Post User Polls

Does the Tea Party's reaction to gay marriage affect your support of the movement?

By Cameron Smith  |  July 12, 2010; 7:38 PM ET  | Category:  National Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati  
Previous: Should synthetic marijuana be federally regulated? | Next: Apple, iPhone 4: How are they handling the 'reception' problem?


Please email us to report offensive comments.

What is their general reaction? Where was the story? I can imaging what the reaction from a group of Palin's twisted hybrid of an intolerant evangelical religion combined with an old white-supremacist Southern political party is.

Posted by: areyousaying | July 13, 2010 7:50 AM

There should be no such thing as a right to marry. Equality under the law does not exist where state of matrimony dictates privelige and superior status.

Line 3 form W-4 from Dept of Treasury IRS offers 3 choices-- 1. Single, 2. Married, 3. Married, but withhold at higher Single rate.

"The higher Single rate". It is the single people that are getting screwed. The allowances for dependants are there.

Posted by: Hadafakaya | July 13, 2010 8:07 AM

The Tea Party clearly supports gay marriage and womens choice as a foundation plank in their 'individual liberties' platform. We should thank Tea Party supporters each time they speak out on any subject for their support of gay marriage.

Posted by: haymarketbill | July 13, 2010 8:09 AM

The commenter Areyousaying is right - what exactly was their reaction? While it's easy for me to assume that, being a bunch of mouth-breathing morons, the teabaggers most likely are just the kind of bigots who would be against gay marriage, I'm not going to vote in a poll until I get some confirmation on that.

It would certainly be an interesting angle though - I've always said that fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are fundamentally incompatible political philosophies. You can't say on the one hand that so-called "government controlled healthcare" is tyranny, while on the other hand say that it's okay for the government to say gay couples can't be married. It's completely hypocritical. It's like saying "Government needs to keep it's grubby hands out of my wallet, but they can be all up in my bedroom, no problem."

So I'd be interested in seeing how the teabaggers reconcile that, but my guess is that they put about as much thought into their positions as they did in coming up with the "teabagger" name (i.e., none). These are not, after all, the brightest lights on the Christmas Tree.

Posted by: financepirate | July 13, 2010 8:37 AM

What a stupid poll. The wording is such that the results cannot be clearly interpreted. Who are these morons who dream up these questions? I'll be they are twenty-something journalism majors, fresh out of school, and working for peanuts. This is the state of the newspaper industry today.

Posted by: adrienne_najjar | July 13, 2010 9:15 AM

"fiscal conservatism and social conservatism are fundamentally incompatible political philosophies. You can't say on the one hand that so-called "government controlled healthcare" is tyranny, while on the other hand say that it's okay for the government to say gay couples can't be married."

Precisely. "I want a small government that devotes its resources only to policing people's love lives" is laughably silly.

Posted by: amm72 | July 13, 2010 9:46 AM

Dear Cameron Smith:

Today you received a 20% in Journalism 101, having managed Who but missing What, When, Where and How.

Every story needs at least four of the five, otherwise it flunks the exam, due to lack of information.

Your grade, should you not recognize it, is the nice red letter "F."

Your editor has a 50% penalty, for letting this go by. (S)he scored 10%. Another lovely red "F."

Posted by: rmlwj1 | July 13, 2010 9:52 AM

Since there is no context for the question in the poll, what is the point? Once again this shows what I have been saying for years; being an editor at the Post is the easiest job in the world. Things are published without any kind of thought or editing.

Posted by: AlfromAlexandria | July 13, 2010 9:57 AM

I agree, that the Post needs to put a URL to the story in question if they wont I will:

As for if this changes my opinion, it does not.

There are 2 problems I see. You can't claim to just be about economic policy and not social policy, because eventually if you get your way, you eventually have to confront the social issues. The two are intertwine always have been always will be look at all the great challenge faced by our nation through history; todays Military Industrial Complex, Slavery, all the trade embargoes during the cold war. There is a social and moral issue involved in everything.

The second reason I don't buy it is because you would be foolish to think that if the Tea Party puts anyone in power that those they elect WONT focus more on social issues than economic issues. Remember the Gingrich revolution, they made similar claims, and as soon as they grabbed the power of the Fed, they only made themselves stronger. I don't think we have a politician today willing to release the power of the government back to the people.

Posted by: alex35332 | July 13, 2010 10:19 AM

This is a "Washington Post" poll? *THE* "Washington Post"?? Frightening! Did you forget to tell us, WP, in designing your poll, what it was you were asking us? Oh, right, the Tea Party's unnamed reaction to....

Posted by: JMinSF | July 13, 2010 10:24 AM

What a horribly worded question!

Who wrote this? This doesn't answer or provide any sort of result.

A) If one supports the tea party then no it will not alter their opinion and

B) If one does NOT support the tea party then again it will not alter their opinion.

Stupid, stupid.

Posted by: topwriter | July 13, 2010 10:50 AM

I support gay rights to marriage, so any opinion of the Tea Party would not affect mine (like any of their opinions do!).

Posted by: lddoyle2002 | July 13, 2010 11:15 AM

I hardly need to know the various opinions any of the tea-partiers hold on gay rights to know that their opinion would not affect mine. They are not unified enough to have one opinion, and their conservatism strikes me as an unusually selfish, I've-got-mine, kind of reductionism. Yes, I'd be glad to know that some of them are broad-minded enough to support gay marriage and also rather surprised.

Posted by: chowlett1 | July 13, 2010 11:27 AM

A person mentioned Sarah Palin. Although she attended a Trinitarian Pentecostal doctrine church, the Assembly of God in Wasilla, Alaska, until she decided to run for the office of Governor of Alaska, she was NEVER an actual Pentecostal-by-experience person herself.

The man who was her pastor before she was baptized in water by immersion and her pastor all during her teen years admitted that he never promoted being baptized with the power of the Holy Spirit as in Acts 2 the whole time he was pastor of the church. In a way, his church was sort of like a Southern Baptist or non-denominational church.

Being baptized in water by a pastor of any Pentecostal church does not make the person a Pentecostal.

Mrs. Palin has claimed that she has gay friends; but, if you listen to her talk about gays, you will realize that she uses stereotypical language made up by the homophobes to talk about them.

Posted by: joe_allen_doty | July 13, 2010 11:41 AM

I don't live for their love, and would give them no credibility by lending any possible interepretation that I "support" them in any way, shape, or form.

Instead, you should be asking tea partiers what got into them. And please, that Angle woman from Nevada supports gay marriage? Sarah Palin?? Bat-guano-crazy Bachman? Those are the Tea Queens -- they support gay marriage??

I don't think so.

Posted by: trippin | July 13, 2010 11:43 AM

Oh, some of the Tea Party folks and maybe even the majority of them do not want a federal law giving the very same equal rights for all law-abiding gays and lesbians who are US Citizens.

Since it is no longer to be openly gay in the USA, gays who want to get married to partners of their choice should have the same rights as the heterosexuals in regard to the marriage question.

Wes Clark said, in words to this effect, on the CNN Chris Matthew's "Hardball" talk show, "Equal rights for all. Let the churches call gay-marriages whatever they want; but, give the gays the right to same-sex marriage."

I was in a covenanted marriage type of relationship in California for almost 7 years. It ended when my husband/partner passed away to a viral brain infection (it had no connection to HIV according to the neurologist at the Hospital where he went).

If they had had legal gay marriages when I lived with him in N. Hollywood. We would have gotten a marriage license, too.

Posted by: joe_allen_doty | July 13, 2010 11:51 AM

Why is this always a one sided blame game? Latinos and Blacks are overwhelmingly democrats and they are overwhelmingly anti gay rights. Look at the voting demographics with prop 8 in CA.

Posted by: flonzy1 | July 13, 2010 12:03 PM

The Tea Party's reaction to gay marriage was a decision to refrain from taking sides.

A no decision decision.

What kind of political party does that? How do you vote for a Tea Party politician if you don't know where she/he stands on the issues?

Posted by: ProfessorWrightBSU | July 13, 2010 12:09 PM

Why is anybody even interested in getting married, gay or otherwise? You have an illegitimate government, a phony religion, perverted holy men and a collapsing society. Why does anyone need any of these failed institutions to support their private domestic arrangement, or care what anyone else thinks about it?

Posted by: DaveHarris | July 13, 2010 12:17 PM


Posted by: MALBENNET | July 13, 2010 1:23 PM

Where's the story??? Are they for gay marriage or not? Why is the WP so lame?

Posted by: alonzoQuijana | July 13, 2010 2:05 PM

I support the Tea Party and could care less about gay marraige. I'm from the libertarian branch of the party. Fiscally conservative and favoring small government while socially indifferent.

Posted by: hit4cycle | July 13, 2010 3:03 PM

A meaningless poll. I cannot envision any circumstances under which I would support the Tea Party.

Posted by: AMviennaVA | July 13, 2010 3:18 PM

If this is the kind of poll the Washington Post conducts, then President Obama probably enjoys 80% support of the country.

Posted by: ethanquern | July 13, 2010 3:26 PM

Which tea party position? The article in question quotes supporters that claim the ruling is in line with their "pro states rights" principles.

In contrast the "tea party platforms" that have been adopted by the GOP by several states make clear that the Tea Party considers itself socially conservative and explcitly states opposition to gay marriage and abortion (in some pretty strident language).

It sounds to me like the Tea Party is playing a stealth game...pushing the right wing social conservative agenda behind the scenes but playing a game with the press to make them appear to be moderate or libertarian.

Posted by: MarcMyWords | July 13, 2010 3:46 PM

This "poll" and the accompanying comments crack me up. Maybe it's pertinent to remember the TEA Party isn't actually A political party. It is a movement comprised of self-identified conservatives, independents and liberals. TEA stands for Taxed Enough Already, so it's no wonder those who identify with the TEA party rally around fiscal issues, not social ones.

Also, which President was it that instituted the Defense of Marriage Act? Oh, yeah. Clinton. A Democrat. Which president has stated repeatedly he is against gay marriage? Oh, yeah. Obama, a Democrat.

As for homophobic? Which party claims Fred Phelps of the Westboro Baptist Church as a member? Oh, yeah. Democrats.

Look, it's simple. Many TEA party members were and are just as much against big spending by Bush as by Obama. We didn't like TARP, either.

There is no consensus on gay marriage because it's not an issue for us as a whole. There are ultra-conservative Libertarians who are totally in support of gay marriage (see the Cato Institute's position, for instance.) There are GOP members who are steadfastly against it (of course, there are also people like Laura Bush, who supports gay marriage), and there are many liberal Democrats who are against gay marriage.

So, what's your story? What's "our" position? Why are all you liberals bashing conservatives against gay marriage, but throwing out praises to a president who is against it and spoke at the funeral of a former KKK member, lauding his praises?

And we're the messed up ones? Get a grip.

Posted by: ChrisIsRIGHT | July 13, 2010 4:19 PM

Boy oh boy, don't you just love the invective spewed forth by "financepirate?" He/she/it must have been in a hurry and didn't have time to list all the other derogatory names liberal zealots love to include in their messages when commenting on issues they assume are basically supported by conservatives. Maybe financepirate is still in junior high school. Just makes it harder to wait for November, 2010, but it also will make the payoff that much sweeter.

Posted by: ddnfla | July 13, 2010 4:20 PM

I don't know. What's their reaction to gay marriage?

Put it this way: If they've come out and said that government shouldn't be able to stop people from living the way they want to - in other words, pro-gay marriage - then yes, I applaud them for that, and I think of them less as crazy nutjobs. (I still would, for the record, but less so.)

If they've come out against it, then they're hypocrites, wackos, etc. etc., and my opinion changes absolutely zip.

So. What was their reaction?

Posted by: ravensfan20008 | July 13, 2010 4:34 PM

Is there a single Tea Party perspective on civil marriage equality? It may depend on whether you are sitting down to tea with Sarah Palin or imbibing your anti-oxidants with Ron Paul.

Posted by: TerrenceDoyle | July 13, 2010 4:44 PM

What a stupid poll question. Why not just ask if the poll taker *agrees* with the Tea Party?

A "yes" could mean, "Yeah, it makes me love them more!" or "Yeah, it makes me hate them more!" Similarly, a "no" could mean, "I already hate them so much that one more bigotted stand doesn't make a difference" or "I already love them so much that one more subject to agree on doesn't matter much."

Merely unscientific? How about sloppy, too?

Posted by: multiplepov | July 13, 2010 5:01 PM

Please read elsewhere.

The Tea Party according to reports in the Post today is officially neutral on gay marriage.. while many Tea party folks in fact do SUPPORT gay marriage.

This may surprise many Tea Party haters.

Another surprise was early this year.. the New York Times found that besides being smarter on average than Americans.. the middle-class Tea Party backers actually supported social security and medicare.

Who knew the Tea Party was so moderate ?

Now can someone PLEASE tell MSNBC, CBS, and NAACP to back off ?

Posted by: Petras123 | July 13, 2010 5:54 PM

The question isn't very adequate if the goal is to discover how many people have opinions about gay marriage that correspond with the views espoused by the Tea Party. It does however give a view of the percentage of people who, whether they know the Tea Party position or not, still side with the Tea Party----the answer is about a third of the people who responded. Not half the country but more than a person would hope for. Are there any well educated people involved in that movement? I ask because they believe everything Fox News tells them without doing their own homework. Well educated people tend to want to find out for themselves instead of being spoon fed truth---or lies.

Posted by: karela | July 13, 2010 6:05 PM

The red zingers have a position?

Posted by: whocares666 | July 13, 2010 6:36 PM

Not sure they care.

Not sure they are a formal party.

Not sure that a party has to have a position on such a personal issue.

A classic libertarian wouldn't care.

Posted by: docwhocuts | July 13, 2010 7:07 PM

I had to quote this because it's excellent:

What a stupid poll. The wording is such that the results cannot be clearly interpreted. Who are these morons who dream up these questions? I'll be they are twenty-something journalism majors, fresh out of school, and working for peanuts. This is the state of the newspaper industry today.


Ah! Yes... I know some of these morons first-hand. They plagiarized their college papers.

Posted by: alarico | July 13, 2010 8:55 PM

So we're supposed to be excited that the tea partiers declined to endorse freedom for all Americans, but at least isn't actively marching against gay and lesbian neighbors and friends? Whoopee! What princes they must be!

I can't wait for the Post's next poll question:

Does the Purple Party's noncommittal stance on whether to reinstate Jim Crow laws in the southern states give you a new warm and fuzzy feeling toward the Purples? Does their shyness at officially affiliating with the Klan speak glowingly of them and make you want to vote Purple?

Oh boy! This puts the tea partiers in such a new light!

Posted by: B2O2 | July 13, 2010 10:08 PM

Simple, Tea partiers don't give a damn what people do in their personal lives. They're focused on fiscally responsible, limited federal government, and a strong emphasis on the Tenth Amendment. Ergo, Mass. AG Martha Coakley and the Tea Partiers recently found themselves on the SAME side of a recent (and successful) challenge to the "Defense of Marriage Act" ('DOMA').

Posted by: OttoDog | July 13, 2010 10:43 PM

Some of the posters here lack an understanding of the difference between conservatives and liberals.
Liberals criticize conservatives with the whole hackneyed "stay out of our bedrooms" attack line. What that doesn't recognize is that conservatives don't, despite liberals' attack line depiction, want to tell liberals what to do in their bedrooms. They just want liberals to also "stay out of our living rooms and kitchens". IOW, teach your kids, liberals, what you want to teach your kids about the bedroom, yet stay out of what others who differ with you teach their kids about the bedroomm stay out of how others raise their families.

Boiled down: "stay out of our living rooms, family rooms, and kitchens and we'll stay out of your bedrooms in return".

Posted by: SCOTSGUARDS | July 13, 2010 10:47 PM

Typo above, meant to put a comma where that second m in "bedroom" is. *shrugs*

Posted by: SCOTSGUARDS | July 13, 2010 10:49 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2011 The Washington Post Company