DOMA overturned in MA by Federal Court

[Satya]

The funny thing about this ruling is that the tea partiers are now split between their dislike for gays and their obsessive love for state's rights.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jZVhxGXCMRA-mJB4JYXiICP3a6jQD9GRRQEG0

BOSTON — A key part of a law denying married gay couples federal benefits has been thrown out the window in Massachusetts, the first state to legalize gay marriage. The ball now lies in the White House's court, which must carefully calculate the next move by an administration that has faced accusations it has not vigorously defended the law of the land.
President Barack Obama has said repeatedly that he would like to see the federal Defense of Marriage Act, known as DOMA, repealed. But the Justice Department has defended the constitutionality of the law, which it is required to do.

The administration was silent Friday on whether it would appeal rulings by U.S. District Judge Joseph Tauro. Spokespeople for the White House and the Justice Department said officials are still reviewing the rulings.

DOMA defines marriage as between a man and a woman, prevents the federal government from recognizing gay marriages and allows states to deny recognition of same-sex unions performed elsewhere. Since the law passed in 1996, many states have instituted their own bans on gay marriage, and a handful have allowed the practice.

 

[testing]

The funny thing about this ruling is that the tea partiers are now split between their dislike for gays and their obsessive love for state's rights.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jZVhxGXCMRA-mJB4JYXiICP3a6jQD9GRRQEG0

Yeah, I heard about this one on NPR! They have fallen into their own trap (the whole leave-it-up-to-the-states argument.) Amusing.

 

[IndigoSensor]

op2:

 

[acd]

Has the tea party even said anything about gays? Officially?

 

[Daeledin]

Has the tea party even said anything about gays? Officially?

I'm going to say no, learning towards against. All I can find is polling here and there and not conclusive. Largely to the varying demographics that make up the tea party movement.

Starting with the easiest source; wikipedia.

I won't quote the demographic statistics of the tea party movement directly. But rather take a moment to laugh at how it reminds me of exactly the demographics in all 4 of the Kansas representative districts (Basically 89% white, 1.x% black and the rest trace amounts of everything else) are male, married, and republican. Only difference from Kansas is most of these people are polled as being wealthy and well educated.

University of Washington Poll on the tea part demographics

• 52% of Tea Party supporters said that "compared to the size of their group, lesbians and gays have too much political power."
• 82% of Tea Party supporters do not believe that gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry.

First google hit will bring up this article
"The Tea Party Is Mostly Pro-Choice and Pro-Gay"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-sapp/the-tea-party-is-mostly-p_b_637061.html

Republicans and the media tend to focus on polls that show that 18% - 28% of the country identifies with the Tea Party movement or on the things that unify the movement like being "conservative." But here are some facts our side doesn't understand. Polling has also showed that the majority of Tea Party activists do not think government should support any set of moral values or define marriage. And a sizable majority of Tea Party activists are pro-choice. Think about that. Most Tea Party members hold positions that, in our completely un-nuanced political speak, make them "pro-gay and pro-choice."

How can they hold those positions and be "conservative?" The reason is simple: the Tea Party is largely made up of libertarians who are very different from the big business or Christian right groups that have dominated "conservative" politics for the last few decades. Libertarians don't want government intruding into their lives with programs or enforcing a moral code.

The rest of the hits consist of gay news sites that are predominately against the Tea Party movement. There is one that is pro-tea party, GayPatriot. Although its probably more to do with more widely cared about policies like fighting 'Obamacare' and "not mincing words while taking back the government" (I get high-fives on Rand Paul quotes right?).

*rant* I don't read gay news sites but I'm sure they paint the portrait that the tea party is against gays. It looks that way from other sources and 10 minutes on google. But with my experience with gay guys and politics (especially college-age ones that aren't paying real attention anyway) the majority of them only center their political focus on gay rights and develop an extreme 'us vs them' mentality and a vitriol bitch complex while doing it. *rant*

The rant is spurred from suffering two very accented (fake on top of even faker accents) whore-bag women in my living room attempting to talk about the senate race in Kansas. Failing miserably btw... paper thin walls in my house ARGH!. I'll be glad to move out in a month. It spurs my disdain for all college age students and the vast majority of them constantly displaying feeble understanding of the world around them. Regardless of creedo.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

They obviously have a hierarcy of what is important to them - and in this hierarcy democratic state liberty is more highly ranked than particular moral/social issues. That's all.

 

[Daeledin]

They obviously have a hierarcy of what is important to them - and in this hierarcy democratic state liberty is more highly ranked than particular moral/social issues. That's all.

Pretty much.

The movement is woven by many people with different ideologies coming together on a select number of issues that drive them. Gay issues being way down at the bottom of the list. So no official statement and free reign for members to say whatever they want to say on those topics. Mostly because they wouldn't be questioned on them so there isn't a danger of making the group look bad. Especially when it comes to attracting most people that would show an interest in their movement. The roots are political conservative. While that doesn't spell doom for ideas of social liberalism/libertarian, the intuitive answer is the position they carry is 'NO' on gay issues.

Looking stuff up was just mild curiosity of mine. I be bored.

 

[Satya]

Has the tea party even said anything about gays? Officially?

Some have said that the federal government has no Constitutional right to regulate gay marriage.

That doesn't mean that they support gay marriage, but they do support each state's right to decide for itself.

 

[testing]

Actually, it's not so much the tea party that is the issue. The Tea Party stands for Taxed Enough Already, and refers to the Boston Tea Party of 1773, which helped fuel the American Colonies' split from Britian over -- yes -- tea taxes. Yes, it's conservative but not necessarily anti-gay. But don't quote me on that, I wouldn't want to swear to it.

It's the group National Organization for Marriage who used the same let-the-states-decide tactic and is now very upset to have it used on them:

I heard it on NPR on Morning Edition:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128402481http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128393712

Here's the quote from the above that shows how the state's rights argument was used against the opponents of gay marriage:

It's an argument particularly infuriating to conservative opponents, who've used the states' rights arguments to fight gay marriage.


They insist Congress was well within its rights in 1996 to define marriage for the purpose of federal programs. They add that the judge overstepped when he ruled that DOMA had absolutely no rational basis and, in legal terms, amounts to "irrational prejudice."

"That's absurd to say that the voters in 31 states, who've held that marriage is the union of a man and woman, are somehow bigots; that's absurd," says Brian Brown of the National Organization For Marriage. "What this judge is essentially doing is declaring a new cultural war."

 

[Satya]

Interesting sidestep. Instead of explaining how Congress was within its rights, he jumps to the "prejudice" comment. Furthermore, the voters in 31 States had nothing to do with DOMA, which is a federal regulation of marriage. It's comments like these that show just how distorted the thinking of gay marriage opponents really is.

 

[testing]

Interesting sidestep. Instead of explaining how Congress was within its rights, he jumps to the "prejudice" comment. Furthermore, the voters in 31 States had nothing to do with DOMA, which is a federal regulation of marriage. It's comments like these that show just how distorted the thinking of gay marriage opponents really is.

What interested me when listening to the *NOM man's response is that he sounded really pouty and almost hurt, like he was about to start crying. (did anyone else notice this?) It was clearly a very emotional issue for the guy. Why? Don't have a clue. But yes, it is some kind of distorted thinking, no doubt.