Why is the Tea Party against gay marriage?

Photo at left from Strollerderby.



Why does the Tea Party Movement, those self-styled Champions of Freedom, oppose the freedom of two people of whatever gender getting married?

Why should the government dictate who gets married? Isn't this against the whole Tea Party idea of limited government?

Actually, it seems the Tea Party is confused. They want limited government, except when women and gays are involved. (i.e. abortion and gay marriage) They want the government to control the womb and the bedroom.

So, the "limited government" mantra is an outright lie. They actually want to expand government by making church law into secular law, as in the gay marriage example. [1]

At base, gay marriage (as some gay radicals like to tell us) is a fundamentally conservative desire; a wholesome, domestic desire to conform and assimilate. A desire to take one's place in the suburbs alongside the BBQ grill, white picket fence and SUV, with the regulation two kids and a dog. (Other radicals, while somewhat acknowledging the point, regard "assimilation" as a non-issue.) Isn't a "tamed" gay community a more non-threatening one, as far as the suburbanite Republicans are concerned? (And if not, why not?)

Glenn Greenwald caught Charles Krauthammer in a huge Tea-Partier fib in a recent column, in which he claimed that the majority of the USA is against gay marriage.

No, that isn't true, and Glenn has the stats to prove it:

A new CNN poll has found that most Americans think gays and lesbians should have a constitutional right to get married. . . . As polling-statistics blogger Nate Silver points out, the margin of error [as well as the poll's status as the first to find majority approval] means we can't assume that a majority of Americans support gay marriage, but it is "no longer safe to say that opposition to same-sex marriage is the majority position.

And even among Krauthammer's own GOP droogs (I know, he claims he is "Independent"--and does anybody really believe that?), the issue is rather volatile, with younger Republicans breaking ranks in record numbers (according to the Washington Post):

A growing number of Republicans are breaking with the party's traditional stance to publicly state their support for same-sex marriage, a shift strategists say stems as much from demographics as from the renewed focus on economics and the "tea party" movement.

A solid majority of adults younger than 30 - about six in 10 - support the right of gay and lesbian couples to legally wed, according to a Washington Post poll in February.

And hey, ain't simply the youngsters! Check it out:

A number of prominent Republicans have been more outspoken, stating that they support same-sex marriage rights. They include Meghan McCain, daughter of Sen. John McCain (Ariz.); "The View" commentator Elizabeth Hasselbeck; former first lady Laura Bush and former vice president Dick Cheney.

Ted Olson, solicitor general under Bush, was part of the legal team that successfully challenged Proposition 8, California's voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage. And this week, former Republican operative Ken Mehlman disclosed that he is gay and that he will be raising money to support Olson's effort.

Also at play is the rise of the libertarian-leaning tea party movement. Many of the movement's leaders have said they oppose government intervention on marriage issues, while others say their concerns about taxation and the size of government supercede concerns over social issues.[2]

(I think the smarter Republicans also want some of that gay Hollywood money, whatcha think?)

This is a wedge issue, and we need to hit it as hard as we can: Are you in favor of equal rights for everyone? Then, you are in favor of gay marriage, period. If you oppose it, you discriminate. The End. No discussion. Dress it up however you want, but that is the bottom line.

And, dear Tea Partiers, when you say these hypocritical things, we will slice and dice you: You are a bigot and a discriminator. Period. Whatever else you say will be viewed in this light, as a hateful bigot not to be trusted.

Either get with the Ted Olsons and honor the legacy of the Republican Party, Abe Lincoln, et. al. --or get out of the way and declare yourselves a THIRD PARTY.

And I am brave enough to belong to a Third Party, so how about you be brave enough to break away, too?

At every juncture, at every opportunity, we must call them bigoted haters. I mean, on this issue, they have proven this is exactly what they are.

~*~

[1] As the secularists never tire of reminding us: We could also limit government by taxing the churches and keeping religion (like, any religious opposition to abortion and gay marriage) OUT of government in all respects. Think of the money generated by taxing churches and church property, including any schools openly generating profits(yes, Notre Dame, I'm lookin at you.) (NOTE: I would NOT approve of taxing day-care centers, thrift stores, hospices, soup kitchens, refugee resettlement services, or other bona fide charitable operations under the church umbrella. This would force the rich people looking for tax deductions to give directly to these organizations, not to the endless CAPITAL CAMPAIGN or BUILDING FUND, to build even bigger, better, prettier churches.)

[2] Proud of McCain, Hasselbeck, etc. Let's see some more ideological defections from gutsy, popular Republicans!

On Religious Bigotry

Left: Mr Natural by R. Crumb



It's difficult to talk about religious bigotry without discussing religion itself. What exactly is religious bigotry? I've been mulling over this question during these last weeks of presidential primaries. I was discussing the Bob Jones endorsement of Mitt Romney with a moderate Republican of my acquaintance. We both chuckled about how strange and unexpected it was. And then, she brought me up short, announcing: "I could never vote for anyone who wears ritual underwear!" and rolled her eyes in derision. I was taken aback. I dislike Mitt Romney, but not for that.

I knew this was The Real McCoy, the authentic article, religious bigotry, directed at Romney for being a Mormon. But what do we call derision directed at religious folk by those who loudly claim all religion is a dangerous delusion? Atheists are often just as nasty toward believers, but we don't usually call that religious bigotry. Is it only religious bigotry if the perpetrator is from another religion? Can religious bigotry occur between two people of the same faith? (Is the ferreting out of heretics, itself, a form of bigotry towards those who act on religious impulses in an unpopular or minority fashion?)

What about 'justified anger' at particularly oppressive or fundamentalist religions? Can that be separated from anger at individuals perceived as representatives of those religions?

Charles Krauthammer once wrote an interesting piece for TIME magazine about being asked his "religious preference" on hospital paperwork:

Of course, the only reason hospital folk bother to ask about religion at all is prudence, not theological curiosity. In case they accidentally kill you or you otherwise expire on their watch, they want to be sure they send up the right clergy to usher you to the next level, as it were. We're not talking belief here. We're talking liability protection.

According to Chesterton, tolerance is the virtue of people who do not believe in anything. Chesterton meant that as a critique of tolerance. But it captures nicely the upside of unbelief: where religion is trivialized, one is unlikely to find persecution. When it is believed that on your religion hangs the fate of your immortal soul, the Inquisition follows easily; when it is believed that religion is a breezy consumer preference, religious tolerance flourishes easily. After all, we don't persecute people for their taste in cars. Why for their taste in gods?

Oddly, though, in our thoroughly secularized culture, there is one form of religious intolerance that does survive. And that is the disdain bordering on contempt of the culture makers for the deeply religious, i.e., those for whom religion is not a preference but a conviction.

Is that really true? I'd like to say it isn't, but it often feels that way. And I believe this phenomenon has everything to do with Mike Huckabee's recent political ascent, and Mitt Romney's failure to shore up the conservative base of the Republican party. The irony is that fundamentalists who feel persecuted as deeply religious, have just harshly penalized another candidate on account of his religion.

What is your personal definition of religious bigotry?