Who says Tea Partiers don’t care about same-sex marriage? Because gay Tea Partiers do!
Meet these two gents — “Auntie Toms,” if you will — at a Tea Party rally in Philadelphia on July 31. Neither of them believe in marriage rights for homosexuals, so long as other laws take care of equal taxation, anti-discrimination, blah blah. “I don’t need [the government] to license my relationships.” Or to treat the gays like a protected class.
As they say it, the Tea Party is more welcoming to these conservative ‘mos than anyone at a gay bar.
Hear, hear
These guys are absolutely right. The cause is equality. One way to achieve it would be for the government to call its bundle of tax and related benefits a civil union for everyone (which is really all that the state *can* bestow), and leave marriage to whatever private organizations that may wish to convey that non-civil recognition.
What in hell is your objection to that? These guys want to achieve the same goal you do, but by a slightly different path. That makes them “auntie Toms?” Or are you suggesting that all gays not only have to want to achieve equality exactly the way you do, but also that gays are not permitting to believe in small government without somehow being traitors?
Jae
I don’t quite see your point on this one Queerty. That are not defending the status quo. They are proposing equality too… getting Government out of marriage would stop it dictating who we are allowed to marry or not. What’s wrong with that? I might be supportive of equal marriage before any sort of reform, but their position hardly seems controversial, or even that interesting… this is what “libertarians” are supposed to believe.
Hear, hear
^ sorry: permitted.
whatever
teabaggers are still pretending to be about smaller gov when they said nothing about its massive expansion during the reagan and bush II years? give me a break.
Steve
Unfortunately, marriage is a federally recognized institution. Civil unions are given benefits and recognized depending on how the state regulates them. This means that no state will have the same exact civil union laws and that if a “civil unioned” couple goes from Florida to New York their benefits and protections will vary between the two states and vary in every state on the way there.
Marriage is a nationwide thing. Civil unions are not. This is exactly why civil unions and DOMA break the Full Faith and Credit Clause.
Hear, hear
There are state laws about marriage, and federal benefits that flow to married couples. The names of those unions at both the state and federal level could be shifted to “civil unions.” That’s the proposal.
If equality could come sooner on these grounds than by the alternative route, what could conceivably be the objection to achieving victory, declaring victory, and moving on?
Zach
@Hear, hear:
Yes, because all the heterosexuals currently enjoying their protected and deified status will readily give up their rights.
Your “way to achieve it” dreadfully underestimates the political, cultural, economic, and legal quagmires you’re going to run into. A similar proposal was brought up in Canada back when same-sex marriage was being debated, and it died a quick death, because no one wanted the word ‘marriage’ stripped of its power.
You’d just as soon work on resurrecting the dead as trying to abolish marriage from within its current framework in society.
Also, these nitwits might be tolerated as token minorities at the rallies when the cameras are on, but the same people who let them demonstrate now (and I can’t for the life of me discern any coherence from the teabaggers) are the ones who’d curb stomp them outside the gay bar.
Zach
I should also add that in Canada, it would be far easier for the federal government to impose a name change if parliamentarians decided to ignore everyone telling them not to remove the word ‘marriage’. Do you honestly think the average person in Alabama, Idaho, or Mississippi would be fine with that? Because it’s not just about the sacredness of the word, it’s about prizing themselves above others.
Mike
@Hear, hear:
LOL. We have a better chance of legalizing gay marriage than getting government out of the marriage business. It will NEVER happen. What about my state, where marriage AND civil unions are illegal? You’re argument is flawed. In my states’ constitution, all unions or any form of recognition is between a man and a woman for any purposes. What would you do about state bans such as these?
Hear, hear
@Zach: That’s absurd. Do you have any evidence to back up that wild accusation? Do you know any tea party or small-government types?
And I don’t think anyone is suggesting that these guy’s strategy is the one likeliest to succeed. I’d wager that your most-preferred polity would include lots of features that are pretty unlikely to actually occur; I know mine would. But that hardly makes your preferences illegitimate. And that’s hardly the ground on which Queerty has denigrated them.
Matt
I would be happy if we had civil unions for anyone and no civil marriage, but I think attempts in that direction will ultimately be rejected by religious conservatives who want more religion in government, not less.
Sceth
I see their point, but Loving v Virginia and Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights kind of force the State to formally protect unions. The name is immaterial, but the name change accomplishes absolutely nothing, and will be a waste of legislator time.
Black Pegasus
LMAO @ “Auntie Toms”
Good one Queerty! They’re Disgusting!
Cam
Their argument is carefully parsed, not to bring equality, but rather to bring them acceptance in the Tea Party.
It isn’t equal for my straight friends to go get a marriage license, while I would have to go to an attorney and pay them a few thousand dollars to write up all the different contracts that mimic marriage.
I’ll make a deal with them. If the govt. decides to get rid of the institution of marriage, then I will buy what they are selling, but until then, separate but equal has NEVER been equal.
Mike
I think they’re forgetting the states that Ban any form of marriage related contract between gay couples.
I live in Michigan and our state consitution states..
“To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”
It says for ANY purposes. Meaning, you can’t have a contract(marriage, civil union. partnership) Even with what these guys are proposing, I still wouldn’t be able to get a civil union because it’s illegal. So, it’s a flawed argument.
So if the completely eliminated marriage, I would still not be treated as an equal in my state. Can’t even get civil unioned:-(
John (CA)
The Republicans and Democrats would say that it is both impractical and stupid to give everyone a divorce as a means to ensure “equality.”
And they’d be right.
There are 192 nation states recognized by the international community. To my knowledge, none of them have abolished civil marriage in favor of some undefined contractual agreement. In the case of civil unions and civil partnerships, they are always a supplemental arrangement in addition to – rather than a replacement for – the institution of marriage.
Eliminating marriage is a far more radical idea than merely allowing same-sex couples access to it.
Jay
Cuties!
Hear, hear
@Mike: In Michigan, and all states that have constitutional provisions like that of Michigan, *any* path to equality is going to require those constitutional provisions to be repealed. So the argument is no or more less flawed that the argument that both gay and straight couples should have equal access to the state-sanctioned union now called “marriage.” That’s why Matt, above, is wrong too. “Changing the name” wouldn’t be an empty act, because that wouldn’t be only thing being done; the operative act would be making these things now called marriages, then to be called civil unions, open to everyone.
Meanwhile, Black Pegasus — these guys are “disgusting” because they disagree with you slightly about the preferred path to equality? Wow.
LD
These two don’t strike me as queer. Posers maybe. Is this part of a mockumentary?
L.
@John (CA): At least one of those 192 – Israel – has no civil marriage, or state-sanctioned union of any kind (even for straights). It’s all been left in the hands of the Rabbinate, and there are no marriages outside religious ones. And there no divorces either outside of clergy-sanctioned ones.
That’s the reason why so many Israeli couples decide to get hitched in another country – their marriage is recognized back home, but without the binding terms of traditional, religious marriage. (This is especially important to women, as religious divorces very often actively discriminate against them in the proceedings and consequences, such as child custody.)
I know of no other countries with that quirky twist on marriage, but I would not be surprised to learn a couple of Muslim countries also don’t know of state-sanctioned marriages, and only of religious ones. (Saudi Arabia making little or no distinction between civil and religious realms may well be one, for instance, but I haven’t checked.)
Devon
Gay teabaggers…Living proof that homos can be just as naive, stupid, xenophobic, and reactionary as straights.
Also, LOL @ “auntie toms.” I’m totally using that.
GEW
I wanna see their gay cards.
And I don’t like the idea of telling people I have a civil union partner and that we’re civil unioned.
“This is your husband?”
“No, he’s my civil union partner.”
“So, you’re married?”
“No, it’s not called marriage… we’re civil unioned.”
Just don’t sound quite right.
Top
Bottoms!
Reason
@Devon: I wasn’t quite able to tease out the xenophobia in the individuals that spoke but maybe I missed it.
@L.: As far as the premise of removing marriage from the federal governments jurisdiction I have always been a supporter of that since my teens ideologically. I think that marriage is a religious institution that in itself is not a monolith, different religions and cultures have their own definition of marriage. The federal government trying to define marriage is overreaching, and has skewed the definition of marriage for many faiths and people gays included as no universal definition exist. I believe in the separation of church in state not just for the states benefit but the church. When the state is involved in religion, politicization and interjection of a dynamic eclectic citizenry begins to warp the definition and meaning of that religious function. Channels like fox and right wingers start to define their own meaning of Christianity that gets spread to the masses and damages the actual religion. Zealots and politicians become prominent and their values take the place of the religions values.
I admire a lot of aspects of the Israeli state, and I think building a secular democracy where the different sects of Judaism can adhere to their own spiritual compass, is the most intelligent way to go. Take marriage back to the institution in which they belong to, some may see this as an exclusion of GBLT, it is not. GBLT can apply their own definition to their own creation of their family unit with respect to their own individual culture. I believe within the majority of the GBLT community this is not about trying to obtain the religious part of marriage, it is about the social part and equality before the eyes of the government and fellow citizens. It is the same with large sections of the straight community which are non-religious and don’t get married to obtain the religious part of marriage.
Having said that idealism is great, but realism in the United States paints a different landscape. The religious actors are so entrenched in government and politics that they have latched on to the federal definition of marriage and shaped it to their liking. As time passed it has become the norm, fulfilling their selfish desires to force their religious perspective or personal worldview on the majority of this country: it is in direct conflict of one of the main reasons that the pilgrims came to America which was to avoid persecution of religious freedom. Well they will absolutely not let go of marriage in the federal government at least while they are on the current side of our reality. Therefore a failure to push for gay marriage is an affront to the rights and privileges that are bestowed by the government that all citizens are entitled to equally.
What I wonder is once we are on the other side of our current reality and GBLT marriage is the law of the land, will these religious actors then move to abolish marriage from the federal government in order to recapture some since of their definition. Although I see it as the best solution for all Americans straight, gay, religious, or non-religious, where will the GBLT community stand on such a proposal? It is an honest question, once GBLT marriage is established by the federal government would you support or fight an attempt to finally get the government out of the marriage game?
adam
‘Cause even just anti-discrimination laws are compatible with the message of the Tea Party? not.
Tea Party Rulez!
Since when being gay means you have to support high taxes, insane government regulations and constant attacks of the free enterprise by the DemonRat Party?
All of you who attack these two brave men are just pathetic. So called “Gay Leaders” turned themselves into cheap whores for DemonRats to turn out the votes in exchange for Clinton passing DOMA and Obama doing jack shit on DADT?! You are really acting like hostages obeying all commands of your captors.
No single political party is going to get you LGBT acceptance and equality. You’ll have to educate and change the attitudes of all Americans, not get totally owned by about half who just want to use and abuse you to pass their Big Government agenda.
DemonRats take you for granted. GOP and Tea Parties have only political upside in courting and accommodating LGBT vote. They make more sense than the left-wing jackasses who promise you the world and then fuck you over.
Good Luck voting DemonRat!
Baxter
I could see a lot of religious leaders being OK with government getting out of the marriage game if they took the time to think about it. It would allow religions to define marriage the way they want: Catholics could ban divorce, for example, or fundamentalist Mormons could have polygamous marriages. It really is the most perfect solution and benefits everyone. It’s unlikely to ever happen, but I’m not sure why Queerty is bashing these guys for being idealists.
wompman
I have to say, legally equal civil unions for all would be fine, with the Civil Union as the public, government act, and the marriage the private and/or religious act. It will never happen, as straights will never, ever give up the word marriage and that is the term the state and federal laws use and are concerned with.
These two might be a big naive and I have a very hard time believing they are more welcomed as openly gay at tea party gatherings than conservative at gay bars (especially the brunette, I’m sure he has no trouble getting dates), but I agree people should explore all political options in order to make an informed decision. I hope for their sake they never actually do encounter any anti-gay tea party rage first hand.
Of course, they could both very well be comedic actors, just out to punk everyone on both sides.
whatever
@Tea Party Rulez!: Idiot teabagger POS
Chapeau
::
I’m sorry — but these two would’ve volunteered to help shove their fellow Jews in the gas chambers for Hitler.
WTF.
::
Just Sayin'
The one on the right would be cuter as a progressive liberal.
Tea Party Rulez!
@whatever: How is Obummer working out for you, idiot?
Preciousss
As a libertarian, I’d like to say that the Tea Party are complete and utter posers.
The fact of the matter is that if these guys truly believe that marriage should have no benefits and shouldn’t be regulated by the government, they sure as hell aren’t going the right way in realizing that ideal. Instead, they should be fighting for these things that they may or may not consider rights. Finally, when everyone has these rights, that’d be the perfect time to throw out marriage completely.
If done their way…well, then they lose.
Then again, I might not be the most hardcore libertarian out there as I am also a rather hardcore realist.
Zach
@Tea Party Rulez!:
Better than that lunatic from Alaska, thank you. And a lot of us are liberals not just because we think Democrats will give us everything we want, but because we actually give a shit about our country and not just about ourselves.
By the way, it was low taxes on the wealthy, lack of government regulation, and unfettered free enterprise that left the United States the way it is. And oh yes, that illegal and unnecessary war against Iraq played a part too.
And I personally prefer the Democrat’s big government agenda of health and social programs to the Republican’s big government of massive security agencies and a bloated and massively overfunded military. Neither party has any moral standing to claim that they’re for small government. Only one party actually makes that ridiculous claim.
Republican
Well, in a way, they are partially correct.
I do think that the government should get out of the marriage business. However, I realize that’s going to take years to accomplish, so the quickest way to obtain “equal rights” under the system we have now is to push for “marriage equality”.
Now, as for whether it’s easier to be gay in conservative circles or conservative in gay circles, I think that entirely depends on your approach and the other people involved. But if you’re a gay conservative who wants to discuss your politics with your gay friends, here are a few common sense tips.
First, you need to make sure that you are discussing these things in the right places. Even if you were to the left of Dennis Kucinich, a gay club wouldn’t be the best place to debate politics. Pick a bookstore or a rally instead of trying to talk about Hamilton while some hottie is trying to get into your pants. (But feel free to take the hottie home and hold off on the political quest for another day. Priorities are important.)
Assuming you’ve picked the right place, there is the issue of approach. Don’t just start yakking, but take the time to see if anyone seems interested. People on the right who bring up politics when others don’t want to discuss the topic are just as bad as those on the left who do it. It’s obnoxious.
Now, once you’ve done everything you can do, there will still be some gays who will simply call you a nazi when you reveal your ideology. Ignore these people. They are not looking for rational discussion. But there will be plenty of others who have their thinking caps on and will ask the important question, “Well, why?” This gives you an opportunity to explain what you think conservatism is about (often times, at least in gay circles, it is relatively close to libertarianism) and why you think that approach is the best option. Hopefully, they will respond back with their views, and you can learn from each other.
Also, if you’re like me, you do not donate or support anti-gay Republicans, so it’s important to explain that you support only those (as small in number as they may be) GOP politicians who are for gay rights. You may want to emphasize the primary process in this regard. Many gay republicans vote mainly in primaries in an attempt to push the party in a more gay-friendly direction. If this is what you do, then tell them that.
In short, ignore those who can’t say anything except “Dems rock, Republicans drool!” but really put some effort into some friendly debates with leftists and liberals. It’s unlikely that any minds will be changed, but a greater understanding will exist for all parties involved.
Tea Party Rulez!
@Zach: Now that you outed yourself as openly socialist, I’d offer you a deal.
Let’s increase taxes on all Big Government liberals like you, and leave libertarians and conservatives like me, alone. You’ll get to build your socialist paradise with your own money and I’ll keep my own money and decide how to spend it without you and your Big Brother Obama.
You have no moral right to force me to give you my money. If you want something, don’t be a lazy punk and go earn it. Once you have made a productive economic contribution to society you’ll have a right to bitch. But don’t you dare attack my economic freedoms!
Maybe you should even go all the way and move to the mountains and have communal living without any evil corporation. Simple life one with the nature, but I guess you won’t even be able to use condoms, since rubber is made by profiters whom you hate so much.
jeffree
@Republican:
How might you suggest we LGBs deal with people who claim marriage is primarily a religious institution rather than a legal one?
Thanks!
Republican
@jeffree:
It’s easier to say what doesn’t work than what does.
Direct “separation of church and state” arguments don’t seem to work, because many of these people simply hate that phrase for reasons unrelated to the marriage issue.
Comparisons to anti-miscegenation laws don’t seem to work, because many people who aren’t already leaning to our side refuse to see it as just another twist on the same basic civil rights struggle. They will acknowledge that love bans based on race were wrong and that often times they were based on religious arguments, but then they’ll turn right around and start spouting the thousands of years of history bit, no matter how much you explain the history. Something about it makes them uncomfortable.
What has worked a little is to emphasize “freedom” and how civil marriage isn’t limited to those of a particular faith. For example, try pointing out how many different denominations in Christianity have quite different understandings of marriage. Then ask how, if civil marriage should be about religion, we decide which understanding we really use with respect to matters such as marriage requirements and divorce. Also, ask if they think if people who don’t go to church should be able to to get married. Most of them will agree that people who don’t go to church should still be able to get married. (Don’t say atheists or agnostics. Those are words that will make them tune you out.)
In reality, this is just the separation argument presented in a nicer package, but they don’t realize it, so they haven’t put that non-thinking wall up. It’s kind of sad, but using their own prejudices and dislike for other denominations actually seems to work. Once you’ve laid the groundwork that civil marriage is a separate thing from religious marriage, your job becomes much easier.
Lookyloo
First – I wonder if any Tea Partiers would let these 2 ‘of the good ones’ babysit their kids or grandkids. I doubt it. Do they really think the TP’ers actually accept them?
Now then – They say they don’t need the gov’t to license their relationship. Well, it doesn’t matter because, in most states, they DON’T HAVE A CHOICE. Whereas straight people do have that choice everywhere. Dummies.
No one’s asking to be treated like a special class. We are only asking to be treated like an equal class. That’s why it’s called “Equal Rights”.
And if anyone’s talking about the Libertarian idea of getting the gov’t out of sanctioning any personal unions or ‘marriages’ all-together, that’s a totally different discussion but it would still be EQUAL RIGHTS if nobody’s marriages are gov’t recognized. Dummies.
TN
@Jay: I have to agree, even though I disagree with their propositions, they are good looking guys. Which makes me think that they’re almost fake and not really gay themselves, more like posers.
DR
I am not sure I agree with the whole idea of utilizing contract law to create a relationship. I would like to see the government out of the marriage business, but contract law?!? That seems so… cold. I see where they’re coming from, but I need to digest that a bit this early in the morning. I wonder where the contracts would come from? The state? It seems like civil unions under a different scheme with no consideration for the impact on numerous gay and straight couples already married in America. I need to hear more on it to make a better decision.
I can absolutely see, if these guys are on the up and up, the abuse heaped on them. Go check out the Ann Coulter/GOProud thread. Pretty ugly comments. I’m not surprised in the slightest that they take abuse form the GLBT community. Even here in this thread we have the charming comment from Chapeau.
Oh, and Queerty, a bit of a correction. They were calling for the abolition of ALL marraige institutions, straight or gay. At least be honest when you summarize their comments.
Steve
@Tea Party Rulez!: Bahaha! You say that no single political party can help the LGBT community, but then tell us to vote Republican, who have been nothing but animus towards the LGBT community. Sure, Democrats lie about helping us, but the Republicans WON’T EVEN DARE DO THAT.
So please, realize that the only people who throw what they think “insulting” names around are the people who can’t make a good argument or sound like an intellectual person.
jean grey
gaad
are americans really this stupid?
FreddyMertz
I smell a plant….I’m pressing my BS button.
toyotabedzrock
Someone should inform them the real reason for Conservatives not wanting gay marriage because they don’t want you to get those tax and social security benefits.
adman
What do they put in the water out there in the suburbs? I really want to know how an entire ideology can spring up, or industry, in fact in promoting denial of reality. I mean the whole world in your head becomes the elephant in the room at all times? I think I’ve got that, I’ve seen all of the Joan Crawford films, you know? But then you think I live my life that way too and if I don’t, then I’m somehow “evil”, and un-American? Freakin’ suburbs, man, that’s what did this shit.
Ken S
These guys may be well-intentioned, but I think that they’re a tad naive if they think that their “individual rights” as “American citizens” are safest in the hands of the Tea Partiers. Granted, I *have* read of at least one attitudinal poll that said that a *lot* of the genuine libertarian/small-government advocates in that movement are not anti-gay; they see sexual orientation as a personal thing and they value personal freedom so much that they actually end up being pro-marriage-equality. So I agree that it’s not very intelligent or fair to just assume that because someone favours less taxation or smaller government, they must be homophobic bigots.
The problem that makes these guys seem naive is that those aforementioned genuine freedomniks are so intent on growing their strength as a populist movement- so eager to attract more people- that they do a piss-poor job of hedging out those bigots who gravitate to their “anti-big-government” banner because they’re specifically against *the current administration,* not because it’s “big” government but because it’s a black POTUS, and a woman Speaker of the House, and because they’re “fag-lovers” (even if they aren’t particularly reliable gay allies, they’re less blatantly antagonistic than the social conservatives with whom the Republicans aligned themselves). These racist, misogynist, homophobic assholes see a movement that does one better than the Republicans on the political-philosophical front (since the last couple GOP reigns *did* grow government, their credibility with libertarians is damaged) so they assume that because it ideologically opposes ‘intrusive governance’ it must be opposed to the same (minority/enemy) *people* that they hate who are currently in government.
And the Tea Party doesn’t police those assholes, doesn’t disavow them for fear of alienating them, because they want big, well-attended rallies to press their case. So you get this mix of people who might despise each other otherwise- freedom-and-equality-loving anti-taxation libertarians and hate-based socially regressive fucktards- all chanting “keep your hands off our guns” or “stop trying to indoctrinate our children with your activist dogma” together, but for wildly different reasons. And when the less egregious members of that conglomeration don’t forcefully confront and rebuke the scumbags in their midst, they get smeared too. But as long as they *choose* to make excuses or to look the other way I don’t think that it’s entirely unfair; they’re complicit with it, so their hands aren’t clean.
So what’s *really* naive is when they wonder “why O why are *we* scorned for letting a bunch of hate-mongering fucktards pour our tea?” Because, darlings, if your big tent has its way, we don’t trust you to finally kick those bums out; you’ve given us no cause to trust that you won’t let them dictate an oppressive, ‘anti-everybody-different’ social policy just as long as you get to lower your all-important taxes.
Jeffree
@Ken S. #47: As you wisely said, it’s a big tent comprising people dissatisfied with the Repubs/Dems. They banded together because they were *against* many of the same things, but they don’t seem to have many planks in common otherwise.
Problem is that many of the most vocal TeaPartiers are dominionists who want to instill a theocracy in the US. Palin! Angle !
If you can get signed up for the T-Partée blogs [which takes a long time & a “referral” and even a donation] you see that there’s still a lot of birther, racist, lingo thrown around, and the Prop 8 decision brought out **thousands** of comments against “activist” judges and p_rv_rts. I’m not yet able to get into the gay teaparty blogs to report, so my view is incomplete.
Now, I recognize the most vocal commenters may represesnt the friñgier elements, rather than party line, but I worry about the focus on those elements of the platform.
at-any-cost?
This thread is pathetic. Those are young guys and so what if they are making up their own little unrealistic idea of no government marriages? (which I think is actually an excellent idea). They’re no different than other people their age who share equally UNREALISTIC nonsensical LIBERAL ideas. And why bash them or associate their thought to Republicans? No Republicans have put forth that same idea so wtf. Juat nasty, as usual. And Queerty’s op. “blah blah blah”? Really?
Ya’ll act like freaking Obot pit vipers going off on tangents about crap that is NEVER substantiated except if you watch idiots like Chris Matthews et al freaking out with incendiary non-facts.
“because they’re specifically against *the current administration,* not because it’s “big” government but because it’s a black POTUS”
THE MOST RIDICULOUS statement ever to be repeated ad nauseaum by every liberal in the world.
Nobody gives a rat’s ass that he’s black. We do give a rat’s ass that he was affiliated with racists his whole life and claims he never noticed it. Yeah, I know you hate having the Rev brought up since there’s nothing you can say about it.
Then there’s those pesky details (nanny state not the least of them) ie:
Obama feels the constitution is flawed since it doesn’t enumerate the fed’s “responsibilities”, abortion is good for the state and prevents thousands of children “oiving in misery” (eyeroll), that no government is EVER big enough to suit him, that he stated years ago that health care “reform” was just the first step to single payer, his continual anti-business proclivities, his anti-American proclivities, his faux energy plan which is simply the back door way to BIGGGGGG GOVERNMENT and the dissolution of existing energy industries in favor of passing big bucks to his supporters like GE/MSNOBAMA for fake “green” energy, his disingenuous bullshit that people like ME who worked my whole life [for less money in exchange] for my BENEFITS have some type of “cadillac” plan and should pay taxes on it to REDISTRIBUTE my meager income to deadbeats who can’t be bothered working like I DID for same benefits. (Walgreens even pays healthcare). Do you have any clue how many people I meet who are on fraudulent food stamps and sell them for extra income?
No my friend, I can name reasons to hate the guy forever, but his being black doesn’t enter the picture. And Michelle? 40 guests with 60 rooms on your SPAIN vacation on my dime? Fuck you.
Then there’s this @28 “I hope for their sake they never actually do encounter any anti-gay tea party rage first hand.”
Yeah, ok, let’s see it. SHOW the “rage” which never happened. More incendiary bullshit. Or do you mean the edited clip from MSNOBAMA with the tea party guy with a gun on his hip who ended up being black and a Democrat?
adman
Kool-Aid, YUM!!! Isn’t adolescence fun? Let’s go pants all the sophomores! lol, yay.
GOProud Tea Party Homocon
Most of you libtards here are just pathetic
Syl
Let me just say that not all queer Tea Partiers are dorky sell-outs. I went to a Tea Party event in my small, rural, thoroughly-backwards hometown and saw a butch dyke wearing a “Marriage Equality California” shirt with an American flag pin on it. No one was pointing and booing or trying to scare the scary gay person away. Contrary to what they say on MSNBC and HuffPo, the Tea Party isn’t some giant secret but not-so-secret racist movement against a black president. People are hurting, and they’re pissed off, and yes, the abuses, fraud, and incompetence of Bush *is* a part of a lot of their grievances-Bush did pass the first bailout, and he also got us into at least one unnecessary war and oversea a massive expansion of gov’t spending. Here in California the Tea Party was born not out of Obama getting elected, but the budget mess and tax hikes, all overseen by a white Republican governor.
All that said, these guys are sell-outs, “Auntie Toms” if you will. As long as the government recognizes and gives its official blessing to hetero relationships but not homo ones, then we are not equal. As one poster above mentioned, no one wants to say “We’re civil-unioned”, or “Oh, that’s Jane, we’re in a complex contractual arrangement that equates to marriage in everything but name”.
They mention receiving flak from other gays for being conservative, and it’s wrong for us queers to be intolerant of differing political and ideological stances, or to pressure everyone to be a registered Democrat or hand in their queer card. However, you can’t be for ongoing legal discrimination and not be branded a traitor. Libertarianism FTW
D Smith
@Tea Party Rulez!:
yes in fact we do live in a socialist society…
public school? SOCIALIST!
public hospital? SOCIALIST!
public library? SOCIALIST!
public roads? SOCIALIST!
fact of the matter is that we ARE a socialist country… for the betterment of the society! its not a bad thing and agree with it or not your not going to change the fact that we are in fact socialists…. remember… we voted these things in in the first place. the people decided…. and we are committed to the betterment of society, through the members of society… or do you like the idea of uneducated people starving in the streets because they cant afford to attend schools and learn the skills necessary to work in society?
maybe if you had a realistic idea of what socialism was exactly you would have a leg to stand on, but the fact of the matter is that you don’t. you are simply spouting rote memorized rhetoric that you have been spoon feed by your particular political leaders… how about getting out there and actually educating yourself in the free PUBLIC SOCIALIST LIBRARIES that the wonderful tax payers have made available for you?
oh and btw, i am a veteran of the army and have served proudly… and openly and a trans-woman, so accusations of disloyalty would be amusing to say the least.
Mike
@GOProud Tea Party Homocon:
LOL. Try not to get owned and humiliated at the next CPAC, ok? They sure loved yall this year! Maybe next year, they’ll spit on you if you’re lucky.
Queer Supremacist
@Syl: However, you can’t be for ongoing legal discrimination and not be
brandeda traitor.Fixed it for you.
wompman
@At Any Cost – you do realize Tea Partiers did yell out faggot at Barney Frank, right? If that isn’t rage I don’t know what is. And I would rather they remain anti-tax and leave gay issues (and people) alone, but if Roy Moore is a hero to your movement the anti-gay sentiment can’t be far beneath the surface.
As for your cut and paste Rush Limbaugh blather, where were you during the massive federal government increases and huge budget spending under the Bush years? Where were the tea partiers during that 8 year spending binge? Crickets…crickets…crickets.
Martin
I actually quite agree with these two and I donated time for the No on 1 campaign in Maine to allow for gay marriage. They are both suggesting gays should marry and the state should take itself out of marriage and leave it to the religious institutions if they want to performa “marriage” ceremonies but the state will recognize all the relationships the same.
Ken S
@at-any-cost?: Me: “they [referring to *some* people- not everyone- affiliated with the ‘tea partiers’] are specifically against *the current administration,* not because it’s “big” government but because it’s a black POTUS”
You: “THE MOST RIDICULOUS statement ever to be repeated ad nauseaum by every liberal in the world. Nobody gives a rat’s ass that he’s black.”
Yo. Fucktard. Did you/*can* you actually read my comment? Nowhere in it did I say or even suggest that the entire ‘tea party’ movement is racist or homophobic. What I did say- and what you’ve failed to refute (or apparently understand)- is that *there are* racists and homophobes and other assorted bigots who- because they hate the “n****r president” and because they hate “that bitch Pelosi” and because they hate “that faggot Barney Frank”- have insinuated themselves amid the genuine, thoughtful, small-government idealists, because they see it as the most energetic front currently opposing the current administration. And I said that the movement’s credibility problem is in part because the rest don’t sternly rebuke that bad element, instead tolerating them (at the least) because they contribute numbers to the movement’s populist image.
I know some of y’all just love to slash “commie” education budgets, because they’re ‘socialist’ or somesuch, but your response makes me want to put you in an (air-tight) evidence baggy and label you “Exhibit ‘P'” for ‘Piss-poor reading comprehension skills.’
And incidentally- REALLY? “*Nobody* gives a rat’s ass?” Not *one* sheet-wearing redneck in your whole country cares one iota that a black guy’s running their country? If you sincerely believe that then there’s no more debate to be had here- because that would simply make you too stupid to talk to.
Queer Supremacist
@Martin: They really think the breeders will give up their spousal immunity privilege just so they can appease the stealth homophobes?
reason
@at-any-cost?: The Michele Obama story just discredits anything that you have to say. You are clearly brainless and regurgitating psycho talking points. Michele and company all were responsible for paying for their trip, they paid first class airfare and hotel expenses. Every guest that goes on the trip pays their own way and doesn’t get security. The more people the better, granted there is more paid first class tickets on the military jet they took over there.
Russell
A gay republican is like a black member of the KKK. Republicans don´t conceal their homophobia and democrats promise but do nothing. I support gay marriage because I don´t want to be a second-class citizen and want to have equal rights and benefits, not a different contract for gays like if I were an alien. It´s really funny that these people speek of freedom when they ban our freedom to marry our boyfriends/partners.
I´m optimistic and think one day America will approve of gay marriage as other countries. I don´t believe in politicians but in civil society who push for changes. It took years to achieve women´s suffrage, abolish slavery, end racial segregation and get civil rights. Due to the effort of people like Susan B. Anthony, Rosa Parks or MLK, unfair and discriminating laws were repealed. It will be hard but justice wins at the end.