A question for members of the Tea Party?

Mellie said:

I consider myself someone who agrees with the foundation of the tea party. I am for same sex marriage, for spousal right, for gay adoption and.....I didn't choose on the anti-discrimination laws because there are always 12,000 other things stuffed into a law that have zero to do with the actual law.....so I can't be for that unless I agree with EVERYTHING that's in the law.

Click to expand...

Your Star said:

Legally, that is breaking the 14th amendment. Why should someone be denied the contract of marriage just based on their gender? And numerous studies show that two parent homosexual home is just as effective at raising kids as two parent heterosexual homes.
Also stop with the argument that you have to accept homosexuality as something as non-sinful. It's crap, you don't have to recognize anything, but the state does. You can believe that homosexuals who get married aren't really married all you want, nor does your church have to recognize their marriage, but the state can't deny them the contract of marriage, because you believe it is sinful.

Click to expand...

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification."

Click to expand...

digsbe said:

It isn't breaking the 14th Amendment. Not making homosexual unions on par and redefining marriage to include homosexuality does not violate the equal protection clause. Gender roles are not unconstitutional. Gender discrimination is not always wrong. It's not wrong to have male and female bathrooms. Likewise, men are the only ones who must sign up for the selective service (draft), women do not. Are these practices also illegal gender discrimination? Back in the 70's the nation voted on The Equal Rights Amendment. The 3 main points were

This amendment failed. It was voted down. Had this been passed barring a man from being a wife would be unconstitutional. However, the opposite is true. Gender roles are not unconstitutional, in fact it would be unconstitutional to try and apply a failed amendment to the Constitution.

Living in a state that extend legal marriage to homosexuality and takes the stance that it is moral does force me to accept it within society and law. However, in my state it's illegal and has been legally defined as a union only between one man and one woman (making polygamy and ssm illegal in TN). I live in the state, my views deserve to be represented just as much as the pro-ssm people in MA have their views represented in law. The state can deny them the contract of marriage, in fact it's against the state constitution to allow one where I live.

Click to expand...

Your Star said:

But your belief that marriage is just between a man and a women is a religious belief, and your belief that same sex couples shouldn't adopt also stems from the religious belief that homosexuality is inferior to heterosexuality. Now why should the people who don't belief your specific set of religious beliefs be forced to follow laws that stem from your religion?

Click to expand...

phattonez said:

I don't think that there would be any consensus about this in the Tea Party. The movement to me seems based wholly on economic and budgetary issues, not social issues.

Click to expand...

Your Star said:

Where do you stand on LGBT issues? Do you support or are against things like Same Sex Marriage, spousal benefits, adoption rights, DADT, anti-discrimination laws? And why?

Click to expand...

Your Star said:

Let me ask you this, why do you think that people should be forced to conform to your religious beliefs?

Click to expand...

Middleground said:

Exactly.

Which makes me wonder where in the hell were they during the Bush years?

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

First, the very first TEA party protest WAS aimed at George W. Bush. The February 27th 2009 Tea party Protests were in part against the TARP bill signed by GWB.

Second, while spending has quickly became an equal if not greater focus the original focus was much larger on taxes, such as the second TEA Party protest held on Tax day that was focused singularly on taxes. George Bush, for all his issues that consevatives had on him, was pretty decent with taxes. On the flip side, Obama had already made statements at that point about letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire, talked about the notion of possibly raising taxes in general as being necessary, and had begun to raise other taxes not counting the income tax. So the notion that it was at the very least likely, if not garaunteed, that inevitably taxes would be raised was much more prevelant under Obama than under Bush.

Third, the Tea Party is about 50% "republicans" and about 50% independents, libertarians, and democrats that are conservativel eaning. The latter half WAS extremely critical openly of Bush and spending during his term. The other 50% had a large portin of them being also critical of Bush during his years but less loud and vocal. To be upset about this and ONLY focus ones anger or indignation towards the tea party is laughable and disingenuous though. You can look at the Anti-War movement currently which is a relative blip on the radar compared to even 2007 despite Obama simply following Bush's plan in Iraq and actually ramping up in Afghanistan. You can look at the immigration movement and how relatively quiet they've been despite that the Obama administration has not done anything significantly greater than the Bush administration did. It is common in politics, as it is in every other walk of life, that when your guys are in power your issues with them are dealt with in more quiet and back channel ways because you DO want it fixed but you realize your issues with "your" guys would be even BIGGER issues with the "other" guys.

Fourth, there was a decent bit of conservative outcry over things like the perscription drug bill, no child left behind, and TARP under Bush. In regards to other spending things such as the War on Terror, there was begrudging acceptance due to at least believing that national defense is a legitimate government duty. The notion of buying car companies, providing health care, bailing out wallstreet, worthless "service" project funding, and other such things NOT being part of what the federal government constitutionally should be doing adds to the indignation.

Think of it this way. Lets say your family is strapped for cash. If your spouse goes out and uses what little money you have on food but gets relatively expensive name brand food instead of generic brands, you may say "hey honey, next time can you go for the cheaper alternative. Money's tight". You're not likely to make a huge fit about it though because hey, they're spending it on fooda nd you all need food. However if they instead go out and come back with a new dress and high heels, or with 3 XBox games, you're probably going to have a much bigger issue and much more vocal issue because they're using it on luxuries not its intended purpose.

Finally I'll point out that the Tea Party, since its formation and momentum, has NOT been focusing just on democrats. They HAVE been critical of Republicans, they HAVE gone after republican politicians. While the movement may've not been formed and loosely organized under Bush, using that as somehow a sign that this is solely a republican entity or something just born out of hate for Obama is a bit transparent when its obvious their issues are with a mentality and an ideological view point regardless of whether they see that view point in a person with a (D) or an (R) next to their name.

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

The February 2009 protest was agaisnt TARP and the ARRA along with the potential for taxes being raised based on Obama's statements during the election and after regarding views on the Bush Tax Cuts and the notion that we have Democrats in power in both the Congress and the Presidency with enormous spending happening and a realization that somehow these things would have to be paid for, which traditionally with democrats is raising taxes.

The April 15th one was focused almost singularly on taxes. It was also after the point in where Obama had laid out his budget and proposed plan for numerous tax increases on individuals and business over the next decade. There was already talk of Carbon Credits, cap and trade, and universal health care at that point as well that was beginning to make people wary. Now you can suggest that people were overreacting and jumping at boogeymans based on hindsight. At the same time, one can look at history with regards to Democratic controlled congresses or Presidents as well as what was proposed by Obama and/or Democrats rather than simply what actually came to pass and suggest that while they may've over reacted their reaction may well have also been the reason why lighter, but still there, tax issues may've came to pass when in the end they hadn't.

Click to expand...

Second, while spending has quickly became an equal if not greater focus the original focus was much larger on taxes, such as the second TEA Party protest held on Tax day that was focused singularly on taxes. George Bush, for all his issues that consevatives had on him, was pretty decent with taxes. On the flip side, Obama had already made statements at that point about letting the Bush Tax Cuts expire, talked about the notion of possibly raising taxes in general as being necessary, and had begun to raise other taxes not counting the income tax. So the notion that it was at the very least likely, if not garaunteed, that inevitably taxes would be raised was much more prevelant under Obama than under Bush

Click to expand...

Zyphlin said:

My apologizes there, that was an issue on my part. I take it you're speaking about this paragraph:



I bolded something that seems to be a mistake on YOUR part and then I'll speak to mine. This paragraph where I made mention of Obama raising taxes was concerning the SECOND protest, not the first, which was the April 15th protest.

Now, on my mistake, you are correct. I was mistaken in regards to Obama having already raised taxes. He had not. He had simply at this point submited a budget that had numerous tax increases slated for the to go into affect over the next decade in time. However, they had not actually been signed into law or passed yet. So no, Obama had not at the time of the second TEA Party protest increased any taxes that I am aware of. He had however proposed and had begun the push for numerous tax increases at this point. My mistake.

-edit- Actually read the post below. Not really my mistake. He HAD raised a tax long prior to the April 15th date and even before the February date. However, my thought initially was much more to the budget then to the tobacco tax so the above still generally applies

Click to expand...