Today, the Washington Post published an article on the Tea Party’s silence in relation to a Massachusetts Federal Court’s recent decision to declare parts of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage as between one man and woman, unconstitutional.
In a similar light, the National Association of Puppy Owners has had nothing to say about racquetball. Something is amiss!
The Washington Post goes on to quote Tea Party members from various organizations across the country, all of whom seem to think legislating gay marriage should be a state’s right, not a federal one. It also cites Bob Barr, who wrote the DOMA legislation, and has now come out against it.
I have to give credit to Sandhya Somashekhar, who wrote the Post’s article, for managing to correctly state what the TEA Party is: a loose affiliation of grass-roots activists coming together around fiscal issues and in favor of small government. But, then, why write the article at all?
Is it somehow surprising that such a group would collectively avoid issues not central to its cause? Or, is there something more sinister at work here? The Leftist media now seems to be finding fault with what the Tea Party doesn’t say.
Just yesterday, the Washington Post published a user poll: Does the Tea Party’s reaction to gay marriage affect your support of the movement?
But, wait. Today, the Post is stating there is no reaction. Yesterday, they implied there was one, though they never managed to outline what it was (or wasn’t.)
Nowhere in the article or the poll does the Washington Post state that, while it was Barr who wrote DOMA, it was the mainstream media’s hero Bill Clinton who signed it. Nor do they ever mention the fact that President Barack Obama is not only against DOMA, but also against gay marriage. Likewise, they completely ignore Barr’s own explanation of DOMA’s existence in the first place and why he now believes it doesn’t work.
One is left to wonder how this bit of non-news made it to the Washington Post’s website. While the NAACP is desperately trying to label the Tea Party as racist, is this an attempt to jump on the bandwagon by emphasizing that the movement doesn’t “officially” support another minority cause?
I honestly don’t know, but I suspect this is rather close to the truth.
If, next month, leftists decide to take a stance on vegetable farming, I fully expect the Washington Post to write about how TEA Party conservatives refuse to come out in support of rutabagas.