
Whose briefs did he sign?
You can literally feel the country slipping away by the hour.
Clint is coming at it from his libertarian side. Ignoring 5000+ years of Judeo-Christian civilization...Lots of libertarians are the same as Clint. Godless or or semi-Godless. Or coming up with Glenn Beck style bs that the state has no business regulating marriage or saying what a marriage is
Do these so-called conservatives realize they face eternal damnation? Same-sex marriage was NEVER permitted by any civilized societies. We mock God. This is unbelievable.
I think Eastwood has stated he’s socially liberal, so no big surprise here.
I have no expectations of anyone in Hollywood, nor any politician (except maybe Allen West). I also like Rick Perry and Sarah Palin, but Sarah isn’t in politics any longer.
I’ll never agree that sodomites swapping intestinal sludge is “marriage.” Almost everyone in Hollywood, and most politicians, will cave at some point.
These people think that if gays can legally marry that will be the end of the gay agenda and that they will have achieved everything they want. If only that were true.
On the contrary, it will just empower them to attack other planks of society, like Christianity, and demand not only acceptance, but celebration of the homosexual lifestyle, and will attack everything associated with what they refer to as, “Heteronormative Society.”
We cannot expect to have someone from Hollyweird tow the Conservative line in all aspects. Still like him.
Celebrity worship is decadence. Actors are simply people who make their living pretending to be someone else. Skillful and attractive perhaps but clearly not worth adulation or to be looked upon for moral instruction.
No surprise. Eastwood has a few good points, but he’s always been cozy with modern Hollywood depravity. Sickos rule the roost in every corner of the industry now.
Yep, trusting celebutards is as stupid as trusting politicians and poitical parties
No, he is a libertarian. That is why sometimes you agree with him, and then, sometimes you can't understand him. He is not a Republican, he is not a Conservative --- he is a libertarian.
Wasn’t Clint in ‘Rawhide’? So to speak?
Not a surprise, Truth Has Fallen in the Streets.
"Intestinal sludge"?....lol...such an apt, succinct description.
The only thing worse would be "picking bowel boogers"
Libertarian: a drug addled, baby-killing, boy-raping atheist.
Not really. This society has killed 50 million babies since 1973. 50 million.
Same disease, different symptom.
“You can literally feel the country slipping away by the hour.”
You’ve got that sick feeling too, huh? I have told my like-minded co-workers that looking at the news sites (I no longer wtach any tv “news”) is like getting a kick to the gut ever.single.time.
It's unbelievable. Like the Soviet union never fell, the commies just came here and are destroying us too.
Clint is a committed libertarian.
I'll be perfectly honest and you may not like this. My stand is narrow and admittedly intolerant. Politically, I see most things in a binary form without nuance or shades of gray on a continuum. Therefore, if you're not a Conservative both fiscally and morally, you're a liberal. It reduces to the old saw of "you're either for us or against us". I long held the opinion that the smiting of Sodom and Gomorrah by a God of Justice would not have been mitigated one iota if its denizens adhered to a policy of low taxes and a non-intrusive government. Their evil of homosexuality defined the nature of those people.
So there it is, my viewpoint expressed with all candor. I'm sure we have a large degree of daylight in how we see things but tolerance for any aspect of homosexuality disqualifies one from being a Conservative. Ergo, that makes one a liberal. I hope there are no hard feelings between us but I did owe you an explanation for my characterization of Clint Eastwood.
I'm confused. Is the libertarian position that judges should decide who can marry or voters should decide?
The libertarian position is to support the homosexual agenda, including homosexualizing the United States military.
Neither, you decide for yourself if you want to marry Johnny, Jane, Spot, your favorite chair or your own kids.
You know, I always liked and identified much more with Eric Fleming in “Rawhide.” He was the stern, no-nonsense adult character. The type of character you no longer see in Hollywood product anymore, ever since the whole entertainment industry became so pathetically faggotized.
The best (and maybe only) cure for Hollywood would be a nice, flaming meteor.
Then why are they signing an Amicus brief asking judges to decide the question?
You’re right, he is absolutely a libertarian. But remember, a libertarian is a liberal. A social liberal.
From wiki--"In 1992, Eastwood acknowledged to writer David Breskin that his political views represented a fusion of Milton Friedman and Noam Chomsky and suggested that they would make for a worthwhile presidential ticket.
In 1999, Eastwood stated, "I guess I was a social liberal and fiscal conservative before it became fashionable." Ten years later, in 2009, Eastwood said that he was now a registered Libertarian."
I think they just want to tear it down, any method is okay for that I guess
I think that you would also love "Wagon Train" and Ward Bond, the early series is even more blunt and gritty than Rawhide in having to deal with the reality and costs of crossing the wilderness during that period.
If you are not socially conservative then you are no real conservative.
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.
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)
Exactly. I could not agree more.
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.
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.
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
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.”
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.
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.