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 1-5051-86 next last

1 posted on 02/27/2013 3:12:41 PM PST by ColdOne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Turning your back on G-d at your age, Clint? Bad timing.


2 posted on 02/27/2013 3:14:23 PM PST by who knows what evil? (G-d saved more animals than people on the ark...www.siameserescue.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Dirty Harry.


3 posted on 02/27/2013 3:14:49 PM PST by Third Person (Do the Strandski!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Guess he had something for Clyde after all....

Seriously, Clint, WTF???


4 posted on 02/27/2013 3:17:20 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?
Turning your back on G-d at your age, Clint? Bad timing.
*snickers* You've got that right.
5 posted on 02/27/2013 3:18:12 PM PST by mlizzy (If people spent an hour a week in Eucharistic adoration, abortion would be ended. --Mother Teresa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

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.


6 posted on 02/27/2013 3:18:23 PM PST by re_nortex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Whose briefs did he sign?


7 posted on 02/27/2013 3:18:41 PM PST by Rebelbase ( .223, .224, whatever it takes....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

You can literally feel the country slipping away by the hour.


8 posted on 02/27/2013 3:19:13 PM PST by capydick (''Life's tough.......it's even tougher if you're stupid.'')
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

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


9 posted on 02/27/2013 3:19:28 PM PST by dennisw (too much of a good thing is a bad thing --- Joe Pine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

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.


10 posted on 02/27/2013 3:22:03 PM PST by stevio (God, guns, guts.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

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.


11 posted on 02/27/2013 3:22:09 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

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.”


12 posted on 02/27/2013 3:22:41 PM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne
Is this the horse-meat thread? An Apache knew the value of a horse.
13 posted on 02/27/2013 3:24:23 PM PST by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

We cannot expect to have someone from Hollyweird tow the Conservative line in all aspects. Still like him.


14 posted on 02/27/2013 3:25:16 PM PST by SgtHooper (The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: capydick

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.


15 posted on 02/27/2013 3:26:08 PM PST by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

excuse, clint (little letter for clint) for an excuse.
16 posted on 02/27/2013 3:26:27 PM PST by no-to-illegals (Scrutinize our government and Secure the Blessing of Freedom and Justice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

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.


17 posted on 02/27/2013 3:27:29 PM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: allendale

Yep, trusting celebutards is as stupid as trusting politicians and poitical parties


18 posted on 02/27/2013 3:28:18 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: re_nortex
He’s still a liberal at core.

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.

19 posted on 02/27/2013 3:28:38 PM PST by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Wasn’t Clint in ‘Rawhide’? So to speak?


20 posted on 02/27/2013 3:28:47 PM PST by Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America (PRISON AT BENGHAZI?????)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdOne

Not a surprise, Truth Has Fallen in the Streets.


21 posted on 02/27/2013 3:30:37 PM PST by easternsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CatherineofAragon
I’ll never agree that sodomites swapping intestinal sludge is “marriage.”

"Intestinal sludge"?....lol...such an apt, succinct description.

The only thing worse would be "picking bowel boogers"

22 posted on 02/27/2013 3:31:26 PM PST by Las Vegas Ron (Medicine is the keystone in the arch of socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
...a libertarian

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

23 posted on 02/27/2013 3:33:17 PM PST by ROCKLOBSTER (Hey RATS! Control your murdering freaks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Las Vegas Ron

OMG....LOL


24 posted on 02/27/2013 3:35:26 PM PST by CatherineofAragon (Support Christian white males---the architects of the jewel known as Western Civilization)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: stevio
This is unbelievable.

Not really. This society has killed 50 million babies since 1973. 50 million.

Same disease, different symptom.

25 posted on 02/27/2013 3:37:00 PM PST by St_Thomas_Aquinas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: capydick

“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.


26 posted on 02/27/2013 3:39:27 PM PST by cld51860 (Oderint dum metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: capydick
You can literally feel the country slipping away by the hour.

It's unbelievable. Like the Soviet union never fell, the commies just came here and are destroying us too.

27 posted on 02/27/2013 3:39:31 PM PST by Zuben Elgenubi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: who knows what evil?
Turning your back on G-d at your age, Clint? Bad timing.

Clint is a committed libertarian.

28 posted on 02/27/2013 3:43:53 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
He is not a Republican, he is not a Conservative --- he is a 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.

29 posted on 02/27/2013 3:43:53 PM PST by re_nortex
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
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.

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

30 posted on 02/27/2013 3:44:33 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

The libertarian position is to support the homosexual agenda, including homosexualizing the United States military.


31 posted on 02/27/2013 3:56:16 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
Is the libertarian position that judges should decide who can marry or voters should decide?

Neither, you decide for yourself if you want to marry Johnny, Jane, Spot, your favorite chair or your own kids.

32 posted on 02/27/2013 3:57:34 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: All


Less Than $700 To Go!!
Just A Reminder
Please Don't Forget
To Donate To FR
This Quarter

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

33 posted on 02/27/2013 3:57:52 PM PST by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Obama_Is_Sabotaging_America

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.


34 posted on 02/27/2013 4:00:06 PM PST by greene66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: GeronL
Neither, you decide for yourself

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

35 posted on 02/27/2013 4:00:14 PM PST by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz

You’re right, he is absolutely a libertarian. But remember, a libertarian is a liberal. A social liberal.

(see tagline)


36 posted on 02/27/2013 4:04:21 PM PST by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LibertarianLiz
Like famed libertarian Noam Chomsky, Clint Eastwood is a dedicated libertarian himself.

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."

Image and video hosting by TinyPic

37 posted on 02/27/2013 4:04:42 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

I think they just want to tear it down, any method is okay for that I guess


38 posted on 02/27/2013 4:05:21 PM PST by GeronL (http://asspos.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dennisw
Or coming up with Glenn Beck style bs that the state has no business regulating marriage or saying what a marriage is

We're in this whole mess regarding marriage, and not just the gay stuff, but also the divorce rate and anti-male family courts, precisely because the government did get its grubby little hands on marriage. Now that the government thinks they own marriage, they think they can redefine it, and worse, force you to accept their redefinition. Marriage should have remained, in the eyes of the American public, an institution which belonged to God only and was validated by God only. Now its just another "entitlement" which you buy a license for, like fishing.
39 posted on 02/27/2013 4:09:11 PM PST by fr_freak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: greene66
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

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.

40 posted on 02/27/2013 4:09:18 PM PST by ansel12 (Romney is a longtime supporter of homosexualizing the Boy Scouts (and the military).)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

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]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-86 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