News | Philadelphia | Tea Party | Teabagger

BigGayDeal.com

Tea Party 'Diversity' Rally Attracts Gay Teabaggers

Gay_teabaggers

On Saturday, the Uni-Tea rally took place in Philadelphia. It was meant to demonstrate the "diversity" among members of the Tea Party, TPM reports:

"Apparently, Uni-Tea wasn't only bridging the racial gap. Brendan Kissam and Matt Hissey wandered into the event carrying signs that said 'proud gay conservative' and 'freedom is fabulous.' They said they were 'the Gayborhood's envoy to the tea party.' The pair said the tea party is welcoming to their minority group, too. 'The Tea Party is accepting of everybody,' said Hissey, adding that 'Skin color diversity -- that's not real diversity. Everyone here has a different life experience.' Hissey recognized that the tea party 'might be against gay marriage,' but that's ok, he said, because he is too."

Apparently, with fewer than 500 in attendance and few non-Whites to be found, it was a major fail: "If you're the kind of tea partier who'd like to see that abounding not-racism result in some actual demographic diversity in the movement, the Uni-Tea rally appeared to be a borderline disaster."

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Crispy, why are you so hateful? Do I know you, or have I wronged you? Try a little civility, sometime. You'll find it refreshing.

    Posted by: Brendan Kissam | Aug 2, 2010 2:48:49 PM


  2. Brendan, maybe you should open a couple of history books and participate in that magical thing called research before blathering on about things you don't know anything about. Marriage has never been a "private and religious/social affair" in either the North American British colonies or the United States.

    During Colonial days marriage was a very public affair. Prior to marrying, couples either had to publish banns for several weeks (an announcement of the upcoming marriage posted in a public place) or apply for a license. This was done so that anyone with objections to the marriage (for instance, if one knew someone was already married), that they could protest the union. A noted genealogist writes: "Whatever religious significance they attributed to marriage, all the colonies recognized it as a civil contract based on mutual consent of both parties."

    One of the reasons slaves were not allowed to marry was because they had no legal rights- their owners made all decisions for them.

    Marriage in North America has always been a contractual agreement. The government has always been involved.

    Maybe you have the money to hire a lawyer to write contracts for you. I don't. Most of my friends don't. Why should we have to spend our money on the same things that the government gives out for free to straight couples.

    Truly, if you aren't a fuckwit you must be a fucking spoiled brat.

    Posted by: homer | Aug 2, 2010 2:50:49 PM


  3. I think that "famewhore" is more accurate than "fuckwit". YMMV.

    And, you know, most of a marriage happens outside the bedroom, Brendan. Anyone can fuck, but two people who want to commit to each other? That happens in the living room, the dining room, on the bus, at the bank and in the hospital & the mortuary. It isn't about the dangly bits; it's about trusting someone to make decisions when you can't.

    Posted by: pParkerT | Aug 2, 2010 2:52:31 PM


  4. @ Brendan Kissam: I applaud you for standing up for what you believe. A diversity of opinion is healthy. But racism is an ugly stain on American society, and it goes hand-in-hand with homophobia. I'd hope you do some self-reflection as to why you'd support such a repugnant group (and not just spout common ideology).

    But you're young and idealistic, and when you step back and mature, you'll realize that this group you want to identify with so badly, actually wants nothing to do with you and people like you. They'd rather you didn't exist.

    Posted by: JTlvr | Aug 2, 2010 2:56:34 PM


  5. "have I wronged you?"

    You can't be serious?

    Posted by: crispy | Aug 2, 2010 2:58:22 PM


  6. I think the real answer is they will sleep with gay men, but they are married to white male privilege.

    Posted by: Broseppi | Aug 2, 2010 2:59:16 PM


  7. With any luck Brendan, you'll be one of the first to go to the ovens.

    Posted by: Jubal Harshaw | Aug 2, 2010 3:02:24 PM


  8. @ Brendan Kissam: I don't know if this is you or not, Brendan. After all, you could be anyone posing as Brendan. But if you are, I want to draw your attention to my previous post in this thread and a statement your (I am assuming) partner made that disturbs me greatly:

    'Skin color diversity -- that's not real diversity. Everyone here has a different life experience.'

    I went into further detail in my previous post and won't rehash it here. But what I will do is ask you and your partner to please not be so quick to dismiss skin color as just chance genetics and "not real diversity." While it is true we all have different life experiences, me being an American who happens to be black gives me a rich culture and history which should never be so quickly dismissed as "not real diversity."

    Posted by: Stephen | Aug 2, 2010 3:07:35 PM


  9. I don't support Democrats because I love them, I support them because I dislike them the least. Republican and Tea Party platforms are absolutely repulsive on every single issue. Doesn't help that they are backed by powerful corperations run by some of the wealthiest 2% who want to rob the poor and middle class for their own profit.

    Posted by: ravewulf | Aug 2, 2010 3:09:40 PM


  10. Goodness, why bother even acknowledging people like Brendan? They're just really stupid and ignorant, and don't have a lot of experience thinking for themselves. Even if they eventually come around and understand what a sound argument is, it doesn't matter...because they're still stupid. I mean, I once talked to someone like brendan who said something like, "you can't be moral if you're not a christian"...I laughed, and walked away. To take that seriously would be to acknowledge the existence of someone with a particularly low IQ, or someone suffering from delusions...either way, why bother? It would be ridiculously simple to categorically refute these people, but it's much more entertaining to watch them crash and burn with their ideologies (and they do, eventually)...and the fallout from that...than to waste time correcting them in public.

    Posted by: TANK | Aug 2, 2010 3:09:47 PM


  11. Well, the gay community is certainly diverse. It includes moronic racists who would say things like. 'Skin color diversity -- that's not real diversity...' Wow. True, racial diversity is only one kind of diversity, but still an important one. Also, to think that being denied the liberty to marry the one you love increases ones liberty or that because one does not wish to marry at this time, no one should be able to marry, is truly perverse. Um, I think liberty includes the freedom for individuals to make their own life decisions for themselves.
    Fuckwits indeed.

    Posted by: Ian | Aug 2, 2010 3:12:49 PM


  12. Dear Brendan,go ask your tea party friends, any of them, if they support taking the government out of marriage so everyone can have the same contractual agreement. If you come back and say they have agreed to put that in their platform, I will appologize in any way you like. If they don't, and you still support them, then frankly my dear, you are a fuckwit.

    Posted by: MikeyDallas | Aug 2, 2010 3:14:54 PM


  13. So, Brendan, if I read your above comment correctly, you believe that marriage is a "social contract" (whatever the hell that is) to benefit straight people's children, but not your own, should you ever decide to have children. And you think you're going to convince straight people that the big bad government should get out of their marriages, thereby making the 1000+ benefits and protections they currently take for granted vanish into thin air. Straight people would rather hire those fabulous lawyers to handle all those contract details?

    Good luck with that! Because currently marriage IS a government contract, (one from which there is no rational basis to exclude gay couples), not a religious one, and I can't see most straight people ripping up their government-issued marriage/divorce contracts any time soon. They're kinda attached to them.

    Since your gayness seems to have no influence on your views whatsoever, I'm not sure what diversity you'd bring to a Tea Party Rally, unless they have an orgy. Seems like the only thing you have in common with other gay men is the desire to suck cock, so I'm guessing "skin color diversity" is more real than what you and Miss Hissey bring to the sad proceedings.

    Posted by: Ernie | Aug 2, 2010 3:36:18 PM


  14. morons!

    Posted by: Jones | Aug 2, 2010 4:00:05 PM


  15. Matt Hissey? Of the famed Philadelphia Hissey-Fitz?

    Sorry, always looking for good drag names.

    Brendan and Matt may long for the day when America is a land without civil marriage and only the churches care, but here's a hint, guys. NOT IN YOUR LIFETIMES. So, in the meantime, work for your rights, not against them. And be careful not to fall in love with a foreign national with kids, lest you end up living the hell you think is all we deserve.

    Posted by: BobN | Aug 2, 2010 4:22:01 PM


  16. "Skin color diversity -- that's not real diversity." I can't tell you how often I've heard that sentiment out of the mouths of conservative white students at my college. They think you could have great diversity in a group of all rich white WASP New Englanders -- as long as they have a "diversity of ideas" -- like, maybe, some of them read the Federalist Papers and others are fans of John Roberts, as opposed to Glenn Beck. Or maybe they'd prefer the "diversity" of having rich white people from California, Texas, and Vermont. These people are usually clueless. Smart ones (young & fresh out of conservative families) can get it, if you explain it to them. Stupid ones like these boys, probably not.

    And there can be lots of political diversity among people who care about gay issues: Democrats, Progressives, far left, and radical queers who disapprove of the marriage struggle for good reasons. These boys don't really care about gay issues. It's not that they're "not one-issue voters" -- they probably are, and that issue is keeping their money. They're definitely "non-gay-issue-voters." If they vote, that is... So why bother even mentioning that they're gay?

    Posted by: Kevinvt | Aug 2, 2010 4:22:31 PM


  17. I'd rather have no such thing as marriage at all. Or at least as we have it right now.

    It privileges some relationships over others with a plethora of civil and social rights and privileges. I'd rather see it abolished than to enter into a marriage myself.

    It's a way for society to regulate what is an "acceptable" or "respectable" relationship through government agency.

    P.S. I'm a leftist/socialist, not an idiot teabagger.

    Posted by: missanthrope | Aug 2, 2010 4:40:43 PM


  18. Christ Stephen, its sad to think he's never even heard of James Baldwin or read a line of Langston Hughes. The former was the reason I moved to the U.S. The latter is an inspiration to all who know him.

    I'm amazed at your patience and embarrassed that you actually had to outline why racial diversity is real diversity, ffs.

    Gays who don't know their own history, or America's, actually threaten the freedoms they are claiming to protect.

    Posted by: yonkersconquers | Aug 2, 2010 4:46:51 PM


  19. The Tea Party is nothing more than a reincarnation of the states' rights movement (aka the "Tenth Amendment Sovereignty Movement"). Brendan should go read the history of "states' rights" movements (e.g. the John Birch Society, the Dixiecrats, Wallace Independent Party, etc.) in the past and see what they stood for, and what it means now for gay people, women, minorities, etc.

    Posted by: Philo | Aug 2, 2010 5:09:30 PM


  20. Oh right, I completely forgot that you're not diverse until you're completely respectful of other people's need to be racist and homophobic. "If you're really pro-diversity, you'll also support anti-diversity." What a joke.

    And who better to claim that racism isn't an issue or that it's "just skin color" than a privileged white male and a party born out of the outrage of a perceived decline in white male power?

    And you're not one to talk about Gay Inc. wanting Big Government int heir bedrooms when you support a party of politicians who only want Small Government in their business and finances and emphatically support Big Government for all other social issues that they disagree with. "Small Government" my ass...

    Posted by: Luminum | Aug 2, 2010 5:10:56 PM


  21. Why don't you throw yourselves into the midst of the tea partiers instead of standing to the side? Let's see you really take on the movement and try to become part of it. I'll bet you'll learn really fast that they have none of your interests in mind.

    Posted by: Gregoire | Aug 2, 2010 5:58:53 PM


  22. The tea party movement generally doesnt give a shit about our equality. When the head of the Pasadena California Tea Party movement sent me a email about the guy who wanted to usurp DeeDee Schzoforva in NY23 with a wingnut he took me off his email list.

    Posted by: Matt Munson | Aug 2, 2010 9:18:04 PM


  23. I am gay and a founding member of the Baton Rouge Tea Party. I spoke about gay inclusion at the New Orleans tea Party event a year ago where several thousand were in attendance. I was warmly welcomed and had some great discussions as a result. The tea party is only fiscal in nature - it hsa no opinion on gay marriage or other social issues.

    No I am not racist. I beleive in freedom, which is what Tea Party is all about. The abuse heaped upon Mr. Kissam and Hissay here is contemptible. No one asked you to report on their tea party activities or sit in judgement of them.

    The Tea Party is diverse, and describing 500 attending any tea party rally as a "major fail" is cutesy libspeak for "Jesus Christ they are making this happen!!!"

    Posted by: ted baldwin | Aug 2, 2010 11:34:12 PM


  24. @Ted Baldwin,

    If Hillary Clinton, and or John McCain would have been at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    There would be no GOD DAMN TEA PARTY.....PERIOD

    So in actuality it is about RACE! SORRY GIRL FAIL!

    And also we wouldn't be bored with those Dicki-Leaks bio's that [email protected] bores us with all the time.

    Posted by: Pinky Pumps | Aug 3, 2010 12:42:43 AM


  25. Hmmm I wonder if Ted Baldwin will now become the focus of this discussion.

    Eh just an amusing thought that popped into my head as I've been reading all the comments, which have greatly entertained me. I don't even feel like these two even deserve mention. They are just two Tea-Party members who happen to be gay, they are no more stupid or uninformed than the rest of the tea party. Depending on who you are that is either a grievous insult or a badge of honer. I tend to think of it as the former. lol.

    Posted by: Laizden | Aug 3, 2010 12:49:53 AM


  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Watch: The Morning After Chelsea Clinton's Wedding« «