From Huffington Post:
A University of Washington poll finds that a majority of “true” Tea Party supporters say it’s not the responsibility of government to guarantee equal rights to African Americans and other minorities.
According to the survey, 74% of Tea Party supporters say they agree with the following statement: “While equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it’s not really the government’s job to guarantee it.”
Fifty-two percent of respondents also said that “compared to the size of their group, lesbians and gays have too much political power.”
The latest data on the Tea Party reveals that the anger coming from the movement isn’t unilaterally directed at government spending — one of the group’s core issues.
According to University of Washington professor Matt Barreto, who directed the poll, the Tea Party’s frustration with Washington “is going hand in hand with a frustration and opposition to racial and ethnic minorities and gays and lesbians.”
Other noteworthy findings from the University of Washington poll include:
- 88% of Tea Party supporters approve of the controversial immigration law recently enacted in Arizona.
- Only 18% of those surveyed say gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry.
73% of Tea Party backers disapprove of President Obama’s policy of engaging with Muslim countries.
Certainly polls can be very erroneous in the data they impart to us. Polls have certain criteria they must pass to be considered reliable. The polling sample must be relevant. Questions should be framed to eliminate bias. The sample must be large enough to be considered relevant. Those are just a few basics. The poll is embedded in the article. (see poll in blue)
I am going to be bold and suggest that these numbers really don’t represent the Tea Party, at least not on the east coast. So there is no fight with me over these issues. I don’t have an opinion. However, let’s hear from those who might think the Tea Party represents their point of view. Tell us how you really feel on these issues.
The Tea Party is such a loosely defined entity that it doesn’t really stand for anything in particular. There’s no telling at all what they would do if elected to positions. And of course it contains bigots and outright idiots in it, including some top officials.
The Democratic Party is such a loosely defined entity that it doesn’t really stand for anything in particular. There’s no telling at all what they would do if elected to positions. And of course it contains bigots and outright idiots in it, including some top officials.
The Republican Party is such a loosely defined entity that it doesn’t really stand for anything in particular. There’s no telling at all what they would do if elected to positions. And of course it contains bigots and outright idiots in it, including some top officials.
According to the survey, 74% of Tea Party supporters say they agree with the following statement: “While equal opportunity for blacks and minorities to succeed is important, it’s not really the government’s job to guarantee it.”
Let us for a moment assume the stupid poll actually means something. Have you considered what the question means? How does the government guarantee equal opportunity for blacks and minorities? In practice, what will the government do? The government will gather statistics and punish any company or agency that does not have the “right” numbers. Instead requiring government to be blind to race, such “affirmative” action requires government to become nitnoid about race.
In a free market, racial discrimination is equivalent to throwing away money. So business avoids the practice. Only government leaders, focused on power, not profit, have any real incentive to discriminate based upon race. That is why the 14th and 15th amendments just prohibited the States from racial discrimination.
Limited government, focusing government on what it must do, is about limiting abuses of power. When trying to stop businesses from engaging racial discrimination is waste of time, why give government the power to pester people? When requiring government to guarantee equal results requires racial discrimination, by requiring the guarantee you guarantee the exact results you say you want to avoid.
IMO it’s not the government’s job to guarantee it, in part because we don’t even have a mechanism to “guarantee” it. The language is loaded and meaningless.
We have a black President and STILL some in America keep this tired worldview of seeing everything through the race prism. It’s old. The center of gravity in this country is towards treating people equally regardless of skin color. What more does anyone want? A level playing field doesn’t imply a tie score. I think we’re at the point that government can and should back off, probably does more harm than good. So count me in that 74%. And yes I have a black wife and black family.
“Only 18% of those surveyed say gay and lesbian couples should have the legal right to marry. ”
Implying a federal law? As opposed to believing what I believe, that as marriage is a state matter reserved to states, and that the Federal Govt should butt out, to include the asinine “Defense of Marriage” act? I guess then the 82% of respondents are saying exactly what you’d expect “tea party” members to say – and it’s my position as well, as someone who does support gay marriage generally.
So at first glance this looks like another stupid misleading poll with imprecise questions which gauges “mood” in an imprecise way to no discernable purpose, but to fuel mindless stories that attempt to lump people into the same old tired stereotypes that hold us in our political straightjacket.
So are we suggesting that we have a patchwork of laws regarding marriage? My marriage might not be recognized in a different state because I am ???? (gay, straight, black, white, etc?) Oh that’s right, Loving vs VA was decided back in the 60’s. So should the fed govt butt out of that also?
Bobby Jindal was one of those who wanted the govt out of state business wasn’t he? Who is hollering the loudest now because the feds didn’t help out in time? Funny how easy it is to change one’s tune when the question is real time vs political discussion.
Reading the story … all this imbecile did was to discover a correlation between ‘conservative’ social beliefs and Tea Party identification.
Well surprise, surprise as Gomer Pyle used to say. Stop the presses. Certainly, money well spent and a real credit to the University of Washington. This is ground breaking stuff.
Next, UWA will work to discover correlations between race and party identification, and gender and party identification. After that, they will endeavor to prove that males self-identified as angry and white tend to watch FOX News more than they watch Logo.
“So are we suggesting that we have a patchwork of laws regarding marriage? My marriage might not be recognized in a different state because I am ???? ”
Right. But just for a little while, until homphobia dies out. I just don’t see marriage as something the Federal Constitution has dominion over.
If 60% of Virginia voters don’t want gay marriage, which was the case a few years back, okay let’s wait and then ask again. This beats letting activist courts invent new law based on individual whim.
@Moon-howler
You don’t want a patch work of law? You don’t like the federal system created by the Constitution? Why don’t you just abolish the Constitution and declare yourself dictator?
Why bring up the unrelated subject? What has the oil spill got to do with this? When are you even going to stop to think? Where is the oil leak? It is where the law REQUIRES the Federal Government to be in charge. Bobby Jindal has no choice about the matter.
“Oh that’s right, Loving vs VA was decided back in the 60’s. So should the fed govt butt out of that also?”
I have to say yes though it makes me uncomfortable. If they had, it would be a non-issue by now.
Increasingly, I see the “gay marriage” issue as a pointless battleground. Homophobia is diminishing over time. And even without cramming it down Mississippi (or Virginia’s) throat, gay marriage is becoming more common. “Mainstream” even.
I take Moon-Howler’s point about Jindal. She is tired of the intellectually vacuous crap that Republicans foist upon our national “dialogue”.
M-H, even with all the caveats you noted, most of us are wary and mindful
of Mark Twain’s observation “There are three kinds of lies:
lies, damned lies and statitistis.”
Seeking an objective gauge of the economic impact of illegal immigration,
for example, often leaves one with dueling sets of statistics.
A Portrait of Children in Northern Virginia 2010 offers some informative recent
data available at http://www.communityfoundationnova.org and http://www.vakids.org .
This poll demonstrates that the teabaggers are a bunch of ignorant hateful bigots and losers who can’t deal with the fact that their President is black. Well, get over it.
That is vacuous.
The reason utter nonsense such as same-sex “marriage” has gotten this far is that people have abused the public school system to foist their values on other people’s children.
For thousands of years it never occurred to the People that marriage could be had with a same-sex couple. The notion is too silly and too perverse. The only way the People would accept such drivel is to have it crammed down their throats BEFORE they were old enough to realize it is poison.
That is utter nonsense.
My local interaction with the Tea Party is they are an
assorted group with an assorted agenda centered around
“I’m mad as hell, I won’t take it anymore”. They might stay
around the front page until pushed to put together a
a reasonably logical coherent plan of action. At that point, for example
the elderly woman upset about no COLA for Social Security this year
and the young man who wants to end SS and Medicare PDQ
will part ways.
That is indeed a very silly post OFL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage#Ancient
Various types of same-sex marriages have existed,[33] ranging from informal, unsanctioned relationships to highly ritualized unions.[34]
In the southern Chinese province of Fujian, through the Ming dynasty period, females would bind themselves in contracts to younger females in elaborate ceremonies.[citation needed] Males also entered similar arrangements. This type of arrangement was also similar in ancient European history.[35]
An example of egalitarian male domestic partnership from the early Zhou Dynasty period of China is recorded in the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian. While the relationship was clearly approved by the wider community, and was compared to heterosexual marriage, it did not involve a religious ceremony binding the couple.[36]
The first historical mention of the performance of same-sex marriages occurred during the early Roman Empire.[37] For instance, Emperor Nero is said to have married one of his males slaves. Emperor Elagabalus married a Carian slave named Hierocles.[38] While there is a consensus among modern historians that same-sex relationships were fairly commonplace in ancient Rome, the exact frequency and nature of same-sex unions during that period has been obscured.[39] In 342 AD, when Christianity swept through the Roman Empire, bringing Biblical sanctions against homosexuality with it, Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans issued a law in the Theodosian Code (C. Th. 9.7.3) prohibiting same-sex marriage in Rome and ordering execution for those so married.[40]
Old Fashioned Liberal needs to 1. tone it down a few notches. You aren’t welcome to come here and insult folks. 2. chose a new name. You aren’t a liberal.
Rick, that’s some interesting history.
I am not sure the state should be involved in marriage which is basically a religious issue. How about the state handling civil unions and the churches handling marriage which would be civil union plus religious enhancements, depending on the flavor?
I am uncomfortable with a patch work of laws regarding marriage or reproductive rights.
Poor Richard makes some interesting observations. I don’t have an opinion in the poll and didn’t read all the questions. I thought others might be interested in it, however.
Marriage is not a religious issue. It’s a state issue.
I agree with Moon-howler. I’d support civil unions for any two consenting adults. If a person wants to go through the hocus-pocus of a religious ceremony in order to be “married” that’s fine too as an additional step. In fact that’s probably how most “marriages” are performed…paperwork from the government and ceremony from a religious institution.
I don’t like a patchwork of laws either. There are certain things one should expect to be honored by any state to which one moves and an institution as deeply personal as marriage is one of them IMO.
Ideally, yes. But marriage was left as a state issue and never subsequently clarified as any type of federally-guaranteed right.
Rick, I believe just as the feds had to step in in Loving vs Virginia, they’ll have to do the same for gay/Lesbian parterships. It’s easy to say that we’ve made much progress racially and ignore the fact that some issues which made that progress possible had to be forcably resolved. I’ve known gay and Lesbian couple for decades. How long should they wait? Until we old farts die off?
couples^
@Rick Bentley
LOLOL!!!!
Perfect, Rick!
It seems a true conservative is one who would focus government intervention
to those cases where the actions of citizen A have a clear negative impact
on citizen B.
To the mantra of “Defending Traditional Marriage”, I don’t understand how
gays or lesbians getting married hurts a marriage between a man and
a woman. As an older guy, it certainly seems strange for me to see it,
but does it really hurt anyone?
As the old joke says, why not let them suffer like the rest of us?
Poor Richard,
Exactly, “let them suffer like the rest of us” ! Honestly, traditional marriage is a joke these days….take a look at recent headlines shall we?
Gore
Bullock
Edwards
Repubican cheating with abstinence woman ad (whatever his name is)
PU-LEEZ, people need to get off the high horse of the sanctity of straight marriage. We are just muddling through, trying to make it work and keep the love alive, for ourselves, for our children.
I imagine OLF has no close gay friends, at least none they are aware of!
OLF just did the usual pigeon thing….a drive by.
PR is right. let them suffer. They hurt no one by marrying other than themselves.
Well, here it goes….I am not a conservative and I don’t want to be a conservative. It reminds me of the old joke about how many Virginians does it take to screw in a light bulb.
Once again, you really capture the full depth and breadth of this blog. You are masterful, to say the least! Oh, and we’ll get over it in a couple of years!
That is utter nonsense.
And you’re dealing with an expert, here!
marriage is another one of those anachronistic bronze age rituals that should have been discarded years ago
Who is an expert on what?
Moon,
You tell Old Fashioned Liberal to tone it down, yet he did not insult anyone, unless his “When are you even going to stop to think?” is offending you. Yet, I see nothing said to Starryflight about the teabagger terms or the general insulting attitude.
Bobby Jindal is howling because, not only has the Fed not mobilized anything to assist, it prevented Louisiana from taking any unilateral actions for weeks. THIS is supposed to be the Fed’s job. It was in FEDERAL waters.
Marriage already is a “hodge podge.” Some states recognize common law marriage while others do not. One objection to the way same sex marriage is being pushed is that whenever the federal government “makes something legal,” the plaintiffs want more. Sure, same sex unions might be made legal. But will the federal government, because of its own laws, allow churches and religions to NOT marry same sex individuals? Will churches be forced to comply like Catholic Hospitals are being told to do so on abortion?
Furthermore, once the arbitrary definition of one man/one woman is removed, where is the limit? Shall we see threesomes and moresomes getting married? How about adult incest? Yes, yes, I know that every time its brought up, an outcry of “You’re equating homosexuality with incest!” shows up. That’s not what I mean. If the only restriction on marriage is that the ones wanting to be married are of the age of consent, then ALL laws and restrictions on the sanctity of marriage are gone.
All restrictions are arbitrary. Apparently, society needs to re-examine the purpose of marriage.
He/she insulted me. I am a person. Nuff said. I am not going to admonish Starry about using the term tea bagger. After some of the crap I read here about non cons…that’s up to him. And I have snarled at him in the past. I just didn’t see a need to today. Tone it down is fairly mild.
And I don’t mind Bobby Jindal howling. I would howl also. I think all of America needs to howl. However, Jindal was one of those who was on the war path about government interference.
Marriage, I don’t like the patchwork with marriage laws now. I think if you live in this country then marriage is marriage. Adult incest? I don’t really care. That’s their business as long as it is consensual. I don’t even want to know about it. As for 3 people marrying…they do that now but not legally. That doesn’t bother me either, as long as we are speaking of adults.
I think that civil unions should be one at a time. That takes care of the gang bang mentality. Polygamy? It is practiced now. Religious ceremony only is what ties them together.
I don’t see why abortion has to be brought up. It has notthing to do with marriage. Churches shouldn’t be required to ‘marry’ people.
This will all be decided by the courts anyway.
cargo – can you expand on this – Will churches be forced to comply like Catholic Hospitals are being told to do so on abortion?
I do not believe hospitals are required to perform abortions (or any other procedure).
I believe you are correct, Pat. I have never heard of any hospital being required to perform abortions.
I think what Cargo is talking about is the Freedom of Choice Act which would’ve mandated that any hospital that takes medicaid or medicare (govt money) would be required to perform abortions.
The Catholic Church operates 12% of this countries hospitals and provided care for 84.7 million persons regardless of ability to pay. Catholic Bishops have declared that if FOCA were to ever pass and require the Catholic Church to provide abortions at those hospitals (mind you those hospitals are almost always located in the poorest of poor areas) that they’d rather close up all hospitals than be complicent in mortal sin.
So, it’s a game of chicken (or was back in…07?). Congress could pass FOCA and the Catholic Church would crush the US healthcare system that relies on it to care for the sick and poor.
You saw much of the same in DC with the Washington Catholic Church.. Required to recognize same-sex marriages the Catholic Church pulled support from its social mission where it tied in with govt.
I tend to side with the Church on this. If the govt wants to push itself into a matter of religion it must be ready to understand the consequence of that action.
Cargo, good analogy. I enjoyed it.
There’s also the rabbit hole of age of consent of marriage (I think VA is 16 but some states it’s down to 13) and restrictions on marriage of blood relatives.
The Freedom of Choice Act is hardly a big threat right now. I wish it were actually. If it were, then we could stop electing officials over whether they were pro-choice or not.
Having said that, I don’ t think hospitals would ever be forced to perform abortions. I am certain that language, if it existed, would be compromised out.
And all those medicare patients who wanted an abortion would just have to go elsewhere. 🙄
Actually I thought the Catholic Church was dead wrong over the gay marriage issue. That law did not force them to compromise their values at all. It was simply blackmail.
The Church assumes too much of a role in setting laws in this country.