I think people have missed something amid all the talk about the rising power of the Tea Party: the harsh social backwardness embedded in the movement's DNA.
Let me start with Col senate candidate Ken Buck, who said this on Meet the Press a few weeks ago:
MR. GREGORY: The issue of gays in our country, in a debate last month you expressed your support for "don't ask, don't tell," which we talked about with Mr. Gibbs, and you alluded to lifestyle choices. Do you believe that being gay is a choice?
MR. BUCK: I do.
MR. GREGORY: Based on what?
MR. BUCK: Based on what?
MR. GREGORY: Yeah.
MR. BUCK: Well...
MR. GREGORY: Why do you believe that?
MR. BUCK: Well, I guess you can, you can choose who your partner is.
MR. GREGORY: You don't think it's something that's determined at birth?
MR. BUCK: I, I, I think that birth has an influence over like alcoholism and some other things, but I think that basically you, you have a choice
That bolded comment shocked me. Being gay is like being an alcoholic. Wow.
But overall, he spoke in a sort of minimalistic way, a clear effort to camouflage something deeper. The real question to me is therefore -- who is he representing? What does the typical tea party constituent think about the same question? In other words, what part of America is thrusting Neanderthals like Buck into the mainstream?
Well, I think I can present a pretty revealing view into that base. Below is a conversation I had with several co-workers – all of whom are outspoken supporters of the tea party movement. They’re not conventional Republicans, in that they think the mainstream GOP is too liberal, too caught up in "moral relativism". There has been plenty of economic analysis surrounding tea partiers; my goal here is to illuminate the social dimension.
So in that spirit, get ready for some shocking stuff. This is verbatim and real, an actual email transcript.
Them:
Be interesting to see where military policy on gays goes now that the house has changed.
Me:
Right. Obama would prefer a congressional repeal. But there's also judiciary traction on the issue. So if Congress sits on it, the courts could decide that it violates 5th Amendment due process (which would be correct, imo).
Them:
The whole gay rights thing is a quandary for me. One thing, I think marriage should be defined as a union between a man and a woman. I think things have gotten pretty bad if our nation can’t get that straight, pun intended.
Me:
To me, it's a straightforward equal protection issue: the government has no business deciding who I can marry. Just as the government couldn't deny a gay couple access to say, a public library, it has no power to deny them access to the institution of marriage as defined in law.
And on a personal level, how does it hurt me if two gay people get married? If being married builds family stability for them, they'll be stronger and more productive members of society. Last I heard, that's a good thing.
Churches can define it however they want, but law is different.
Them:
This gets into the whole question of law and morals. Some think it is immoral for same sex unions. To them it is not far from say someone having sex with their dog.
My belief is that most laws are based on some kind of moral so the question is how far do you take it. I’m in favor of deporting gays to Sweden or some place of their choosing. I don’t want the US to be a place where that kind of behavior is condoned just as I don’t want prostitution to be legal. It all kind of goes together for me. I also believe in statutory rape laws because I don’t believe a 15 year old is mature enough to make decisions about sex.
I’m pretty much old school on the morale issues and I don’t plan on changing in my lifetime.
Me:
But if you bash gay people, you're attacking who they are. In this sense, it's like racism. You know, white people once wanted to ship away freed slaves.
Them:
Like I said, it is a bit of a quandary in knowing how to respond. I disagree that you can compare it to race. Race is a product of nature. Being gay is a choice (poor one).
I think it comes down to what a society determines is acceptable behavior. For example we arrest people for certain things like drunkenness, solicitation, disorderly conduct, etc. In Georgia it used to be illegal to join in sodomy. If we can lock up a woman because the offers to sell her body for sex then we can determine whether or not we allow gays to pursue their lifestyle. I see no difference.
Me:
Ask a gay person if it's a "choice" to fall in love, and they'll reply: "well, when did you choose to fall in love with your wife?"
Orientation is an innate part of who you are -- that's what makes your larger comparisons fatally flawed. And it's what makes it more like race.
Them:
I did ask (person x) and he said it was. He also said it is abnormal behavior but would you deport someone who had MS or MD? He believes it should be treated as an ailment. He surprised me on some of his opinions. Pretty smart guy in a twisted way.
Me:
If that's what he said, that is a super minority view. And even there, it's usually a matter of feeling society's stigma. For that reason, coming out isn't easy. But that doesn't change the core truth that orientation is innate and normal.
How can it be an "ailment" if it's victimless (both for the gay person or anybody else)? You might as well say that having curly hair is an "ailment."
Them:
Do you think we should have laws that prohibit bestiality?
Me:
Laws against beastiality don't implicate an equal protection right. Totally different.
Them:
I feel for the gays because they are people. If someone would have attacked (person x) I would have defended him. However, their agenda is too much. I also don’t agree with their behavior any more than I would with person who is into bestiality. I admit I don’t know the best way to deal with their behavior. I guess a law that provides fines and jail time would be the best.
Me:
Those kinds of laws were thrown out by the Supreme Court, in Lawrence v Texas. Sexual intimacy between people is what we're talking about here. Homosexual orientation is no closer to beastiality than heterosexual innateness. It's an entirely separate question. You're behind the times dude
You get the idea. A couple of final takeaways:
- I love how these guys pat themselves on the back for being sympathetic about "the gays." But I’m shocked that they don’t see it as a direct parallel to how 18th century Americans thought "blacks can’t help who they are, anymore than a dog can..." Hell, who am I kidding? There are still plenty of people who today think that about African Americans.
- As social progressives, we need to flush this stuff out, and in a big way. The independents who decided this thing Tuesday didn’t sign up for this shit. And the more we can help them realize their mistake, the sooner we can relegate the Tea Party movement to the dust bin.
(To all my gay friends here on Kos, I’m sorry to have put you through this really ugly dialog).