Clint Eastwood Signs Brief Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

[IlarMeilyr]

Clint Eastwood Signs Brief Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

And?

Lots of people share his view that "legal" opposition to the right of gay people to marry each other is archaic and misguided.

If the State has to be involved in the "union" of couples for reasons like child care and insurance and inheritance, etc., that's maybe a legitimate use of government power.

But what the State does should not be to "sanctify" the relationship beyond legal recognition. So, call every union, whether its heterosexual couples of gay and lesbian couple, the same name. Call it the civil union.

If the folks who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds seek an official religious bond and the title to go with it that excludes gays, they can go into their churches or temples and get "married" there. Under this plan, the government will still call it a "civil union," but the religious folks get to call it a "marriage" and they can to their hearts' content deny that name to the gays.

Under this plan, the gay couples, by contrast, can find a church or temple that does recognize gay unions and which refers to the result as "marriage." The heterosexual religious folks who object don't have to buy into that use of language, but at least their personal views have no legal force. At least the State stays out of religious matters.

Problem solved.

 

[JoeB131]

Clint Eastwood Signs Brief Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

And?

Lots of people share his view that "legal" opposition to the right of gay people to marry each other is archaic and misguided.

If the State has to be involved in the "union" of couples for reasons like child care and insurance and inheritance, etc., that's maybe a legitimate use of government power.

But what the State does should not be to "sanctify" the relationship beyond legal recognition. So, call every union, whether its heterosexual couples of gay and lesbian couple, the same name. Call it the civil union.

If the folks who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds seek an official religious bond and the title to go with it that excludes gays, they can go into their churches or temples and get "married" there. Under this plan, the government will still call it a "civil union," but the religious folks get to call it a "marriage" and they can to their hearts' content deny that name to the gays.

Under this plan, the gay couples, by contrast, can find a church or temple that does recognize gay unions and which refers to the result as "marriage." The heterosexual religious folks who object don't have to buy into that use of language, but at least their personal views have no legal force. At least the State stays out of religious matters.

Problem solved.

This is a lot of hand-standing to rationalize your bigotry, isn't it?

When you get right down to it, all arguments against gay marriage boil down to "I think it's icky (at least when dudes are involved)" and "My Invisible Sky Pixie called it an abomination".

How's this for a plan. You just legalize marriage between any two consenting adults who aren't already married to someone else and aren't related. Period. And you call it marriage. Don't go changing the names so the religious knuckle-draggers can keep thinking that their legal fiction is endorsed by a Sky Pixie.

Works pretty well for me. Problem solved.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Clint Eastwood Signs Brief Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

And?

Lots of people share his view that "legal" opposition to the right of gay people to marry each other is archaic and misguided.

If the State has to be involved in the "union" of couples for reasons like child care and insurance and inheritance, etc., that's maybe a legitimate use of government power.

But what the State does should not be to "sanctify" the relationship beyond legal recognition. So, call every union, whether its heterosexual couples of gay and lesbian couple, the same name. Call it the civil union.

If the folks who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds seek an official religious bond and the title to go with it that excludes gays, they can go into their churches or temples and get "married" there. Under this plan, the government will still call it a "civil union," but the religious folks get to call it a "marriage" and they can to their hearts' content deny that name to the gays.

Under this plan, the gay couples, by contrast, can find a church or temple that does recognize gay unions and which refers to the result as "marriage." The heterosexual religious folks who object don't have to buy into that use of language, but at least their personal views have no legal force. At least the State stays out of religious matters.

Problem solved.

This is a lot of hand-standing to rationalize your bigotry, isn't it?

When you get right down to it, all arguments against gay marriage boil down to "I think it's icky (at least when dudes are involved)" and "My Invisible Sky Pixie called it an abomination".

How's this for a plan. You just legalize marriage between any two consenting adults who aren't already married to someone else and aren't related. Period. And you call it marriage. Don't go changing the names so the religious knuckle-draggers can keep thinking that their legal fiction is endorsed by a Sky Pixie.

Works pretty well for me. Problem solved.

You are truly an asshole.

I am not the bigot. How you could read what I wrote in the prior post and come to that completely empty conclusion is mystifying. Your narrow mind is so polluted that you apparently just "see" what you expect to see regardless of whther there's any hint of it being there. You asshole.

I happen to agree with Clint. It is my view that if the nation of "conservative" is properly understood, most conservatives would (at least as far as the law is concerned) agree with me that this is not a matter we should even be involved in.

Your plan is stupid. It is an expr4ession of your particular viewpoint that does violence to the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause.

But since you appear to be just another mindless liberal, you don't care about larger principles and you are fine with an over reaching government.

The government should not be in the business of making any religious decisions.

Did I mention how much of an asshole you are?

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Again- our only two Businessmen President.

Herbert Hoover and George W. Bush.

Jimmy Carter was a businessman.

Give up and quit the hate Joe!!

I thought he was a peanut farmer...

But if we accept your contention, doesn't that just underscore my point that the "skills" that make you a good businessman (Namely, being a complete douchebag) make you a horrible president?

So can you name a businessman President who didn't totally fuck it all up?

^ doesn't view farmers as businessmen. ^ ignorance.

 

[Seawytch]

Clint Eastwood Signs Brief Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

And?

Lots of people share his view that "legal" opposition to the right of gay people to marry each other is archaic and misguided.

If the State has to be involved in the "union" of couples for reasons like child care and insurance and inheritance, etc., that's maybe a legitimate use of government power.

But what the State does should not be to "sanctify" the relationship beyond legal recognition. So, call every union, whether its heterosexual couples of gay and lesbian couple, the same name. Call it the civil union.

If the folks who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds seek an official religious bond and the title to go with it that excludes gays, they can go into their churches or temples and get "married" there. Under this plan, the government will still call it a "civil union," but the religious folks get to call it a "marriage" and they can to their hearts' content deny that name to the gays.

Under this plan, the gay couples, by contrast, can find a church or temple that does recognize gay unions and which refers to the result as "marriage." The heterosexual religious folks who object don't have to buy into that use of language, but at least their personal views have no legal force. At least the State stays out of religious matters.

Problem solved.

If that's the compromise we have to come to, fine we'll take it. Everybody gets Civil Unioned. Guess what though...we'll still call it a marriage.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Clint Eastwood Signs Brief Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

And?

Lots of people share his view that "legal" opposition to the right of gay people to marry each other is archaic and misguided.

If the State has to be involved in the "union" of couples for reasons like child care and insurance and inheritance, etc., that's maybe a legitimate use of government power.

But what the State does should not be to "sanctify" the relationship beyond legal recognition. So, call every union, whether its heterosexual couples of gay and lesbian couple, the same name. Call it the civil union.

If the folks who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds seek an official religious bond and the title to go with it that excludes gays, they can go into their churches or temples and get "married" there. Under this plan, the government will still call it a "civil union," but the religious folks get to call it a "marriage" and they can to their hearts' content deny that name to the gays.

Under this plan, the gay couples, by contrast, can find a church or temple that does recognize gay unions and which refers to the result as "marriage." The heterosexual religious folks who object don't have to buy into that use of language, but at least their personal views have no legal force. At least the State stays out of religious matters.

Problem solved.

If that's the compromise we have to come to, fine we'll take it. Everybody gets Civil Unioned. Guess what though...we'll still call it a marriage.

That's kind of the point. The STATE doesn't get to "call" it a marriage. What the State calls it, for gay couples or straight couples, avoids imposing religious notions on the couple in such unions. And none of us have to give a hoot what the State does or does not call it. Gay couples can call their unions a "marriage" and those who oppose that notion on any religious grounds are not obligated to share the terminology.

The uniform STATE label avoids discrimination and the State's interest in having some authority over the legal status (and over the associated legal rights and responsibilities) of the couples continues.

 

[Seawytch]

Clint Eastwood Signs Brief Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

And?

Lots of people share his view that "legal" opposition to the right of gay people to marry each other is archaic and misguided.

If the State has to be involved in the "union" of couples for reasons like child care and insurance and inheritance, etc., that's maybe a legitimate use of government power.

But what the State does should not be to "sanctify" the relationship beyond legal recognition. So, call every union, whether its heterosexual couples of gay and lesbian couple, the same name. Call it the civil union.

If the folks who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds seek an official religious bond and the title to go with it that excludes gays, they can go into their churches or temples and get "married" there. Under this plan, the government will still call it a "civil union," but the religious folks get to call it a "marriage" and they can to their hearts' content deny that name to the gays.

Under this plan, the gay couples, by contrast, can find a church or temple that does recognize gay unions and which refers to the result as "marriage." The heterosexual religious folks who object don't have to buy into that use of language, but at least their personal views have no legal force. At least the State stays out of religious matters.

Problem solved.

If that's the compromise we have to come to, fine we'll take it. Everybody gets Civil Unioned. Guess what though...we'll still call it a marriage.

That's kind of the point. The STATE doesn't get to "call" it a marriage. What the State calls it, for gay couples or straight couples, avoids imposing religious notions on the couple in such unions. And none of us have to give a hoot what the State does or does not call it. Gay couples can call their unions a "marriage" and those who oppose that notion on any religious grounds are not obligated to share the terminology.

The uniform STATE label avoids discrimination and the State's interest in having some authority over the legal status (and over the associated legal rights and responsibilities) of the couples continues.

I've said it a hundred times...don't care what you call it, just make it equal.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

If that's the compromise we have to come to, fine we'll take it. Everybody gets Civil Unioned. Guess what though...we'll still call it a marriage.

That's kind of the point. The STATE doesn't get to "call" it a marriage. What the State calls it, for gay couples or straight couples, avoids imposing religious notions on the couple in such unions. And none of us have to give a hoot what the State does or does not call it. Gay couples can call their unions a "marriage" and those who oppose that notion on any religious grounds are not obligated to share the terminology.

The uniform STATE label avoids discrimination and the State's interest in having some authority over the legal status (and over the associated legal rights and responsibilities) of the couples continues.

I've said it a hundred times...don't care what you call it, just make it equal.

I haven't said it that many times.

I just support what the Constitution says and what I believe it is intended to accomplish.

For the life of me, I cannot see how the Constitution could be intended to further a basically religious notion of marriage. I don't see how it could be intended to get into the private concerns of any couple, regardless of their sexual identities, who choose to form a bonded and committed relationship.

 

[Gadawg73]

Farmers were the first business men.
Women were the first business people!

 

[Seawytch]

Farmers were the first business men.
Women were the first business people!

You meant Prostitutes, right?

Making Farmer Jimmy Carter into a businessman doesn't disprove the theory that businessmen make terrible Presidents.

 

[Seawytch]

For the life of me, I cannot see how the Constitution could be intended to further a basically religious notion of marriage. I don't see how it could be intended to get into the private concerns of any couple, regardless of their sexual identities, who choose to form a bonded and committed relationship.

Why do you think that the government is furthering the religious notion of marriage? Just because it is called a "marriage" in all 50 states? I don't have a problem differentiating between legal civil marriage and religious marriage. Of course, "the gheys" have always had equal access to religious marriage.

 

[Gadawg73]

Farmers were the first business men.
Women were the first business people!

You meant Prostitutes, right?

Making Farmer Jimmy Carter into a businessman doesn't disprove the theory that businessmen make terrible Presidents.

Jimmy Carter ran that multi million dollar peanut farm for decades.
It was a business and still is.
Jimmy Carter was a business man for most of his life.
The claim that all businessmen make terrible Presidents is rank rhetoric.

George Washington-businessman
Lawyers and farmers are businessmen and 29 out of the first 33 Presidents were:

BUSINESSMEN

 

[WorldWatcher]

Clint Eastwood Signs Brief Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

And?

Lots of people share his view that "legal" opposition to the right of gay people to marry each other is archaic and misguided.

If the State has to be involved in the "union" of couples for reasons like child care and insurance and inheritance, etc., that's maybe a legitimate use of government power.

But what the State does should not be to "sanctify" the relationship beyond legal recognition. So, call every union, whether its heterosexual couples of gay and lesbian couple, the same name. Call it the civil union.

If the folks who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds seek an official religious bond and the title to go with it that excludes gays, they can go into their churches or temples and get "married" there. Under this plan, the government will still call it a "civil union," but the religious folks get to call it a "marriage" and they can to their hearts' content deny that name to the gays.

Under this plan, the gay couples, by contrast, can find a church or temple that does recognize gay unions and which refers to the result as "marriage." The heterosexual religious folks who object don't have to buy into that use of language, but at least their personal views have no legal force. At least the State stays out of religious matters.

Problem solved.

Speaking as someone who has been a member of the Republican party since I first registered in 1978 and someone whose position has changed as I've gotten older and - instead of blindly supporting peer positions from my youth - could agree with such a compromise as it fundamentally (although temporarily) solves the main issue I have with denying Civil Marriage to same-sex couples. That being the denial of equal treatment under the law without a compelling government interest.

I say "temporarily" because the reality is both same-sex couples and different-sex couples would still refer to themselves as "married" instead of "unionized". They would still call their significant other "spouse" and "husband" and "wife". Even if we purged the term "marriage" from the thousands of laws (federal and state) from the law, in a generation or two, that term would creep back into legal usage. But it would provide a period of transition while the younger generations, who predominantly support Civil Marriage for same-sex couples, become even more the dominate voting block.

But there will still be large resistance to this idea, that same-sex and different-sex couples would be treated the same. There are some that want a definitive "superior" status for different-sex couples. Take Washington State and Referendum 71 as an example. When a law was passed through the legislature giving same-sex couples everything but the title "marriage", it was a referendum placed on the ballot by initiative because it was "to much like marriage". It lost but still garnered 47% of the vote.

I would also suggest the removal of all Public Accommodation law (federal and state) which require that private businesses service customers they choose not to service for whatever reason they choose. Public Accommodation laws, IMHO, should only apply to how government entities conduct business both in terms of their internal operations and (if that level of government chooses to do so) in terms of the businesses they choose to contract with for services. I can understand of course the reasons behind such laws in the past, but in this modern information age, they are not needed anymore.


>>>>

 

[JoeB131]

You are truly an asshole.

I am not the bigot. How you could read what I wrote in the prior post and come to that completely empty conclusion is mystifying. Your narrow mind is so polluted that you apparently just "see" what you expect to see regardless of whther there's any hint of it being there. You asshole.

I happen to agree with Clint. It is my view that if the nation of "conservative" is properly understood, most conservatives would (at least as far as the law is concerned) agree with me that this is not a matter we should even be involved in.

Your plan is stupid. It is an expr4ession of your particular viewpoint that does violence to the First Amendment's freedom of religion clause.

But since you appear to be just another mindless liberal, you don't care about larger principles and you are fine with an over reaching government.

The government should not be in the business of making any religious decisions.

Did I mention how much of an asshole you are?

First, the First Amendment is just as much about freedom FROM religion as Freedom OF religion. You really can't have one without the other. Otherwise you just have a dominate religion and others that are tolerated.

In this case, we have created this special club called marriage that gives people in it a lot of legal protections. Since you religous mouth-breathers realy can't justify denying it to people in a legal civil sense anymore, your solution is to rename it something else so that the religious types can keep the name.

Which is just bullshit, and they shouldn't let you get away with it.

 

[JoeB131]

Farmers were the first business men.
Women were the first business people!

You meant Prostitutes, right?

Making Farmer Jimmy Carter into a businessman doesn't disprove the theory that businessmen make terrible Presidents.

Jimmy Carter ran that multi million dollar peanut farm for decades.
It was a business and still is.
Jimmy Carter was a business man for most of his life.
The claim that all businessmen make terrible Presidents is rank rhetoric.

George Washington-businessman
Lawyers and farmers are businessmen and 29 out of the first 33 Presidents were:

BUSINESSMEN

This argument only works if you come up with a very wide definition of businessmen that would cover nearly everyone. Under your argument, I'd qualify as a businessman. It's specious, at best.

Most of these guys were professional politicians who held at least one elected office before becoming presidents. That makes them politicians by trade, not "businessmen".

 

[Freewill]

Yes let's worry about if Ted can marry Tim or who is chewing on whose rug. Meanwhile the country is in a tail spin one which will take us all down.

 

[rdean]

When you are from Hollywood, no one knows whether or not you played "Tiddly Winks".

 

[Truthmatters]

always thought he was over rated.


Hes trying to fix the damage he did to his career with the chair bit.


There are many young actors who will think of working with him or doing a differing project without him and quess what choices they are making.


He has damaged his career by being seen a a tea party fool.


Its hurts you in Hollywood when people see working with you as an unpleasant experience.


Think about it.

Your an Up and coming young actress and you are torn by the many choices you are given as your next project.

You see a script about homelessness that is well written and you are looking forward to the challenge of your part in it.

Yet your other project is interesting and you will be working with an ICON in the film industry (Eastwood).

Then you hear he is a tea party nutter who hates the president of the united states so much that he publicly Lied about him at the republican convention.


He damaged his career.

 

[Gadawg73]

You meant Prostitutes, right?

Making Farmer Jimmy Carter into a businessman doesn't disprove the theory that businessmen make terrible Presidents.

Jimmy Carter ran that multi million dollar peanut farm for decades.
It was a business and still is.
Jimmy Carter was a business man for most of his life.
The claim that all businessmen make terrible Presidents is rank rhetoric.

George Washington-businessman
Lawyers and farmers are businessmen and 29 out of the first 33 Presidents were:

BUSINESSMEN

This argument only works if you come up with a very wide definition of businessmen that would cover nearly everyone. Under your argument, I'd qualify as a businessman. It's specious, at best.

Most of these guys were professional politicians who held at least one elected office before becoming presidents. That makes them politicians by trade, not "businessmen".

People that hold 1 elected office are not professional politicians.
That would be the last few Democrats that have never held a private job in their life.
Kennedy, Obama and Clinton come to mind.
Most of the Presidents were ASKED to run for public office when this country was founded.
They did not want the job in those days.
These days they do.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Clint Eastwood Signs Brief Supporting Same-Sex Marriage

And?

Lots of people share his view that "legal" opposition to the right of gay people to marry each other is archaic and misguided.

If the State has to be involved in the "union" of couples for reasons like child care and insurance and inheritance, etc., that's maybe a legitimate use of government power.

But what the State does should not be to "sanctify" the relationship beyond legal recognition. So, call every union, whether its heterosexual couples of gay and lesbian couple, the same name. Call it the civil union.

If the folks who oppose gay marriage on religious grounds seek an official religious bond and the title to go with it that excludes gays, they can go into their churches or temples and get "married" there. Under this plan, the government will still call it a "civil union," but the religious folks get to call it a "marriage" and they can to their hearts' content deny that name to the gays.

Under this plan, the gay couples, by contrast, can find a church or temple that does recognize gay unions and which refers to the result as "marriage." The heterosexual religious folks who object don't have to buy into that use of language, but at least their personal views have no legal force. At least the State stays out of religious matters.

Problem solved.

That’s the problem, the opposition is not predicated on religious grounds.

Marriage is contract law, written by state lawmakers and administered by state courts. The 14th Amendment requires the states to allow all citizens access to all state laws, including marriage law.

That the marriage contract is executed by a member of the clergy or by a justice of the peace is legally irrelevant.

‘Separate but equal’ is not an option with regard to marriage equality – ‘marriage’ for opposite-sex couples and ‘civil unions’ for same-sex couples would be just as un-Constitutional as disallowing same-sex couples access to marriage altogether.

Same-sex couples seek the same thing as opposite-sex couples: the right to marry, to have their union given the same recognition, standing, and privileges and immunities as opposite-sex couples. To indeed be seen as equals both in the eyes of the law and the community.

Opposition to marriage equality is thus based on hate and ignorance grounds, on the desire to see same-sex couples treated as second-class citizens, and subject to laws designed only to make homosexuals less equal to other citizens.