What we can learn from Clint Eastwood

posted at 5:31 pm on March 2, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

While some people sail off into the sunset when they reach retirement age, Hollywood icon Clint Eastwood has gone on something of a roller coaster ride these past few years – at least in terms of his off screen activities. For those with shorter memories, here are a few of the highlights, and we don’t need to peer too deeply into history to find them.

During the Super Bowl, just a little over one year ago, Eastwood appeared in an advertisement at half time talking about Detroit, the auto industry and America. The outcry was instantaneous. Obviously Eastwood – a long time, well known rarity in Hollywood as a successful conservative – was a traitor. He was “endorsing” the bailout of the auto industry or “helping Obama” or something. He was widely pilloried in conservative circles.

Fast forward only a few seasons and he was featured at the RNC in Tampa, speaking to an empty chair and taking Barack Obama to task. All was forgiven and Clint was a hero of the conservative movement once again. Gone were worries about his Republican bona fides and he was featured on virtually every conservative site – including this one – which you’d care to name.

But now the worm seems to be turning again. Eastwood has signed on for a Friend of the Court brief supporting gay marriage.

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.

I’m already seeing grumbling on Twitter and elsewhere about this “stab in the back” from Dirty Harry. How quickly we forget what a star he was in the weeks and months before the last election. But once the dust from this particular flap settles out, Clint may have something even more valuable to teach us.

He’s a Republican. He’s a conservative. But beyond any of that, he is is own man with his own opinions on each and every subject in which he takes an interest and he doesn’t much give a fig if you disapprove of his position. He doesn’t agree with the text book position of the “real conservatives” on every single issue. And I suspect that, like many of us, he doesn’t pay much attention to what anyone else chooses to define as the “texbook conservative” stance on hundreds of different policy points. He goes where his own beliefs lead him.

The story here about Clint Eastwood has nothing to do with gay marriage. It has to do with the idea that somebody – anybody – can define conservatism for you on each and every issue. There will be disagreements inside the tent on both sides. That’s a sign of a healthy, open minded debate. Declaring anyone who doesn’t fit a predefined mold on each and every discussion point as being “not one of us” leads you down a path toward irrelevance and extinction.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

You can define marriage however you want. The federal government is not the place to do that. Go get a job working for mirriam webster if you’re so concerned.
Timin203 on March 2, 2013 at 7:01 PM
You have perfected the liberal argument. “My idea is so weak, I have to actually ignore, and even more importantly, mock the dictionary and thousands of years of human civilization to get my way. What? It’s sunny outside? No, no, that’s now ‘dark,’ or better yet, whatever you want it to be You can take you and your social-con dictionary back to Sqauaresville.”

Dongemaharu on March 2, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Why is it unconstitutional if government has no role in marriage?

Shouldn’t it be a private matter?

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 9:00 PM

Since I’m not a lawyer I rely on the Federalist Society’s article about Sharia marriage.

It states that such a contract is “void ab initio” if it violates “American expectations for basic fair bargaining interests in contract creation.”

So you are right, it’s not unconstitutional (since the state is not involved), but still invalid from the start.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Rap by itself is undefined in terms of its content. It could call on everyone to be upstanding citizens. It could call on everyone to kill cops. It could leak nuclear missile secrets. In isolation, it has no message.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 9:07 PM

Would you try to ban rap songs that erode a virtue?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Would you try to ban rap songs that erode a virtue?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Possibly. I would want to consider the virtue at stake, the particulars of how it was being undermined, the likelihood of it having an actual deleterious impact or instead being ignored, the means and audience to whom it’s being communicated, etceteras.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 10:21 PM

Since I’m not a lawyer I rely on the Federalist Society’s article about Sharia marriage.

It states that such a contract is “void ab initio” if it violates “American expectations for basic fair bargaining interests in contract creation.”

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:10 PM

Sorry, but they acknowledge what you refuse to, which is the moral imposition of our moral code on others.

It’s only void if you presume that our morality is superior (which it is) to Sharia morality and that we should impose that morality on them.

That is the problem with your morally neutral state.

It only exists in Neverneverland.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 10:22 PM

Would you try to ban rap songs that erode a virtue?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Possibly. I would want to consider the virtue at stake, the particulars of how it was being undermined, the likelihood of it having an actual deleterious impact or instead being ignored, the means and audience to whom it’s being communicated, etceteras.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 10:21 PM

That’s interesting. Wouldn’t that violate the First Amendment? Or do you think that the First Amendments has its limits?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:23 PM

That’s interesting. Wouldn’t that violate the First Amendment? Or do you think that the First Amendments has its limits?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:23 PM

The 1st amendment specifically pertains to Congress. On a legal basis, I think that action could be taken at a state or local level. In that regard, I think it’s limited. Court precedent also recognizes certain limits (although I tend to think, while generally reasonable, these are more legal fictions) including limits against inciting to riot, causing a panic, committing fraud, etc.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 10:27 PM

Sorry, but they acknowledge what you refuse to, which is the moral imposition of our moral code on others.

It’s only void if you presume that our morality is superior (which it is) to Sharia morality and that we should impose that morality on them.

That is the problem with your morally neutral state.

It only exists in Neverneverland.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 10:22 PM

Yes, our morality is superior to that of Sharia law. I never disputed or even questioned that fact.

But, as you see, you don’t need the government to enforce morality.

That’s my point.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:36 PM

The 1st amendment specifically pertains to Congress. On a legal basis, I think that action could be taken at a state or local level. In that regard, I think it’s limited. Court precedent also recognizes certain limits (although I tend to think, while generally reasonable, these are more legal fictions) including limits against inciting to riot, causing a panic, committing fraud, etc.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 10:27 PM

I understand. I don’t agree, but that’s okay.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:39 PM

But, as you see, you don’t need the government to enforce morality.

That’s my point.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Your own link explained at length that in fact the government was doing exactly that in the decisions being rendered.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 10:40 PM

He’s a Republican. He’s a conservative.

There’s nothing remotely conservative about redefining marriage.

Declaring anyone who doesn’t fit a predefined mold on each and every discussion point as being “not one of us” leads you down a path toward irrelevance and extinction.

Marriage is not a minor discussion point.

[Robert]George believes conservatism absolutely involves core tenets about economics, about foreign policy, and about the family…. “that core social conservative causes — life and marriage — should have the same standing as core economic and national security conservative causes,” George explains.

INC on March 2, 2013 at 10:43 PM

Unfortunately we are up against an enemy little interested in healthy debate and nothing healthy to offer at all.

We debate each other while they are eating us alive.

It is a conundrum.

Sherman1864 on March 2, 2013 at 10:47 PM

But, as you see, you don’t need the government to enforce morality.

That’s my point.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:36 PM

Your own link explained at length that in fact the government was doing exactly that in the decisions being rendered.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 10:40 PM

No, the part I quoted says nothing about the government. The courts refuse to enforce the terms of a contract, because the contract is regarded as invalid from the start.

You don’t need the government to micromanage every aspect of the human existence, especially not the moral ones. It’s just not the role of the government, at least in my opinion.

But as I said above to astonerii, I begin to understand that social conservatives think the government HAS a moral role.

That’s where we differ.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:53 PM

No, the part I quoted says nothing about the government. The courts refuse to enforce the terms of a contract, because the contract is regarded as invalid from the start.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:53 PM

It is regarded as invalid because it conflicts with American morality.

Sometimes the bride is underage. In many cases these practices violate American expectations for basic fair bargaining interests in contract creation. The agreement may be considered legally unconscionable if so unfair to the weaker party that a court should refuse to enforce the terms. Also, some of these marriages may qualify to be considered void ab initio (invalid from the start) or voidable.

Sharia law does not hold that a nine-year old is underage, nor that there is anything wrong with the marriage arrangement.

The moral precepts of American society are being imposed on Muslims who hold other moral values. You say they shouldn’t do that, and I say they should and must because someone’s moral code with have precedence.

You can run away from the responsibility, but someone else won’t, and that is usually the leftists.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 11:04 PM

The moral precepts of American society are being imposed on Muslims who hold other moral values. You say they shouldn’t do that, and I say they should and must because someone’s moral code with have precedence.

sharrukin on March 2, 2013 at 11:04 PM

It doesn’t matter what moral values a Muslim has, if he doesn’t put on his seat belt, he breaks the law.

If you visit Saudi Arabia and don’t put on your seat belt, you break the law.

If you commit a murder in Saudi Arabia, if you steal or rape somebody, you break the law. If you are a man, at least.

The major laws are similar in most countries. That says nothing about the morality of the lawmakers.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 11:34 PM

Correction:

“If you are a man, at least” belongs to the Saudi Arabian seat belts.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 11:35 PM

See?

Blah blah blah.

And we are getting eaten alive.

Sherman1864 on March 2, 2013 at 11:39 PM

See?

Blah blah blah.

And we are getting eaten alive.

Sherman1864 on March 2, 2013 at 11:39 PM

I can have a discussion with a social conservative and fight the lefties at the same time.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 11:47 PM

There must be a core set of principles based upon objective truth for conservatives, or else we will just go where the wind blows us.

Work with others where we can, oppose them when we must. We don’t belong under the same tent, but sometimes our tents meet or overlap (as in a venn diagram).

TXJenny on March 2, 2013 at 11:54 PM

irrelevance and extinction.

Yep, that describes conservatives that agree to consider that principles held that are directly the opposite of ‘conservative’ to be redefined as ‘conservative’. Next will be pro-abortion, pro-big government, pro-taxation, pro-spending positions held by folks put forward as ‘conservative’ , I suppose. And any questioning whether that qualifies as conservative will be castigated for not having a healthy open minded debate, right Jazz?

Midas on March 3, 2013 at 12:54 AM

Jazz redefines “conservative” the way liberals have redefined marriage. Moderate Republicans, they take the “conserve” outta conservative.

Dongemaharu on March 3, 2013 at 2:25 AM

Eastwood is right on Gay Marriage. Republicans should follow Eastwood on this issue because the GOP is out of step with the majority of Americans. Here’s Eastwood’s message to Republicans: Dump the Evangelical rump of this party; the “fundies” hurt the GOP. Todd Akin? “Fundamentalist.”

Get the picture?

mountainaires on March 3, 2013 at 7:42 AM

Next up:

POLYGAMY

INCEST

SEX WITH CHILDREN.

Whatever makes you happy !

stenwin77 on March 3, 2013 at 8:28 AM

Pro gay-marriage “conservatives” should be given the same amount of weight as pro-life Dems, which is no weight at all.

gumbyandpokey on March 3, 2013 at 8:41 AM

A CIVIL definition of marriage can be whatever secular law defines it as.

A RELIGIOUS definition of marriage can be whatever a particular faith community decrees or accepts.

The two need not be the same. But civil law must prevail as the universal definition for legal purposes, across the entire society.

This is not a theocracy.

Byron on March 3, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Clint Eastwood has fathered seven children by five different women. Sandra Locke claims Eastwood talked her into two abortions during their relationship. So, Clint is no better than the NBA player or rapper who has multiple illegimate children. He is hardly someone we should look to for guidance on any issues regarding morality.

bw222 on March 3, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Clint Eastwood has fathered seven children by five different women. Sandra Locke claims Eastwood talked her into two abortions during their relationship. So, Clint is no better than the NBA player or rapper who has multiple illegimate children. He is hardly someone we should look to for guidance on any issues regarding morality.
bw222 on March 3, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Or marriage and family it seems. He is one of those people who are okay with anything goes because if there was a standard, then he might have to take a good long look at how he has lived his life. A little shame back in this society would go a long way.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 9:46 AM

This is not a theocracy.

Byron on March 3, 2013 at 9:14 AM

True…We are not a Theocracy.

We also have a Constitution that protects Free Speech and Religious Liberty.

The problem is that Gay Activists will demand Churches alter their doctrine because they don’t want any moral criticism of their agenda or behavior.

The problem is that Gay Activists demand school curriculum be altered to reflect their activism.

The problem is that Gay Activists demand preferential class status in legal protections under the law.

It’s coercion and using the Force of Government to legislate social engineering policies that undermine the Constitution.

It’s Fascism.

workingclass artist on March 3, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Eastwood is right on Gay Marriage. Republicans should follow Eastwood on this issue because the GOP is out of step with the majority of Americans. Here’s Eastwood’s message to Republicans: Dump the Evangelical rump of this party; the “fundies” hurt the GOP. Todd Akin? “Fundamentalist.”

Get the picture?

mountainaires on March 3, 2013 at 7:42 AM

I love that people who feel they are so enlightened think that only “fundies” hold this position, and that there is only religious objections to gay marriage.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 9:47 AM

Jazz redefines “conservative” the way liberals have redefined marriage. Moderate Republicans, they take the “conserve” outta conservative.

Dongemaharu on March 3, 2013 at 2:25 AM

Eastwood is a libertarian, not a conservative. Jazz wouldn’t recognize a conservative if he were touring the Ronald Reagan Memorial Library. The only conservatives at HA are the majority of the posters, certainly not the authors.

bw222 on March 3, 2013 at 9:49 AM

workingclass artist on March 3, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Bingo! They always miss that part. And when people mention it; they say well it will never happen- except it already is. People are being sued all over this country and courts are handing down decrees that go into homes and get into other people’s lives all the time- all in the name of civil law and tolerance. They just choose to ignore those cases, because it doesn’t fit with their narrow-minded narrative.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 9:50 AM

But as I said above to astonerii, I begin to understand that social conservatives think the government HAS a moral role.

That’s where we differ.

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:53 PM

The State has a compelling interest on some issues that are based in morality.

This is why we have Child Labor Laws etc.

To deny this is to deny history?

workingclass artist on March 3, 2013 at 9:50 AM

A CIVIL definition of marriage can be whatever secular law defines it as.

A RELIGIOUS definition of marriage can be whatever a particular faith community decrees or accepts.

The two need not be the same. But civil law must prevail as the universal definition for legal purposes, across the entire society.

This is not a theocracy.

Byron on March 3, 2013 at 9:14 AM

The question is how long will it be before the government forces churches to marry same sex couples against their will? The government has already decreed that Catholic institutions must fund contraceptives and abortions for their employees (no matter how the government tries to sugar-coat it through insurance companies).

bw222 on March 3, 2013 at 10:00 AM

workingclass artist on March 3, 2013 at 9:46 AM

Bingo! They always miss that part. And when people mention it; they say well it will never happen- except it already is. People are being sued all over this country and courts are handing down decrees that go into homes and get into other people’s lives all the time- all in the name of civil law and tolerance. They just choose to ignore those cases, because it doesn’t fit with their narrow-minded narrative.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Indeed.

It is interesting that I have yet to see Militant Gay Activists disrupt Friday Prayers at a Detroit Mosque.

I have yet to see Militant Gay Activists apply equal protest strategy and social pressure to the Nation of Islam congregations.

I have yet to see any law suits against Mosques or Muslim businesses who would be vocal in objecting to SSM or refusing to provide services and weddings to Militant Homosexuals.

Are Militant Gays insisting Gay History be taught by the Muslims to their youth?

workingclass artist on March 3, 2013 at 10:00 AM

A CIVIL definition of marriage can be whatever secular law defines it as.

A RELIGIOUS definition of marriage can be whatever a particular faith community decrees or accepts.

The two need not be the same. But civil law must prevail as the universal definition for legal purposes, across the entire society.

This is not a theocracy.

Byron on March 3, 2013 at 9:14 AM

The question is how long will it be before the government forces churches to marry same sex couples against their will? The government has already decreed that Catholic institutions must fund contraceptives and abortions for their employees (no matter how the government tries to sugar-coat it through insurance companies).

bw222 on March 3, 2013 at 10:00 AM

Not long at all.

The laws will be written to define any moral objection whether in action,written or at the pulpit as prejudicial and there will be coercion to change the liturgy.

Some denominations here will cave to the pressure (The Anglicans did in the UK because it is the State Church)

In Canada Christian Pastors & Priests have been prosecuted for preaching and teaching their traditional liturgy.

In Germany during the Third Reich Lutheran Pastors and Catholic Clergy were persecuted and imprisoned when they objected to the Nazi Eugenics policies.

In Mexico the Marxist persecution of the Church led to the Christero wars.

Gay Marriage is one of several mechanisms of Fascism currently used to shred the Constitution.

This

workingclass artist on March 3, 2013 at 10:10 AM

bw222 on March 3, 2013 at 9:49 AM

+1,000,000 This is not Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air.This is Townhall’s [Moderate) Hot Air.

With a Conservative Poster base.

kingsjester on March 3, 2013 at 10:15 AM

In the UK the Government has informed Catholics that they must teach Homosexual Marriages are equal to Traditional Heterosexual Marriages in their Catholic Parochial Schools.

Those Catholic schools will be closed by the Bishops…just like the Catholic Adoption Centers.

The Catholic Church will not comply with secular laws that coerce the Church to deny it’s Liturgy and act against the doctrine.

In her long history….The Church has seen many Neros

workingclass artist on March 3, 2013 at 10:17 AM

Eastwood has the right to express his opinion…

Unfortunately his opinion is an expression of moral relativism.

What many refuse to see in terms of the politics is that party identity is becoming irrelevant.

This isn’t GOP v DNC

This is conservative v progressive

Progressives are using the tactics and strategy of Fascism.

Socialists become Fascist when they accumulate enough money,numbers and power.

Italians just elected a Fascist party that is holding their Senate hostage. Fascist parties are on the rise in Greece and France.

Don’t know how long this Puscht will take to render the Constitution is rendered meaningless.

The situation is fluid but it will get ugly.

The ultimate goal of all Totalitarian Fascist Regimes is to gain power and hold the control long enough to wipe out the cultural memory through indoctrination.

This usually takes a while and cannot occur unless the Churches, which are traditional opponents to Totalitarians are silenced.

workingclass artist on March 3, 2013 at 10:36 AM

bw222 on March 3, 2013 at 9:49 AM
+1,000,000 This is not Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air.This is Townhall’s [Moderate) Hot Air.
With a Conservative Poster base.
kingsjester on March 3, 2013 at 10:15 AM

Twitchy appears very pro-gay. Thought that was interesting. I find it encouraging. You might be appalled. You shouldn’t be, though.

TBH, I don’t think Jazz Shaw is the strongest link in the HotAir chain. Not talking about moderate/conservative issue. I’m talking quality of content, analysis.

bluegill on March 3, 2013 at 10:43 AM

You know, this pro-SSM propaganda on HotAir is starting to get tired. I’ve been reading HA for years, and I’m about to pull the plug.

RationalIcthus on March 2, 2013 at 6:31 PM

If you haven’t noticed, a lot of us have virtually pulled the plug in the last few months. Look how many threads there are in an average day that don’t reach 100 comments.
Some of that is because there are a lot of folks like me who are dis-spirited and, in my case, newly unemployed.
A lot of it is the steady path away from conservativism that Hot Air has been taking for awhile now. And if you feel the same way, it’s not even worth bothering to visit the website on weekends.

Right Mover on March 3, 2013 at 10:44 AM

Eastwood is a libertarian, not a conservative. Jazz wouldn’t recognize a conservative if he were touring the Ronald Reagan Memorial Library. The only conservatives at HA are the majority of the posters, certainly not the authors.

bw222 on March 3, 2013 at 9:49 AM

This.

Right Mover on March 3, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Pro gay-marriage “conservatives” should be given the same amount of weight as pro-life Dems, which is no weight at all.
gumbyandpokey on March 3, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Here is the pro-Obama MOBY letting us know that Dems would prefer to see pro-gay or same-sex marriage-supporting conservatives be silenced. What does that tell you?

Mark Levin parrots like kingjester and melle1228 find common cause with the Obama-supporting MOBY. Not surprised.

bluegill on March 3, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Mark Levin parrots like kingjester and melle1228 find common cause with the Obama-supporting MOBY. Not surprised.

bluegill on March 3, 2013 at 10:48 AM

You are are truly a piece of work. I have told you over and over again. I don’t listen to Levin, but for the sake of argument- I would take Levin’s opinion over YOURS any day. His law degree makes him a little more credible to speak to the ins and outs of gay marriage then you. Your only expertise is how to lick Mitt Romney’s boots.

melle1228 on March 3, 2013 at 11:11 AM

Would you try to ban rap songs that erode a virtue?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:14 PM

Possibly. I would want to consider the virtue at stake, the particulars of how it was being undermined, the likelihood of it having an actual deleterious impact or instead being ignored, the means and audience to whom it’s being communicated, etceteras.

Stoic Patriot on March 2, 2013 at 10:21 PM

That’s interesting. Wouldn’t that violate the First Amendment? Or do you think that the First Amendments has its limits?

Gelsomina on March 2, 2013 at 10:23 PM

The First Amendment has limits as to availability with regards to age appropriation.

Politically correct censorship using the Force of the State is a different issue altogether…It is State Sponsored Coercion.

workingclass artist on March 3, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Sorry…but big court is going to side with gay marriage

Eastwood is a Libertarian….who doesn’t give 2 sh$$ about social issues

Neither do I

Redford on March 3, 2013 at 11:34 AM

We can learn that the GOP is a party without principle, and without a core. It has become a Godless socialist platform. It speaks words of liberty, yet performs acts of tyranny.

As soon as marriage redefinition is imposed, primarily through the help of the GOP, there will be judgement upon us as we’ve never seen.

God will not be mocked.

True_King on March 3, 2013 at 12:06 PM

From reading my posts many of you prolly think I’m a lawyer, but I’m not.

SparkPlug on March 3, 2013 at 12:22 PM

Social conservatives are the foot soldiers. They do the volunteering, the lit drops, the phone calls, etc. Dismiss them even more and the GOP will be lucky to win most Southern states.

gumbyandpokey on March 3, 2013 at 12:25 PM

The State has a compelling interest on some issues that are based in morality.

This is why we have Child Labor Laws etc.

To deny this is to deny history?

workingclass artist on March 3, 2013 at 9:50 AM

I think it works the other way round. The State follows the changing morality of the people. There would have been no laws against child labor, if there hadn’t been already a consensus that it is immoral.

Unfortunately, the popular consensus can be very wrong.

Gelsomina on March 3, 2013 at 12:38 PM

A CIVIL definition of marriage can be whatever secular law defines it as.

A RELIGIOUS definition of marriage can be whatever a particular faith community decrees or accepts.

The two need not be the same. But civil law must prevail as the universal definition for legal purposes, across the entire society.

This is not a theocracy.

Byron on March 3, 2013 at 9:14 AM

Interesting.

Marriage has a specific meaning. It is the pledge given in matrimony. Matrimony comes from the Latin “mater” meaning MOTHER. Matrimony is the making a matron of a maid…which is utterly impossible to do to a man or for a woman to do to another woman. So, you propose that govt has the civil authority to pronounce that men can be made matrons and that women have the power to make matrons of other women?

In essence, you believe that govt has the civil authority and power to redefine Natural Law? Well then, nothing is impossible for govt! Govt is now God; thus, your premise followed to its logical conclusion makes govt into God, which ipso facto equals a kind of theocracy (rule by god). You may want to return to the drawing board and rethink yer idea.

TXJenny on March 3, 2013 at 1:15 PM

The prog/statists/libs/dems are exactly trying to force their idea of ‘morality’ down everyones throat. It’s ‘politically correct’ it’s ‘fair’ it’s so many things that they believe we should also believe in and follow.

The biggest ‘threat’ that libs feel coming from conservatives is that WE, once in control, would legislate our Morality on them!

For some unfathomable reason, the ones I speak to, seem to have an abject fear of Christianity and what that means to us and how WE would affect them!

To them it means WE would stop them from having their brand of freedom.

So, their battle cry is to beat us to the punch every time.

They are convinced that WE do not care about anyone or anything, that WE are out to fundamentally change them and their moral views.

Somewhere, the message has been lost.

I am not the most prolific writer nor am I the most savvy when it comes down to political issues.

I call ‘em as I see them.

I can give you an example of an argument I had with a liberal over a poem.

Methought I saw my late espoused saint
Brought to me like Alcestis from the grave,
Whom Jove’s great son to her glad husband gave,
Rescued from Death by force, though pale and faint.
Mine, as whom washed from spot of childbed taint
Purification in the Old Law did save,
And such as yet once more I trust to have
Full sight of her in Heaven without restraint,
Came vested all in white, pure as her mind.
Her face was veiled; yet to my fancied sight
Love, sweetness, goodness, in her person shined
So clear as in no face with more delight.
But, oh! as to embrace me she inclined,
I waked, she fled, and day brought back my night.

I was tasked with explaining the poem, the meaning, and as soon as I started to speak of the religious theme within this poem, I was slammed and told that what I perceived having been raised as a christian, had no bearing on the context of this poem.

Milton’s poem is full of his religious beliefs!

Perhaps to many of you it means nothing, to me it says alot about the person I was speaking with.

Do all libs have a mortal fear of our christian beliefs on which we base our morality? I know many who do.

Are all gays liberals? I don’t know.

The fact that they are choosing to use the gov’t to rally to their side and make lawful their civil unions, is because, in the back of their minds, they know that rightly or wrongly, a conservative run Gov’t probably wouldn’t legislate in their favour.

Call my point simple if you will.

Just as they wish to legislate ‘fairness’ I have no doubt thet we would also NOT want to legislate what they want.

It is not gonna end there either. Once they get their way on this, they WILL pursue Churches…

Scrumpy on March 3, 2013 at 1:46 PM

12:25 PM…and it wasn’t a pole/poll!
…excuse me while I clean my pants

KOOLAID2 on March 3, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Scrumpy on March 3, 2013 at 1:46 PM

…good post Srump!

KOOLAID2 on March 3, 2013 at 1:52 PM

KOOLAID2 on March 3, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Thank you :-)

Scrumpy on March 3, 2013 at 1:54 PM

There is a moral breakdown happening in this country.

I watched it begin in England.

I am watching it here.

Churches, with the exception of a few, are falling for this fairness doctrine and not following what Christ taught.

It has been said many times by many folks here, once you break down the morality and teachings of the Church, and I mean all churches, it all starts to fall apart.

Disallowing and making it virtually unlawful to even have prayer in schools, was the beginning, where will it end?

The only strength WE have is to teach our kids our beliefs…american history, political history etc.

We all know as christians, it is our duty to help one another, but since the churches have become entities unto themselves with so many of the ‘false’ things they teach, they no longer do their duty within their communities.

There are 2 churches up the road from me, and unless you are a member, they will not help you!

They have forgotten the basic tenets of their religion.

Societal breakdown is never far behind when even our churches do not follow christian beliefs…

Communism or what ever you wish to call it, HAS to breakdown religious beliefs… or it won’t work.

Liberals are determined to break us down, split us apart, deny our beliefs, and will continue to legislate everything counter to that belief…

Their message is strong.

We need an even stronger message…

We have to lead by example…

Scrumpy on March 3, 2013 at 2:10 PM

Scrumpy on March 3, 2013 at 2:10 PM

The problem is worse than just churches. No one can even tell you what makes something virtuous or makes something vile.

astonerii on March 3, 2013 at 2:42 PM

astonerii on March 3, 2013 at 2:42 PM

One’s conscience.

That and the phrase:

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Really quite simple in the end…

We are responsible to ourselves and to God.

We already know what constitutes virtuosity and vileness.

So it is up to our/my/your conscience how to act in society.

Scrumpy on March 3, 2013 at 3:06 PM

Mitt Romney gave Christie the microphone at the convention. Then CC proceeded to blow his own horn. Stupid move.

SparkPlug on March 3, 2013 at 3:11 PM

Wow, Jazz, you are openly defying the Purity Police. Expect ostracism, scorn, and permanent assignment to RINOhood.

How dare you question the authority of The Keepers Of The Sacred Litmus – and just as they have whittled the speaker list at CPAC down to a manageable handful of faithful Pavlovians who know which bells to ring? Why, in another year they would have cut the attendance down to a good-sized roundtable discussion – they kind they like, without a discordant note.

Adjoran on March 3, 2013 at 4:02 PM

Remember, this is the CPAC where Grover Norquist is welcome and Pamela Geller is not, so be sure and wear appropriate colors if you go. Brown shirts are in, yellow stars are out.

Adjoran on March 3, 2013 at 4:04 PM

Eastwood is a Libertarian….who doesn’t give 2 sh$$ about social issues

Neither do I

Redford on March 3, 2013 at 11:34 AM

How Eastwood feels about social issues is the same as most of us feel about you.

bw222 on March 3, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Remember, this is the CPAC where Grover Norquist is welcome and Pamela Geller is not, so be sure and wear appropriate colors if you go. Brown shirts are in, yellow stars are out.

Adjoran on March 3, 2013 at 4:04 PM

CPAC has degenerated to the point where it has become little more than a place where geeky College Republicans hope to “get lucky” for a change.

bw222 on March 3, 2013 at 4:32 PM

TBH, I don’t think Jazz Shaw is the strongest link in the HotAir chain. Not talking about moderate/conservative issue. I’m talking quality of content, analysis.

bluegill on March 3, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Every time I think you can’t possibly be any dumber ….

bw222 on March 3, 2013 at 4:36 PM

I’d be interested to know if anyone has seen or read Michelle Malkin taking a definite stand on the issue. While she’s decried the tactics of those who intimidate and try to force their opinion on others (see Chik-Fil-A) or the hypocrisy of those like Obama who cynically have played marriage for politics, has she defended marriage?

INC on March 3, 2013 at 7:05 PM

I’ve read about half the posts on this divisive topic. I have only one comment, “I have NO enemies on the right.” Any topic or post that attempts to divide the 40% of us who call ourselves “conservative” is not only a waste of time but hurtful to our cause.

“I have no enemies on the right.” Once we’ve assumed power let’s discuss our differences. For now what we need to do is focus on our common beliefs. The issues which divide us are raised by the leftists. Why do we continue to discuss their issues among ourselves. It’s mental masturbation. Let’s talk about our issues and this isn’t one of them.

ncjetsfan on March 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM

I’ve read about half the posts on this divisive topic. I have only one comment, “I have NO enemies on the right.” Any topic or post that attempts to divide the 40% of us who call ourselves “conservative” is not only a waste of time but hurtful to our cause.
“I have no enemies on the right.” Once we’ve assumed power let’s discuss our differences. For now what we need to do is focus on our common beliefs. The issues which divide us are raised by the leftists. Why do we continue to discuss their issues among ourselves. It’s mental masturbation. Let’s talk about our issues and this isn’t one of them.
ncjetsfan on March 3, 2013 at 11:04 PM

Well said!!!

bluegill on March 4, 2013 at 12:15 AM

Inevitably, and more taxes, is a biatch.

FlaMurph on March 4, 2013 at 12:29 AM

The 1st amendment specifically pertains to Congress. On a legal basis, I think that action could be taken at a state or local level. In that regard, I think it’s limited.

You’re incredibly misinformed. While it does pertain to congress, as in, private entities can ban anything they want, while congress may not.. the states are bound by the us constitution.

example:
columbia stops selling rap albums – totally legal. They’re private.
the state of utah bans sale of rap albums – ILLEGAL.

Why?

Supremacy clause. The constitution supersedes any state or local laws. If the supreme court has found that congress cannot ban rap albums due to the first amendment, then any state laws banning rap albums are thus unconstitutional. This is a basic fundamental civics 101 concept, and for someone who apparently cares enough about politics to post on the internet about it, you don’t seem to know much about how our country works.

triple on March 4, 2013 at 2:12 AM

Next up:

POLYGAMY

INCEST

SEX WITH CHILDREN.

Whatever makes you happy !

stenwin77 on March 3, 2013 at 8:28 AM

AND BLACKS MARRYING WHITES

WHERE DOES THE MADNESS END

(hint: not at cpac)

triple on March 4, 2013 at 2:17 AM

AND BLACKS MARRYING WHITES
WHERE DOES THE MADNESS END
triple on March 4, 2013 at 2:17 AM

Or Christians being allowed on college campuses. We’ve got to stop this now. ~shudder~

tommyboy on March 4, 2013 at 4:37 AM

Learned from Clint?

Mittens learned something: Better to direct than to act!

Look what happened to Mittens!

Mittens was directed. Hence, He failed to act accordingly to the situation. Funny, he lost.

Have you watched the Mittens Show in other channel? Funny loser!

TheAlamos on March 4, 2013 at 9:18 AM

Pro gay-marriage “conservatives” should be given the same amount of weight as pro-life Dems, which is no weight at all.

gumbyandpokey on March 3, 2013 at 8:41 AM

Absolutely! It is as absurd as talking about the seriousness of “jumbo shrimp” and trying not to laugh and make milk come out your nose.

Conservatives are by definition NOT pro-gay marriage. Conservatives try to “conserve” traditional values. Gay marriage is a new fad involving a very, very old sin. It is not a traditional value, and thus is not being conserved.

Anyone who claims to be this mythical beast should be laughed out of the room.

dominigan on March 4, 2013 at 10:07 AM

The number one crisis in the country is not enough married couples raising their biological children in the same household. It helps explain all sorts of economic ills, from falling household incomes, decline of the middle class, and the huge requirement of the underclass. Progressives and feminists detest the traditional family because married people would have elected both McCain and Romney. So, when the topic of marriage comes up it is always in the context of how we’re going to pander to a subset of 1.3% of society.

Nexialist on March 4, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Gay marriage is a new fad involving a very, very old sin. It is not a traditional value, and thus is not being conserved.

If your holy book gives advice on how to treat your slaves, it’s moral authority should be questioned.

triple on March 4, 2013 at 11:10 AM

triple on March 4, 2013 at 11:10 AM

If you ever picked up and Bible and read it, then you would know what it says, instead of having to make stuff up.

kingsjester on March 4, 2013 at 11:17 AM

Clint Eastwood is a fairly decent, extremely intelligent, artistically gifted man.

His opinion is his own. Judging the merits of his opinion is for everyone else. Regarding marriage, and matters of the heart, his own record is not so good, so his opinion in this arena loses most of its value.

However, there remains a more consistent and ancient source of truth than the rare right-leaning celebrity. And it says Clint is wrong on this topic.

Freelancer on March 4, 2013 at 11:50 AM

To insist that one’s political party remain consistent and intellectually honest with principles of freedom is what keeps a party relevant and in existence.

Using the “keep an open mind” and “be who you are” arguments in defense of a political party that refuses to reconcile its principles with individual rights is what invites irrelevancy and extinction.

beselfish on March 4, 2013 at 12:03 PM

If your holy book gives advice on how to treat your slaves, it’s moral authority should be questioned.

triple on March 4, 2013 at 11:10 AM

Slavery of the biblical times was not similar to the slavery of Modern America. Well, the Egyptian kind was like that. But not for most of civilization.
Many slaves were volunteers from poorer castes of society who used the opportunity to work for or under someone of a higher caste to gain training and a higher station in life for themselves.

But, when your world view attacks that advice, but turns around then says it is OK for degenerates to OWN 25 of the production of the virtuous, which on its own is a form of slavery, says much about you that is not complimentary.

astonerii on March 4, 2013 at 1:13 PM

That’s a sign of a healthy, open minded debate. Declaring anyone who doesn’t fit a predefined mold on each and every discussion point as being “not one of us” leads you down a path toward irrelevance and extinction.

Unless they are a candidate, and you don’t like or even really know where they stand on a given issue.

dogsoldier on March 4, 2013 at 5:42 PM

Clint Eastwood has fathered seven children by five different women. Sandra Locke claims Eastwood talked her into two abortions during their relationship. So, Clint is no better than the NBA player or rapper who has multiple illegimate children. He is hardly someone we should look to for guidance on any issues regarding morality. – bw222 on March 3, 2013 at 9:43 AM

Eastwood certainly has a horrible record in his personal sexual conduct. He also has the right to express his own opinion. You don’t have to agree with it.

SC.Charlie on March 4, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Clint Eastwood has fathered seven children by five different women. Sandra Locke claims Eastwood talked her into two abortions during their relationship. So, Clint is no better than the NBA player or rapper who has multiple illegimate children. He is hardly someone we should look to for guidance on any issues regarding morality. – bw222 on March 3, 2013 at 9:43 AM

I was thinking of Sondra as I was watching the series last year on Eastwood and his family in Carmel, and while he was at the R Convention. I was wondering how she felt about all that he was doing. They did not have a peaceful parting. I think he stole her parrot (fiend!) He does have a mixed amount of views, for sure. I’m thinking that his present family (esp. his wife) probs helped shape this last endeavor of his regarding gay marriage.

That being said, I’m glad he stands against Obama….he has a powerful voice. I still think he treated Sondra like a piece of dirt.

avagreen on March 4, 2013 at 6:08 PM

And, for that I did NOT like him for a long, long while.

avagreen on March 4, 2013 at 6:09 PM

It has to do with the idea that somebody – anybody – can define conservatism for you on each and every issue. There will be disagreements inside the tent on both sides.

Yeah, right. “O-care is conservative, and don’t you dare tell me otherwise, you narrow-minded bigot.” “Conservative” just becomes an amorphous label that comes in handy simply because it’s more salable than “moderate” or “progressive”.

ddrintn on March 5, 2013 at 1:02 AM

Eastwood certainly has a horrible record in his personal sexual conduct. He also has the right to express his own opinion. You don’t have to agree with it.

SC.Charlie on March 4, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Nope, and when people claim he is conservative, we speak up in order to defend the good name of conservatism.

astonerii on March 5, 2013 at 10:42 AM

The only answer is for the State to get out of the marriage game altogether. The only reason for state involvement harkens back to the days that women were considered a man’s property, be they daughter or wife. Marriage also gives rise to a presumption of parentage, which used to be necessary.

Those times have changed. With the rise of reliable DNA testing, we no longer need wedlock to determine parentage. Nobody owns anybody else in this country today. Yet the State still persists in managing marriages.

It is beyond time to reduce the burden on courts and all the game playing. Over 90% of custody battles are about money or egos, not parenting fitness. Separate the property and financial issues into the realm of pure contract and level the concept of child support. Remove marriage as an element of benefit packages, allowing various classes of dependency.

Churches can still conduct weddings for their members. At that point, the title of husband or wife might actually mean something.

EconomicNeocon on March 5, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3