Go ´head punk....make my day..

Clint has his opinion and the Bible has its. I put my trust in the bible.

I believe it´s time for the government to get out of the Marriage Business altogether. State governments should start issuing "civil union" licenses... then the recipients could take it to their church, wedding chapel, whatever, for further nuptials if they so desire.

Not even Clint Eastwood can make me change my mind that marriage is a man/woman thing.

What difference does it make?

Seriouisly, the lie-erals running things in Cubafornia are going to get exctly what they want -- the wishes of the people be damned!!! Either they will keep using the courts to their advantage, or they will find some other way to drag this out until they finally get the results they want.

These are truly the end times...

Thank you, Mr Eastwood. Maybe the Conservative movement will slowly move away from this losing social conservative issue. It is hard to convince thinking Americans that marriage should be allowed for some and not for others.

Yes, thank you, Mr. Eastwood for clarifying that the concept of "marriage" means absolutely nothing at all. Anyone can get married to whomever (or whomevers) they choose with no concern at all for the consequences. Why, first cousins, siblings, adults and children, just any combination at all should be allowed. Marriage is just such a nothing burger. And besides, who gives a baby rat´s bottom about the kids?
Ramona (the Pest)

#5-The thought of same sex sex or same sex marriage is sickening! If you see nothing wrong with two men having sex in the manner queer men usually do,then you probably have homo leanings!!


Ted in Michigan

I like Clint´s acting but why would I take his advice on morals? He was a cheat....cheated on his wife, cheated on his girlfriend...And same sex marriage is a moral issue.

Thank you Mr. Eastwood for being another idiot, wealthy Republican who is falling for the "look over here" moment of gay marriage while all Americans (that´s the gay ones too, sir) are struggling with a sinking economy, unprotected borders, loss of Constitutional rights (that are actually in the Constitution) and looming health care cuts.
Thanks for really drilling down and getting to the root of our country´s problems.
Thanks for nothing.

What percentage of the population is gay? Out of that percentages, what percentage will actually get married? The number is really very small.

I understand that lots of people have moral and religious objections and if that´s your view I understand that you have to fight it all the way.

Beyond that though, we are talking about a tiny, tiny portion of the population and it´s always frustrating to see the energy spent on this by both sides given the other issues we have to address.

Clint has cheated on his many wives and girlfriends. Abused a few as well. His opinion on marriage between 2 weird people means nothing.

Next up will be his friend Morgan Freeman saying it is ok with having sex with 12 year old step children - which he did.

I don´t think #5 stated approval about what gay men do together. But #7 is inclined to think about the things gay men do together.

#3: I´ve been saying the same thing for years. Why do clergy have to act as agents of the government when they officiate at weddings? Why does someone who´s been asked to officiate at a friend´s wedding (I´ve been to several of these and they´re lovely) have to go online and get some phony ordination to legally do so? It makes no sense and it goes against the notion of separation of church and state.

Civil unions for there business transaction of the union (and everyone would have to get this) and the ceremony of marriage can be as individual and personal as one likes. Between their church and them.

Clint will now move to my s-list.

In this week´s New York Magazine about same-sex divorce problems. Interesting read.

From "I Do" to "I´m Done"

Yup. I´m with #3 and #13. Get government out all together.

Remember how well this man upheld his marital vows and supported traditional marriage. He had a mistress for how many years?

So "thinking Americans" means those who have the ability to independently change the meaning of commonly used words to suit themselves?

´´Marriage,´´ already has its definition, both by God and in America´s legal system. The shifting whims of WHATEVER is the Political Correctness de jeur in order to, ´´change,´
´ the definition of, ´´Marriage,´´ is like mixing apples & oranges with legislative gymnastics. Marriage is what it is.

Instead of attempting to tamper with & irresponsibly change the definition of marriage, the legislators need to address the particular legal issues of sincere concern, individually and by some other name... ´´Civil unions,´´ is an option which has already been suggested, but even that doesn´t cover every potential legal situation.

Wrong move, Clint.

First he was our hero because of the "chair" and now we need to trash him because of his stance on marriage.

It´s amazing how much time some people spend thinking about same-sex sex. Perhaps they are the ones with ´homo leanings´. Me thinks they protest just a little too much.

#21, it´s amazing how much we have to deal with the topic of homsexuality as it is somehow, someway, constantly thrown in our faces.

Society has a special interest in supporting marriage between a man and a woman. It takes a male and female to reproduce and replenish society´s citizens, and children need a nurturing environment to grow up into good citizens. Without this reproduction cycle society would die out, so the society has found it convenient to encourage marriage and children by making special provisions like tax exemptions for raising the new citizens.
Homosexuals can sign partnership agreements that give them survivor preferences or power of attorney in case of illness, etc.But giving their relationship the title of ´marriage´ does not really make sense unless it is to stroke their egos . Society does not benefit by their action since they do not reproduce.

If #3´s proposal could be accomplished without opening the door to lawsuits against clergy and churches that won´t perform same sex ceremonies, and without opening the door to polygamy and polyandry, I´d been okay with that.

#7 sounds like a 12-year old.

I am certainly not for gay marriage and think civil union makes more sense. But I also believe it´s a losing issue for Republicans. The usual parties will protest that the social conservative issues are what is harming the party, but that can´t be taken seriously.

I´ll pass over the unhelpful claims that anyone expressing opinions on this issue is secretly harboring homosexual philias or phobias. Marriage is a social institution that serves a social function. Society defines what marriage is and orders itself accordingly. Definitions, by their nature, decide what something is, and what it is not. For me, the three decisions are: 1. Will a compelling social interest be served by redefining marriage to afford heterosexual and homosexual relationships the same marital status? 2. What unintended social consequences might arise from this decision? 3. Specifically, how will the next petition to redefine marriage be dealt with? However much one hopes for happiness of individuals, and wishes them well, if man can marry man, marriage has changed. At some point it may change to point where everyone can have it, and no one values it. And a society where marriage has no value, has no future.