Clint Eastwood Doesn’t Sugar Coat It

So Roberta has a quote up from one of my most favorite Hollywood figures

 let’s spend a little more time leaving everybody alone.

Amen to that! So I clicked through the links, and I found the context. And damn. Yeah.  What he said.

“These people who are making a big deal out of gay marriage?” Eastwood opined. “I don’t give a fuck about who wants to get married to anybody else! Why not?! We’re making a big deal out of things we shouldn’t be making a deal out of.”

“They go on and on with all this bullshit about ‘sanctity’ — don’t give me that sanctity crap! Just give everybody the chance to have the life they want.”

You see, that’s the thing about fighting for liberty.  You want everybody to have the chance to have the life they want.  Not the one you want for them.  You don’t even get to offer a pre-approved list of lives they get to pick from.  And I’m not making any promises anyone will get the life they want.  I just want them to have the chance to build it for themselves.

This is my problem with the social conservatives.  They pretend to be on the side of liberty until someone wants to exercise their personal liberty in a way that offends their high moral character. <insert eyeroll>

You know what?  I’m Christian, straight, and married to a man.  I believe the homosexual lifestyle is sinful. You know what else? I believe you should have the rights to live in whatever kind of sin you choose just as long as it isn’t hurting me and I’m not paying for it.  And honestly, the only person’s sexuality I’m concerned with beyond my own, is the person I’m having sex with.  We can still be friends if you’re dancing a different horizontal mambo.

I’m sick of politicians wrapping themselves in some sanctimonious cloak of Judeo Christian values.  Jesus didn’t come to pass a law. He came to save the sinners. The lost.  The queers.  The fags.  And me.

21 thoughts on “Clint Eastwood Doesn’t Sugar Coat It”

  1. Gays can already live together and do what ever they want in every state of the U.S. Gays can enter into whatever kind of contract they want with anyone they want,the same as straights, celibates, paedophiles, furries and any other kind of sexual label one can conceive of.

    Gays have the same rights as anyone else and equal justice before the bar of law. And that’s how it should be.

    Gay marriage isn’t about that.

    What it IS about is forcing churches to perform ceremonies against their beliefs or face a government gun.

    It’s about congregations being able to decide for themselves whether to associate with people whose activities they might find objectionable or be sued into non-existence for discrimination.

    It’s about forcing ministers and priests to do something that they themselves consider sinful.

    Now, tell me how that furthers the cause of liberty.

  2. Miguel – because it’s the right thing to do. People shouldn’t be made into second-class citizens simply because they do things you disagree with, particularly if those things aren’t hurting anyone.

    If it doesn’t hurt your person, if you’re not paying for it, and if you’re not witnessing it (i.e. you’re not climbing in their bedroom windows), why should you or anyone else care?

    It kills me how this is still a hotbutton argument. Frankly there should be less talking about sex and more doing. The world would be a much happier place.

  3. My problem is that we are paying for this and so many other things in so many ways. You’re right Jen, your life is yours to lead. Then if it goes to hell and you start looking for help, you pray and try to get a government program to bail you out.

  4. “It kills me how this is still a hotbutton argument. Frankly there should be less talking about sex and more doing.”

    And bingo. It is about sex, not marriage. Marriage to be defined as just the sexual act between 2 individuals? You just degraded it. I might be old school, but I do believe that Marriage is more than that and that we are suffering the consequences of many years of attacks to the institution.

  5. Alright, you got me. I focused on one part of the argument rather than the whole thing. I still fail to see how marriage – which is a state institution – is degraded in any way by allowing two consenting adults to marry, regardless of their equipment.

  6. If it were merely a question of who shacks up with whom, nobody would be bothered with anything…

    The fight is over public, legal recognition, public ceremonies, and very public demands for not just tolerance, but wholehearted, enthusiastic agreement with whatever a given group is spouting.

    And frankly, I’m surprised that people who claim to fight for liberty, are seemingly incapable of addressing the question of why adult citizens can’t simply do things on their own, without the politicians adding their “blessings” on .

  7. Honestly, I think government should get out of the marriage business all together. As I’ve said before, the state issued piece of paper does not sanctify our union. As far as the gov’t is concerned, consenting adults are entering into a contract to combine households and have agreed to give the other party power of attorney should they be unable to handle their own affairs.
    My point is that when social conservatives get up on their high horse on these issues, they are no better than the liberals trying to foist “tolerance” on everyone. I do not believe that churches should be forced to perform these ceremonies. There will be churches that will do it, and you don’t have to go to a church to get married. And there are plenty of state recognized marriages out there already that I don’t approve of or accept. The state hasn’t been able to force me there, so why would this be any different?

  8. Quoting: “Honestly, I think government should get out of the marriage business all together.”

    Strange, then, that the post we’re commenting, is completely devoid of that sentiment…

    And Knitebane’s comment, which was not visible until just now, hits one of the possible homeruns: Having government mandating what churches should accept or not, is very much a part of the agenda for a number of the oh-so-tolerants we are so richly blessed with…

    Given the limitations of the comments format, I’m going to just briefly mention (not elaborate) one other aspect of matrimony: Given its heterosexual notoriety, it is prone to creating children, and a large part of the laws on this, were created to handle concommitant issues arising from this. Which is one other angle of debate in this field.

  9. fainfenix y Miguel.

    Jennifer nails it when she says that gub’mint should get out of the marriage business all together (which I whole-heartedly agree with).

    Southern Baptists will never marry our gay brethren; the Unitarians will. The only reason the gub’mint is involved at all is to favor one group over another, or to equate different groups.

    But then again, there’s a lot the gub’mint needs to get out of.

  10. Packetman – I don’t completely agree or disagree.

    Yes, the government needs to get the hell out of the religious side of it, but if they’re going to grant licenses to hetero couples, they need to do the same for same-sex couples. If they’re going to grant special liberties to hetero couples, they need to do the same for same-sex couples. This, really, is all they want. They want the same rights hetero folks have had.

    And this is where the government needs to either grant equal treatment or they simply need to get out of it completely.

  11. Knitebane and the like make my head hurt. Since when has this issue had anything to do with forcing churches to perform gay marriages? I’ve got plenty of straight friends that weren’t married in a church, hell, I was best man for one of them. Middle of a county park with a justice of the peace officiating, no church involved whatsoever. There is nothing about forcing the Catholic Church or whoever to recognize it, simply for the government bureaucracy to treat it the same as any other “marriage.”

  12. Not sure how straight marriages are granted “special liberties”. There’s no marches in Dallas supporting straight marriages, or congresscritters seeking to gain extra political points (ie, votes) from the straight marriage group. Maybe I’m just not informed on those “liberties”, and need to be enlightened, because I can use all the extra “liberty” that our present gubbermint has bequeathed upon us in the name of “change”.

    As for the whole gay/straight issue, I’ve got friends who are both, and friends I’m not quite sure of either way. What you do in the privacy of your own home is absolutely no concern of mine, unless you choose to make it public. If you prefer the company of goats, that’s your call. You like men/women? Have fun. Own more battery-operated toys than kitchen utensils? Knock yourself out. I don’t care. Its none of my business. What does bother me is all of these pro-gay groups that insist on MAKING it my business. Forcing me to think of homosexuals as “victims” or “oppressed” or something. Honestly, of all the gay friends that I’ve had over the years, I’ve never met one yet that my first thought was “oh, he/she is gay”. I’ve found out afterwards, mainly because it wasn’t really any of my business. Which is fine. They put in a solid day’s work, and demanded only the same that anyone else would have gotten for said day’s work. That, I can respect. This is America…land of the free. Everyone here is free to work for their dreams/goals just like everyone else is. Nobody is entitled to anything just because they meet _____ qualification. Passing over a straight applicant in a job interview simply because you have to meet a quota is still discrimination. Does everyone share my viewpoint? Heck no. Do I expect everyone to? Heck no. Is it a perfect world? Heck no. Do I agree with Jennifer on this? Heck yeah.

    Sorry for the ramble, need Excedrin. And caffeine.

  13. I’m not sure why I make anyone’s head hurt unless it’s by pointing out that all this has happened before.

    Remember when the pro-aborts said, “Oh, we just want to be able to GET abortions. No one, especially the hundreds of church-run hospitals, will be REQUIRED to perform them.”

    That was then.

    In December of 2010 (though this isn’t the only one. Do your own reasearch!) we got this:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122206219.html

    Sezniquote:

    “The American Civil Liberties Union on Wednesday asked federal health officials to ensure that Catholic hospitals provide emergency reproductive care to pregnant women, saying the refusal by religiously affiliated hospitals to provide abortion and other services was becoming an increasing problem.”

    For the thick: Catholic hospitals which do not want to perform abortions as they are against their religious beliefs are under assault to do so anyway.

    Does anyone seriously think that the far left wingers that have been running the gay rights movement will settle for anything less? Is anyone actually that naive?

    Two gay people can get a Unitarian Universalist minister to marry them right now in any state. Granted, they can’t file it in most courthouses and they can’t get a marriage license in most states, but if they want to have a marriage ceremony, they can.

    If this was about a FEDERAL law to require the IRS to recognize gays for tax purposes, that would also be different. But the gay rights movement hasn’t been pushing for Federal tax changes. They’ve been insisting that state governments allow gays to marry.

    So you have to ask, why? What does a state law allowing gays to marry get them? It doesn’t confer the ability to file as married on their 1040 forms.

    Insurance purposes? No. Insurance companies already allow you to put anyone you want as your beneficiary or as your designated next-of-kin and all of the major medical insurance companies allow you to add anyone you reside with as a dependent.

    Estate planning? No. All states let you designate anyone you want as your beneficiary for estate purposes.

    Co-habitation property? No. State courts for years have been willing to hear cases from straights that aren’t even married in order to settle property ownership disputes.

    So what does it get them? It gets them a legal standing to force others to recognize them or face the fist of government power. Just like the pro-abortion movement has done.

    The push to get a change to the legal system either through legislation or judicial activism isn’t about having a nice certificate for the scrapbook. It’s the first step in forcing religious institutions to do their bidding.

    Again.

  14. Heh. No worries, its a free country (and blog!), feel free to state your opinions!!! My noggin hurtin has more to do with corrupted drivers, folder security settings, individual user permissions, scripting/batch files, and getting software designed to run on Windows98 to work (not just install….actually WORK) on 64-bit versions of Windows 7 (there’s this oddly forehead-shaped dent in the server rack next to me…). I just wasn’t aware of any special liberties that we straight couples enjoyed. Although…if gay couples can get those, I may just have to apply, as, deep inside, I must admit to being a raging lesbian, unfortunately trapped inside a man’s body. hehehehehehe

  15. Let them have the same rights and chances as everyone else. You don’t have to force churches to marry them either, they’ll either find one willing, or they’ll get a secular marriage.

    One thing often missed is it will give them the same legal rights and pitfalls in the law that other married couples get. There are protections in the law specifically to married spouses.

    As long as the law cares about marriage, then everyone should be able to get married, to whoever they want. If it didn’t, it wouldn’t matter so much.

  16. If it’s offensive to God, He is certainly capable of punishing those who commit the offense and I seem to recall He reserves that power for Himself.

    If so, Christians attempting to punish the homosexuals are sinning as well.

    Check your books!

    Again, why is the atheist the one who knows this piece of trivia?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge