“The TEA Party was never intended to be about abortion, homosexuality, etc. It’s strength was that people who think we are Taxed Enough Already could unite around the issues of taxes, debt, and spending, regardless of where they stand on social issues.”
To be consistent, the conservative world view *must* encompass the the so-called social issues—those things that used to be called morality.
If we have a right to be free from excessive taxation, that right must have a source. For the Founding Fathers, that source was our Creator. If we have a Creator who endows us with unalienable rights, rights that precede and supersede government, then it is also incumbent upon us to take seriously what that Creator has told us about His nature, and about the nature of good and evil.
If we say, “Yes, I will accept the Creator’s gift of unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of property, but I will scorn Him when He tells me that adultery is bad for me,” then our world view is not consistent.
Bachmann understood this distinction when she's talk about what the Tea Party was at essentially every appearance.
Palin understood the distinction when Van Susteren asked how social conservative Santorum could appeal to the Tea Party and she spoke of highlighting a fiscally conservative message.
Those who wish to hijack the Tea Party movement to push social policy agendas do so at grave risk of destroying that important coalition.
Do not overreach. Accept the common ground, the common principles and move the country in the right direction. Build on that over time or lose everything.
An everything or nothing attitude is a sure path to failure.