Clint Eastwood signs amicus brief in support of same-sex marriage

So did S. E. Cupp.

That hurts the most out of all these people who signed.

BigGator5 on February 28, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Why? Because you were dupped into thinking someone from uber liberal Carlsbad California, someone who made her name, not by her writing skills, but by a sophomoric application of her initials and her last name, to make a sexual innuendo out of her name, who never was a Conservative, but like so many others before her, spotted a lucrative market, turned out to not actually be a Conservative after all?

Look, if the reason you like SE is because she’s cute, so be it, then her showing her true colors really shouldn’t mean anything to you. If you have read the pablum drivel she writes and mistaken it for evidence of intelligence, well then their just isn’t anything anyone can do to help you.

SWalker on February 28, 2013 at 11:25 AM

SWalker on February 28, 2013 at 11:16 AM

Well I hope you’re right but keep in mind “observers” gave a similar vote count when predicting the court would find the individual mandate unconstitutional. I see Thomas, Alito, and possibly Scalia as the only holdouts.

Kataklysmic on February 28, 2013 at 11:22 AM

Which is exactly what the Court did rule. Roberts just threw everyone for a loop by finding Obamacare a legal tax. What most people saw in that decision was only a small part of the decision. Roberts echoed his Kelo ruling in the Obamacare ruling. Most people were to busy being butt hurt because Roberts did not rule the way they wanted him to to see the pattern, or read beyond the first couple of lines of Roberts majority opinion.

In both Kelo and Obamacare Roberts drew a very clear line. He said unequivocally, no. The SCOTUS is not going to over rule or throw out lawfully passed legislation just because that legislation offends the majority. If you do not like the laws passed by your elected Representatives then you the people need to take a more proactive stance and choose Representatives who will do a better job of actually representing you.

If Justice Roberts continues to consistently follow that pattern, then like the numerous Court observers are suggesting, he will lead the Court into a ruling that uphold, or affirms California’s Proposition 8. For exactly the same reasons that he upheld Kelo and Obamacare.

SWalker on February 28, 2013 at 11:37 AM

I have to wonder if a homophobe like asstonerii has ever met a gay person. I have friends and one relative who are so-called “degenerates.” In actuality they are wonderful people.

Railing against gay rights, including marriage, is a losing proposition for conservatives. No one is forcing you to be an advocate, or even begrudgingly accept the reality that is staring you in the face.

Just stop foaming at the mouth and calling other human beings degenerates, perverts and sinners, okay? They were just born different from you, through no fault of their own.

Conservatives have a convincing argument to make about fiscal issues, but the socons are alienating voters in droves. And yet you all keep whining about the Republican Party you are responsible for delegitimizing.

Now carry on with the vilification of Clint and his empty chair. The list of RINO scum grows with each passing day.

Meredith on February 28, 2013 at 11:45 AM

Wow, not exactly the brightest bulb on the shelf are you Meredith. When the arrow of moral values shifts in a direction you approve of, it’s a wonderful thing, when it fails to shift in the direction that those who actually do all of your thinking for you want,it’s time to stamp your feet like a good little puppet and threaten to hold your breath until you turn blue.

From the beginning of the Christian era, (well actually about 1000 years before the beginning of the Christian era) on homosexuality has been deemed a deviant and perverse form of behavior. The designation of homosexuality as a deviant and perverse form of behavior comes from Jewish and Christian scripture.

Contrary to the assertions of modern militant homosexual advocates, every civilization in human history has struggled with the question of whether homosexuality was a normal or perverse behavior, and the only time any ancient historical society considered homosexuality a normal behavior, was during their degenerate phase, which preceded their collapse as a society.

It has never been considered a normal healthy form of behavior by any newly emerging civilization, by any civilization that retains the moral and ethical structure which brought about their rise to civilization status. History clearly dictates that it is only in a civilizations degenerate phases that it gains acceptance.

Either provide the documentation proving that homosexuality is a genetic condition, or admit that it isn’t, and therefore, homosexuals were not born any different than any of the rest of us, and therefore are not deserving of any special privileged status predicated on their choice of sexual preference.

As far as no one force us, again, not only not the brightest bulb on the shelf, but just plain either self deceived or intentional dishonest. Not forced? Dr Neal Warren Clark would like to discuss what the phrase “Not Forced” means with you.

As for us de-legitimizing the Republican Party, no, in fact not just no, but incontrovertible and indisputably HeII no. The Conservative position, like the Christian biblical theological stance on the morality, or immorality as the case is more accurately described, has not changed. Which is precisely the point.

For the last 2500 years homosexuality has been deemed to be a perverse deviant behavioral practice. Clearly you do not like this and believe that you have the right to change it. This is where like all liberal totalitarians you are mistaken. If you want to create a religion or a civilization of your own, that does not consider homosexuality a deviant perversion, then that is your right. But what you absolutely do not get to do, is change the moral or ethical standards of a 2000 year old institution because you do not like those moral or ethical standards.

Christianity is not a Democracy or a Republic, you do not get to vote on which moral or ethical standards stay and which ones go. You either accept what Christianity teaches, or your reject it. If you want to reject it, as you obviously do, fine, then reject it, but once again, you do not get to dictate what the moral or ethical standards of Christianity will or will not be.

con·serv·a·tive
/kənˈsərvətiv/
Adjective
Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.
Noun
A person who is averse to change and holds to traditional values and attitudes, typically in politics.

SWalker on February 28, 2013 at 12:32 PM