Tea Partiers and LGBT Rights

When I think about the Tea Party movement, I don't tend to conjure up images of people particularly supportive of LGBT rights, but if I think about it for a second more, this seems odd. If the movement is largely about "freedom" and rejecting government control over people's lives, then these two movements would seem to go hand in hand.

To any Tea Partiers out there, am I mis-characterizing your movement or are you selective in where you want the government to involve itself in individuals' lives?

Tea partiers aren't ideologues. They're just a collective of people who want fewer taxes. You'd be [almost] equally likely to find a libertarian who would support those rights to a Bible-thumper or Klansman who would assume burn them upon a cross.

My impression is that they are more of economic conservatives who are not focused on the culture wars regarding social issues. I think they base their movement on the Boston Tea Party, which was a protest against taxation without representation imposed by the overbearing British government.

WilliamJB said:

When I think about the Tea Party movement, I don't tend to conjure up images of people particularly supportive of LGBT rights, but if I think about it for a second more, this seems odd. If the movement is largely about "freedom" and rejecting government control over people's lives, then these two movements would seem to go hand in hand.

To any Tea Partiers out there, am I mis-characterizing your movement or are you selective in where you want the government to involve itself in individuals' lives?

Click to expand...

The only things that Tea Partiers (I consider myself one) are united on are small government, lower taxes & less spending. Everything else is on an individual basis.

I don't really care what consenting adults do behind doors.

WilliamJB said:

When I think about the Tea Party movement, I don't tend to conjure up images of people particularly supportive of LGBT rights, but if I think about it for a second more, this seems odd. If the movement is largely about "freedom" and rejecting government control over people's lives, then these two movements would seem to go hand in hand.

To any Tea Partiers out there, am I mis-characterizing your movement or are you selective in where you want the government to involve itself in individuals' lives?

Click to expand...

So your speculating that we are homophobes?





Personally, I think the government should be completley out of the marriage business, other than that, Unlike obama, I don't really care if two doods or two chicks want to marry each other. :shrug:

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

So your speculating that we are homophobes?





Personally, I think the government should be completley out of the marriage business, other than that, Unlike obama, I don't really care if two doods or two chicks want to marry each other. :shrug:

Click to expand...

By no means am I speculating that Tea Partiers are homophobes, or at least not in any greater number than the rest of the population. I just find it odd that their libertarianism seems to extend only to economic issues. While they're calling for reduction in spending and taxes, why not throw in a "stay out of my bedroom, too" and call for the repeal of DADT and DOMA. It seems conspicuously absent.

And you can't help but notice the frequent religious appeals among members of the TPers, which to me seems much more conservative than libertarian.

Mellie said:

The only things that Tea Partiers (I consider myself one) are united on are small government, lower taxes & less spending. Everything else is on an individual basis.

I don't really care what consenting adults do behind doors.

Click to expand...

The government staying out of the personal moral and sexual choices of others is a big vs. small government issue.

WilliamJB said:

By no means am I speculating that Tea Partiers are homophobes, or at least not in any greater number than the rest of the population. I just find it odd that their libertarianism seems to extend only to economic issues. While they're calling for reduction in spending and taxes, why not throw in a "stay out of my bedroom, too" and call for the repeal of DADT and DOMA. It seems conspicuously absent.

And you can't help but notice the frequent religious appeals among members of the TPers, which to me seems much more conservative than libertarian.

Click to expand...

Why don't anti-war folk do the same? Was that conspisuosly absent?

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

So your speculating that we are homophobes?





Personally, I think the government should be completley out of the marriage business, other than that, Unlike obama, I don't really care if two doods or two chicks want to marry each other. :shrug:

Click to expand...

And haters...

I think the Tea Party group isn't about an ideology but rather about a few issues. We are fed up with government spending and with an increasing size of government. We are against raising taxes and opposed to Obamacare. We don't really take on many social issues because the Tea Party group isn't necessarily an ideology. Personally, I think the state should only recognize marriage for the sake of legal custody of children and divorces. Other then that marriages shouldn't have any state benefits or tax benefits. It's a decision and union between a man and a woman that the government legally acknowledges but doesn't control or give favor too. I am personally opposed to homosexual unions and marriages for religious reasons, but it's not my business if two men/women chose to live together and problem themselves as married. Just remove marriage benefits from the state and the whole issue is solved.

WilliamJB said:

The government staying out of the personal moral and sexual choices of others is a big vs. small government issue.

Click to expand...

True, but I think Tea Partiers are more interested in the economic side of small government instead of the social side.

The Tea Party Movement is not defined around cultural conservatism, but rather public policy conservatism. That being said, many of those who are involved in the Tea Party Movement are also sympathetic with cultural conservatism.

Every group doesn't have to address every issue.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:

Why don't anti-war folk do the same? Was that conspisuosly absent?

Click to expand...

I see your point. I guess my issue is that the TPers seem to have a broader goal than just stopping a particular war, namely, getting the government out of the private sphere as much as possible. This necessarily implicates other issues.

Goshin said:

Every group doesn't have to address every issue.

Click to expand...

Point taken. I guess everyone, myself included, likes to see their issue of choice on the political agenda.

WilliamJB said:

Point taken. I guess everyone, myself included, likes to the their issue of choice on the political agenda.

Click to expand...

Let me narrow the point a little, in light of some of the good points that have been brought up regarding the necessity of addressing every issue.

If there is anyone who can be regarded as a "leader" in the TP movement, names like Sarah Palin from the political end, and Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity from the media end, usually come up. God knows "Ms. Alaska" is certainly tying herself pretty closely to them.

They all (now) preach "small government" and "stay out of our lives," but on social issues, well, bring on the govenrment intervention. It seems hypocritical.

If TPers on this forum agree with me, then perhaps an attempt to distance the movement from social conservatives might be helpful. I also don't see alot of complaints coming from the movement about their self-appointed leaders.

WilliamJB said:

Let me narrow the point a little, in light of some of the good points that have been brought up regarding the necessity of addressing every issue.

If there is anyone who can be regarded as a "leader" in the TP movement, names like Sarah Palin from the political end, and Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity from the media end, usually come up. God knows "Ms. Alaska" is certainly tying herself pretty closely to them.

They all (now) preach "small government" and "stay out of our lives," but on social issues, well, bring on the govenrment intervention. It seems hypocritical.

If TPers on this forum agree with me, then perhaps an attempt to distance the movement from social conservatives might be helpful. I also don't see alot of complaints coming from the movement about their self-appointed leaders.

Click to expand...

Well, the direction of the Tea Party Movement looks like it will be a group of people who will merely rate politicians on their agenda items through the nascent "Contract From America." You may not see them distance themselves from cultural conservatism, but rather be indifferent towards it in order to maintain a strong presence. Cultural conservatism is a strong force in American political culture. It would be wise for Tea Party activists as well as their critics to keep that in mind. There would be little need for the Tea Party Movement to try to expand into issues that could cause a splinter in a group of people who could have worked together under, more or less, similar goals. Had this occurred in the beginning, I could certainly understand why the more libertarian-sympathetic group could have taken control, but the fact was that they did not define themselves in that manner. Part of the reason why they are a potentially strong lobby is due to the broad coalition they amassed. The Tea Party Movement is what it is now, and I would think that they would not be interested in an inner battle to define themselves after finally coming together with a static message.

I would also caution against calling it truly hypocritical. Politics is not a black and white issue, and you will find most people support using government in one thing, or to have them not use their power in another manner. It does not necessarily spoil their political views. Perhaps you yourself think that the government need not be involved in one sphere of American life. Does that necessarily remove the legitimacy of your positions?

Fiddytree said:

Well, the direction of the Tea Party Movement looks like it will be a group of people who will merely rate politicians on their agenda items through the nascent "Contract From America." You may not see them distance themselves from cultural conservatism, but rather be indifferent towards it in order to maintain a strong presence.

Click to expand...

I'll take indifference

Fiddytree said:

Cultural conservatism is a strong force in American political culture. It would be wise for Tea Party activists as well as their critics to keep that in mind. There would be little need for the Tea Party Movement to try to expand into issues that could cause a splinter in a group of people who could have worked together under, more or less, similar goals. Had this occurred in the beginning, I could certainly understand why the more libertarian-sympathetic group could have taken control, but the fact was that they did not define themselves in that manner. Part of the reason why they are a potentially strong lobby is due to the broad coalition they amassed. The Tea Party Movement is what it is now, and I would think that they would not be interested in an inner battle to define themselves after finally coming together with a static message.

Click to expand...

Well, political coalitions are a tricky thing. I would argue that cultural liberals are potentially as useful, if not more so, than cultural conservatives as allies if the goal is "less governmment." I say this for two reasons, one, polls show much more liberal social attitudes among younger people and if the movement intends to stick around long-term, it might be wise not to alienate this group (the same mistake the GOP seems to be making with Latinos lately). Two, social liberalism is simply more logically related to fiscal conservatism (the libertarian point). If the coalition the TPers are putting together turns out to look like it seems to be, it's basically identical to the neo-con/social con/fiscal libertarian/national defense hawk coalition that currently makes up the GOP, and is coming apart at the seams. Just like the New Deal coalition disintegrated in the late 60s.

Fiddytree said:

I would also caution against calling it truly hypocritical. Politics is not a black and white issue, and you will find most people support using government in one thing, or to have them not use their power in another manner. It does not necessarily spoil their political views. Perhaps you yourself think that the government need not be involved in one sphere of American life. Does that necessarily remove the legitimacy of your positions?

Click to expand...

Agreed, but again, I wish politicians could simply be honest about these things. Don't tell me you give a tiny rats **s about individual liberties while denying them to a group of people.

I happily admit that I think the government ought to be reasonably involved in the economy in areas where it's necessary (healthcare, banking regulation, etc.), but not in people's bedrooms. I don't make blanket indictments of "big government," then rave about the govenrment's role in regulating individual's choices. You may not agree, but at least it's honest and consistent.

digsbe said:

I think the Tea Party group isn't about an ideology but rather about a few issues. We are fed up with government spending and with an increasing size of government. We are against raising taxes and opposed to Obamacare. We don't really take on many social issues because the Tea Party group isn't necessarily an ideology. Personally, I think the state should only recognize marriage for the sake of legal custody of children and divorces. Other then that marriages shouldn't have any state benefits or tax benefits. It's a decision and union between a man and a woman that the government legally acknowledges but doesn't control or give favor too. I am personally opposed to homosexual unions and marriages for religious reasons, but it's not my business if two men/women chose to live together and problem themselves as married. Just remove marriage benefits from the state and the whole issue is solved.

Click to expand...

I appreciate and respect your beliefs. But I originally thought the Tea Party movement was a non-partisan small government thing.

Then I met some people here who were out after a gathering and I realized that that's far from the truth (at least here in Tennessee). It was a far right-wing movement who didn't want to hear anything from anyone who remotely disagreed even with things that weren't really part of their platform.

Again, I'm not trying to judge the nationwide movement on my one experience, but I didn't encounter a single person who was socially liberal or libertarian in the group that I met. I was immediately turned off.

There are just candidates I can't support, even if I agree with certain aspects of their platforms. They seemed to love all those candidates.

Well, that and I'm actually okay with the Healthcare reform. I'm just not okay with Wall Street bailouts.

Any movement in favor of 'smaller government' will, by it's very premise, exclude most Democratic voters. Basically, the movement is a faction of the Conservative movement, and is a response to the election of Obama, who is a very big government president.

FilmFestGuy said:

I appreciate and respect your beliefs. But I originally thought the Tea Party movement was a non-partisan small government thing.

Then I met some people here who were out after a gathering and I realized that that's far from the truth (at least here in Tennessee). It was a far right-wing movement who didn't want to hear anything from anyone who remotely disagreed even with things that weren't really part of their platform.

Again, I'm not trying to judge the nationwide movement on my one experience, but I didn't encounter a single person who was socially liberal or libertarian in the group that I met. I was immediately turned off.

There are just candidates I can't support, even if I agree with certain aspects of their platforms. They seemed to love all those candidates.

Well, that and I'm actually okay with the Healthcare reform. I'm just not okay with Wall Street bailouts.

Click to expand...

I had the same experiece with them on their online forums.

FilmFestGuy said:

I appreciate and respect your beliefs. But I originally thought the Tea Party movement was a non-partisan small government thing.

Click to expand...

It is. Anyone who is for smaller more accountable government, and less taxes, is the tea party. :shrug:

Then I met some people here who were out after a gathering and I realized that that's far from the truth (at least here in Tennessee). It was a far right-wing movement who didn't want to hear anything from anyone who remotely disagreed even with things that weren't really part of their platform.

Click to expand...

I find it stunningly amazing that those who are not tea party folk here at dp, seem to attend more tea parties than us tea party folk. :roll:

Again, I'm not trying to judge the nationwide movement on my one experience, but I didn't encounter a single person who was socially liberal or libertarian in the group that I met. I was immediately turned off.

Click to expand...

Maybe it's where you were. Were I am it has been mostly libertarians, and conservatives, but also independents and some democrats.

There are just candidates I can't support, even if I agree with certain aspects of their platforms. They seemed to love all those candidates.

Well, that and I'm actually okay with the Healthcare reform. I'm just not okay with Wall Street bailouts.

Click to expand...

Healthcare reform in its current form kinda is a bailout for the HC industry. :lol:

Frankly, I'm of the opinion that someone being gay or bi is not something that even affects me. It hardly picks my pocket, or makes me uncomfortable. As long as they're not hitting on me, I'm fine with it, and if they do, I am perfectly comfortable with saying no, and letting it drop.

Not all 'conservatives' hate gays, blacks, etc. They're all human. Not even a different type of human, by definition, they are part of the race.

My opinion is that government has no place in defining what is or is not legal thus at the federal level, other than kicking the states in the head when they go too far and try to legislate against some group or other.

Just legislation is all or nothing. If you as a society aren't willing to do without a thing, you can't legislate it away. If you as a society want to benefit from something, you have to give it to everyone, not just to your friends and those you like.

I'm also of the opinion that we're way too obsessed with sex in general, to the point of unhealthy as a society. We seem to program ourselves for it to be bad, even though it's hardwired into us, then we externalize that shame on others.

Long as people aren't hurting or coercing others, it is not something we need to regulate.

AIDS? Attempted unprotected intercourse whilst knowing you have it without infoming the other party is still attempted murder. If they die from it, there's no attempt, it's simply murder.

Hating people who are different accomplishes nothing but expending a lot of energy, and creating more hate.

But eh. I also admit I'm a total idiot.