Thanks for the additional links. This story continues to grow and mutate.

“In general, those who turned out for the April 15 event tended to be less culturally conservative than national Republicans.

Asked to rate their level of anger about 22 issues on a scale of one (not angry at all) to five (extremely angry), the issue that drew the most anger: the growing national debt. The least: courts granting same-sex couples the right to marry. Twenty-four percent said they’re “not at all” upset about gay marriage.”

“When it comes to gays and lesbians, White Tea Party supporters also hold negative attitudes. Only 36 percent think gay and lesbian couples should be allowed to adopt children, and just 17 percent are in favor of same-sex marriage.”

Please go re-read my commentary. Try to set aside whatever it is that you think I said and go read the words again.

http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2010/03/rep-michele-bachmann-repeats-death.html

What I don’t get is why you think social issues are important to them when so MANY social conservatives are joining the bandwagon. Eventually they’re going to outshine whatever “core values” you think are more important. Do you really think Perkins, Palin, Farrah are going to just leave their anti-gay stances behind? Do you really think they’re NOT going to look for an opportunity to rally the tea party around those points as well? It’s exactly what’s happened with the republicans. Remember when conservative actually meant fiscal conservative? Resource conservative? That’s all been replaced with social conservativism and just plain corporate pandering. The same fate awaits the tea party so long as no one is shoving out Palin, Farah, Wright, Perkins, Bachman, etc, etc, etc.

The only way that the Tea Party can be good for gays is if they act as magnet for all the social conservatives so that republicans can get back to whatever non-social values they have left. Either that or as a spoiler, shifting enough republican votes away so that dems or the green party or whatever can gain or keep some ground.

“I disagree with the assessment Box Turtle Bulletin quotes. The problem is that the so-called “Tea Party” *isn’t* a party–it’s a melange of people without a single platform or set of opinions. A lot of the anarchic lawlessness that the tea partiers advocate could prove very dangerous to LGBT Americans, as to all Americans–and we should be … See moreconcerned for the democratic system and American politics as we understand them should the Republican party seek to embrace the tea partiers too closely. To me, they represent the breakdown of civic discourse.”

TRiG.

There is also a strong sense that abortion allows a woman to sin without paying a price. It seems unfair to them that the punishment for sexual wantonness, an unwanted pregnancy, can be taken care of so quickly and inexpensively (this is also a strong motivation behind opposition to contraception)

This is the same twisted logic behind the belief that “AIDS is God’s punishment for the ‘sin’ of homosexuality.”

First, yes I think that many anti-abortion activists do sincerely engage in their activism because they believe that they are saving lives. The believe that all life is sacred and to be protected (many are also anti-death penalty).

HOWEVER…

There is also a strong sense that abortion allows a woman to sin without paying a price. It seems unfair to them that the punishment for sexual wantonness, an unwanted pregnancy, can be taken care of so quickly and inexpensively (this is also a strong motivation behind opposition to contraception)

I’m not sure I buy the strict father / nurturing family dichotomy. But this does contribute to the notion.

I’m sad to hear that his foundation has closed. It sounded like it was doing good work in helping progressives communicate about our values more effectively.

@Fred:

On the other hand why does the ‘nurturing family’ society not care more about the unborn child? that’s an interesting question . . . maybe it has to do more with the “strict father” world view tipping more to the follow-the-rules & men-are-in-charge values on this issue (i.e., women should stay chaste, unwanted pregnancy is their punishment for having sex, and it’s men’s jobs to protect and provide), vs. “nurturing family” being more about equality of opportunity for members of the family (i.e., women should not be punished for having sex through having their opportunities foreclosed on by pregnancy)

And maybe why “strict father” types care so passionately about queers: as I recall one of the hallmarks of that world view was a certain sense that the world is scary so you have to know who the “in” people are – and they all follow the rules to protect the group from the outsiders. So that to be gay (i.e., someone who doesn’t follow the rules as cooner described above) and also be a member of their “tribe” is not acceptable.