Family Issues

Hallelujah, Rosie Lea


Wise move:

Whatever the situation, whatever the race or creed, tea knows no segregation, no class nor pedigree. It knows no motivations, no sect or organization. It knows no one religion, nor political belief.

While many conservative organizations immediately decried a federal judge's decision last week to invalidate the federal ban on recognizing gay marriages, tea party groups have been conspicuously silent on the issue.

The silence is by design, activists with the loosely affiliated movement said, because it is held together by an exclusive focus on fiscal matters and its avoidance of divisive social issues such as abortion and gay marriage.

And no, that doesn't mean the activists are all pro-DOMA and are just keeping their views under wraps:

Privately, though, many said they back the decision because it emphasizes the legal philosophy of states' rights….

"I do think it's a state's right," said Phillip Dennis, Texas state coordinator for the Tea Party Patriots. The group does not take a position on social issues, he said, but personally, "I believe that if the people in Massachusetts want gay people to get married, then they should allow it, just as people in Utah do not support abortion. They should have the right to vote against that."

Everett Wilkinson, state director for the Florida Tea Party Patriots, agreed: "On the issue [of gay marriage] itself, we have no stance, but any time a state's rights or powers are encouraged over the federal government, it is a good thing."…

"That's just not something that's on our radar," said Judson Phillips, founder of the Tea Party Nation. He acknowledged, however, that some in his group—though not a majority—are opposed to the Defense of Marriage Act.

The situation is perhaps different in South Florida, where Wilkinson said "several hundred" of the group's supporters are gay. "Our stance might be different than someone who's in Oklahoma," he said.

For more on social conservatives and the Tea Parties, go here. For an example of a Tea Party group that didn't avoid a divisive social issue, go here.

NEXT: Connecticut's Matching Funds Struck Down

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wow is that lady like just cool or what. Wow.

    1. Never thought about it like that before. Makes a lot of sense.


  2. The only people who really care either way about gay narriage are religious fundamentalists and gay people.

    …which, once again, makes the tea party look like middle of the road Americans.

    I bet they don’t care much about gay marriage either way AND they think Obama is a crummy president!

    It’s the latter, of course, that makes them freaks.

    1. Some care, some don’t — the draw is fiscal conservatism, which draws in some unlikely coalitions.

    2. You forgot about divorce lawyers…

  3. That photo reminds me of those t-shirts from a few years ago. She’s whispering “Girls don’t poop”

  4. Can somebody forward this to Brink Lindsay?

    1. You think Brink Lindsay would wear a “Girls Don’t Poop” T-Shirt?

    2. It doesn’t jibe with his prejudices, so he wouldn’t even comprehend it. But it does beautifully crush his already pathetic article.

  5. What bullshit. The issue over DOMA is not whether states should be able to allow gay people to marry. It is over whether a gay marriage conducted in Massuchussetts is required to be recognized as legal in Utah. Supporting a repeal of DOMA is not a support for states rights.

    1. Call it whatever you want, the point is that it’s specifically not something about which the Tea Party cares about.

      Gay marriage is irrelevant in comparison to the current fiscal disaster made by our elected representatives. And Obama isn’t going to do jack about it for at least another two years anyways.

      1. Gay marriage is irrelevant in comparison to the current fiscal disaster made by our elected representatives.

        Easy for you to say, but people who are denied fundamental human rights see things differently.

        Also, you’re presenting a false choice. Doing something about gay marriage would be relatively simple, if congress had the willpower or courage to do so. That would leave congress plenty of time to “fix” the economy.

        Gay people are getting fed up with always being told “we’d like to help you, but you’ll just have to wait until we resolve [insert pressing issue of the moment here].”

        1. Doing something about gay marriage would be relatively simple, if congress had the willpower or courage to do so.

          Congress would have the willpower or courage to do so if a solid majority of the people felt that something ought to be done.

          At least time appears to be on their side.

    2. The recent ruling did not cover whether or not any other state must recognize a same-sex marriage performed in Massuchussetts.

      The ruling stated that the Federal government could not discriminate between legally married couples in Massuchussetts based upon the gender make-up of the couple.

      The topic of full faith and credit has not come up yet, but most certainly will in the near future.

      1. If pot is legal in California, am I legally able to transport it to New Jersey under “full faith and credit”?

        1. Only if you trade so gay marriage can be covered by interstate commerce.

  6. Jessie – irrespective of your post, thank you for invoking one of my favorite Kinks albums. I love “Muswell Hillbillies!”I think I’ll listen to it now.

    Oh and yea, the case against gay marriage is bullshit.

  7. Nobody quoted that nut who bought a website and claims to be the founder of the Tea Party movement? Relieved.

  8. This is the best news I’ve heard all day.

  9. Now you see why they have to be decried loudly and often as racist, hillbilly, dangerous gunhumpers — they have message discipline. Nothing more dangerous than a group that can turn out supporters AND stay on message.

    1. … proven in opposition by the fact that no one is afraid of libertarians.

      1. Brett–

        If you insist on making everyone tow the lion then you are against Freedom Of Speech and not a Proper Libertarian. Turn in your decoder ring on your way out.

        1. But I am a government certified cat herder…

  10. So the litmus test for libertarian cheerleading is now whether you actually boast about how your belief system (can a single belief even constitute a “system”?) is intellectually vapid and that you are unable, indeed proudly unwilling, to form a consistent, robust political theory for any n>1 number of topics?

    Be sure to inform the “libertarians are just conservatives who want to smoke pot” crowd that yes, indeed, they were correct all along.

    1. Ah yes that’s right. If everyone in a movement that focuses on one (1) topic doesn’t agree about all the other topics, they are intellectually vapid.
      Fuck you.

  11. The people in the Tea Party groups I belong to here in the Midwest haven’t pushed the so-con agenda much. They seem resigned to the notion that social issues are not the state’s problem. I think they’ve realized over the last couple decades that if they give gov’t power, in the end the left will find a way to further expand it while using it against their interests.

  12. There’s a fascinating FF&C case brewing here in Texas. I’ve lost track of it, but it involves a lesbian couple that got married somewhere, moved to Texas, and decided to divorce.

    The Texas courts, last I heard, refused to perform the divorce, on the theory that to get divorced, you have to be married, and as far as Texas is concerned, they aren’t married.

  13. Is that pic the famous “2 girls 1 cup” I’ve heard so much about?

    1. +1

      I think it is… Disgusting, isn’t it?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.