Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.
Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.
“Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for,” Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.”
Steele’s argument is utterly correct. More marriages would mean that more benefits would be paid out. However, it’s still ridiculous because the exact same argument could be used against all marriages. And if you think about it, because heterosexual marriages would more likely lead to children, which would lead to more benefits, heterosexual marriages would actually be worse for businesses than gay marriages!
Does Steele and the GOP really want to be against the institution of marriage? Will Steele call for a moratorium on all new marriages until the financial crisis is over?
But wait, it gets even more bizarre, if you continue with Steele’s logic, it necessarily follows that unmarried gay couples are good for small businesses! So not only he is against the institution of marriage, he’s in favor of promiscuous homosexuality!
#7 — wow, a self-hating gay. Go see Outrage. Really dude, you are an idiot — and I’m Gay, with two partners who are married to each other (in Canada) and can tell you, please shut the hell up with the self-hating bullcrap.
Gay marriage is about the fundamental right to equality in life. If I want to marry a man that I love, I should have that ability — with the same rights and responsibilities that every couple have.
Bigots do NOT have any valid reasons against it — just as Bigots did NOT have valid reasons against interracial marriage. They HATE us, thus they validate their hatred through elaborate facades.
Now states are finally coming to the forefront and CORRECTING the problem, something that the federal government SHOULD have done. I only hope that Obama will decide to stand up on the right side of the issue as he should, rather than hiding behind others until he is forced to make a decision.
You can argue all you want, spout religious nonsense, spout flame and intolerance. You are a bigot, you need to stop and truly think, not parrot nonsense fed to you by others. Ah that’s right, you don’t think, you just react, I forgot. Learning is hard.
Individual freedoms are earned, and they can be taken away with a single vote. Those of us that appreciate that fact and fight for it, win. Those that hide who they are and try to pretend they are happy die unfulfilled lives, which degrades everyone.
Bigotry is a sickness that is easy to catch, and very hard to cure.
Funny, two years ago, Mother Jones looked at the issue and called gay marriage a 3.1 billion dollar stimulus package. Are we forgetting that people spend money on weddings?
http://tinyurl.com/o25qd2
#34
LDA I think that debate can be won
Proof is in the pudding homosexuality has been with us since the dawn of man and other animals for that matter. It would be like they are waiting for man to land on the moon and look at the solar system before accepting that the sun is at the center and not the earth. Some cultures are fine with homosexuality, some celebrate it and some shun it. Allegory I say there Belief System is a matter of choice and we so we can deny benefits to any who think Jesus was divine. They chose to believe there rewards are not of this earth.
For some it might be more a matter of choice for others(most I’d bet) choice had nothing to do with it they are just wired that way.
Still it doesn’t matter Separate but Equal is not a working solution according to US laws. If the GOP cross up there butt crowd tries to own the word “Marriage” then the State can to only recognize Civil Unions and let the belief system of your choice define words like marriage for you.
The GOP will fail this in the end and that poor student Steel was talking to will be left without a fiscally conservative party to vote for because she knows it would be a morally wrong to vote for the bigot party.
oh and I for got to add on the end of #29 responding to #7
Steel would then say
P.S. I’m black so don’t even begin to claim bigotry
Why haven’t the divorce lawyers of America spoken up on this issue? I’m SURE they’re for more marriages, as 50% of ALL marriages end in divorce. It would be good for THAT business.
The thing is, if marriage was just about sperm exchange, that’s one thing, but it’s not, it’s a complex set of laws and entitlements, which cover complex issues of land ownership, probate, medical decisions, health care..you name it. The civil unions (in many states) don’t fully cover it.
I don’t see the issue with letting another portion of our population have access to the benefits of “marriage”, as well as the problems with it, and the costs of divorce.
As for the whole argument..that it’s a holy bond between women and men, blah blah blah, consider that 4 in 10 babies are born “out of wedlock”. Obviously, the stigma of bastard children has gone away…..so why are we adhering to old 50’s concepts of marriage?
I am amazed how pointless Michael Steele’s comments are. First, tying it to health care was bait and switch on both sides. The problems for small businesses who provide coverage in the US is a health care management issue. It’s a serious problem and won’t change one iota with parter coverage.
Second, if he’s trying to attract young people he should look at the data on age vs support for same sex marriage.
It’s bold thinking like this that has turned the Republican party into a eunuch.
#4 – Alfred1,
So, I’m confused. Is your post for or against same sex marriage. It sounds like you’re for it, correct?
# 7 Not equal said, on May 17th, 2009 at 5:30 am
P.S. I’m gay so don’t even begin to claim bigotry
Bullshit. And, if not, then you are a self-loathing anti-gay bigot.
Further, I have a vasectomy and am in a heterosexual marriage. How is my marriage better than a same sex marriage?
Marriage is about love, period.
#10 – madtruckman,
You’re half right. It shouldn’t be called “gay marriage.” It should be called marriage. Why are we so hung up on the word gay? Are we that homophobic? I guess so.
#15 – Jägermeister,
Exactly right.
All unions should be civil unions, granted the powers and benefits we currently confer to marriage. Now, if someone wants to make that promise before God as well as man, then they can go find a church that will do that. There are churches that will perform that ceremony for any couple, I assure you.
Government being involved in marriage at all is a de factor establishment of religion, and is thus, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
#31 – Alfred1,
#27 Thank you…I believe it to be the view of the founding Fathers…
They predicated our rights upon scripture…scripture grants all free will…Christ and His apostles expressly separate religion from Government…
Exactly where do you get this complete and total load of BS? Did you read any scripture or even any mention of god anywhere at all in either the constitution or the bill of rights? I thought you read things literally? Where did you pick up this piece of crap?
Hence we have rights from our Creator…that are not subject to any particular religion or philosophy.
Oh good. Total bullshit, of course, but here is bullshit I can work with. “not subject to any religion” … I like it.
Here are some images taken from a temple. Perhaps this should clue you in to the fact that not only are you trying to legislate from a particular religion, but you are ignoring the fact that you ram religion down the throats of others by making a legal separation based on your beliefs.
Temple images from Khajuraho, a world heritage site.
http://tinyurl.com/o8ennc
http://tinyurl.com/qbozdc
I’m sorry I can’t find one specifically of homosexuality at the moment. I have one somewhere, these were far from the only three sexually explicit carvings on the temples. All of the positions of the Kama Sutra were represented on each temple at Khajuraho.
#49 – Me,
I forgot to warn everyone, the links in the prior message are NSFW.
#33 – R. Hastings,
I worked for a company with just 40 employees and great health coverage. They still have it and are still in business.
Before that, for 9 years, I worked for a company with 20 employees and coverage just as good. The policy was 100% employer paid for a full family plan.
BTW, I’m not sure whether it’s NYS law, but at least the last two companies I worked for did cover domestic partners, even though my state does not (yet) allow same sex marriage.
The biggest thing missing without marriage is next of kinship that would cover cases of dying intestate (no will), hospital visitation, determination of who gets to make life and death decisions for the other person, etc.
#35 – MIkey Twit,
Free market at work.
To have a free market would require getting corporate america out of the business of providing social welfare. As it stands now, the market is forced into such ridiculous things as retirement plans, health care, unemployment coverage, disability insurance.
Other countries do not require this of their corporations.
This means that our corporations have tremendous difficulty competing not only against developing nations with sweatshops, but even against corporations from other developed democratic nations.
It’s a huge burden and makes the market far from free.
I was under the impression that marriage was created to control promiscuity. Humans do not need an incentive to have sex which will lead to children if sex is not protected sex. Humans need ways to control their sexual behavior.
You do not need marriage to create kids or to love someone for many years. You do need marriage for divorces, financial leverage and hopefully controlling promiscuity.
As for changing the definitions of words, that has been going on for a long time. The meaning of the word gay for example used to mean happy.
I also consider myself fiscally conservative and socially liberal. There are times when these ideologies clash. When that happens, my priorities in order are:
1. liberty which means less government intervention
2. equality
3: reduced spending
Providing benefits and privileges to married couples is already precedent and by definition government intervention. Thus, providing benefits to gay spouses has no bearing on liberty. However, it most definitely has a bearing on equality. If you are going to provide a benefit, it must be done in an equitable fashion. On this point, Steele’s argument falls flat. Providing benefits only to spouses in heterosexual relationships most definitely is not an equitable allocation of privileges and benefits. Therefore, either remove the privileges and benefits for all spouses, which would be the most fiscally conservative, or do it equitably by allowing it to apply to either heterosexual or homosexual couples which is the socially liberal approach.
#7
Ah but gay couples *can* procreate through the miracles of modern science. Given that, your argument completely unravels.
I’m going to guess that the author of #27 wrote their response before they read #26.
#37 – Alfred1,
In the eyes of the law, gay/straight unions should be equal.
Yes. And as we learned from the “separate but equal” laws that existed previously, the only way to make them equal is to make them identical, even in name.
#38 – chuck,
Excellent points all. Let’s get you out of the business of social welfare so your business can perform the tasks you created it for.
#48 – Li,
Government being involved in marriage at all is a de factor [sic] establishment of religion, and is thus, in my opinion, unconstitutional.
Where does it say that marriage is solely a religious concept?
From wikipedia (http://tinyurl.com/gmlop)
lets see..
so MORE single people and GAYS have jobs, in small business..
COULD BE logical..
A smart person isnt going out looking for MARRIAGE..?? when they are only bringing home LOW WAGES??
DID anyone tell McD??KFC??Walmart, and all the rest will LOVE to hear this..do you think they will give you MORE then 32 hours?? so those SINGLE people can get HEALTH CARE and BENEFITS??
NOT!!
Do business that offer insurance to spouses also insure children? If so they should only hire gays because they can only adopt and not all of them do so they are probably cheaper than straight people.
# 54 Thomas
No I read it. I was pleased that he (as an evangelical Christian) was happy for civil society to accept equal rights for all couples. It took a long time and much pain to get to the point where it seems most people feel this way. Have some perspective of how far we have come in a couple of generations. Respect goes both ways.
The fact that he actually holds to his interpretation of the teachings of the Bible just makes him sincere. I do not object to peoples thoughts or words, I just expect equal treatment under the law. Despite his religious beliefs Alfred1 seems to agree, and for that I respect him.
# 7 Not equal said,
Marriage is and has been throughout history to be the commitment between two people who choose to form a union and by nature have the ability to form a union of sperm and egg thus creating a beautiful new human being, regardless as to whether or not they do so, it’s how they were born.
Actually, considering that through much of history, marriages were arranged (and still are in some cultures), that’s simply an opinion. Actually, in many cases, the reason for marriage was political… two aristocratic families marrying one’s son to the other’s daughter to avoid possible conflict between the two.
In fact, ‘love’ (the current standard) was first presented as a reason to marry in Tristan and Isolde (ref: Joseph Campbell), where an arranged marriage was disrupted because the woman and the man who was escorting her to her future husband fell in love, and the feeling was mutual.
So, arguments that there should be ‘traditional marriage’ should all be: we choose who our kids marry as soon as they’re born.
J/P=?
So, alfred, based on your requirement that language not change, how many time have you been gay? How old were you when you had your first fag?
Alfred, get a clue. The best part of your argument is that the definition of the word “marriage” changes. The rest is total BS. Pretty soon you’re going to be just like those old fool racists in the south.
Wait, you probably are already.
I pray for the day that hypocrite Christians like Steel and his ilk get ruptured away then a heaven on earth will be much easer to accomplish.
Well that is if I thought there was any deity to pray to.
This guy or Rush are the leaders of the GOP?… Those guys are screwed.
WWJDo Make a whip, and drive them all out of Washington, poured out the money they got from the lobbyists kick over the tables and say unto them that were naughty bigots, Check out what Luke thinks I said in 6:37 “Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.”
Now let Dad and I worry about this gay thing and just be good to each other. Christ(I mean me) its that simple! Ethic of Reciprocity it’s one of the principal philosophies of almost all religions including those that use my name. And BTY republicans it’s called the Golden Rule not the Depleted Uranium Rule or the Homophobe Rule.
Alfred,
I’m curious. Since language does not change, why are you not speaking Hebrew, the language of Jesus? Or ancient Greek or Latin?
Isn’t changing the very language in which we communicate the biggest possible change in language?
Hebrew had not been spoken in so long as an actual live language that resurrecting (pardon the pun) the language for use as the language of Israel required adding a tremendous number of words for technologies that were neither in existence in biblical times nor (dare I say it) forecast in the bible.
Ever hear of a telephone? This is a word that didn’t exist as recently as the writing of the constitution. What about terms like native American, African American, or Mormon, all of which were not in existence at the framing of the constitution.
As pointed out earlier, gay was not a term for anything other than happy until very recently. Words change, even the moral zeitgeist changes. Those who cling to a 2K year old writing will never update their morals or ideals for the modern world.
Do you still stone people to death for working on the sabbath?
Oh wait, sabbath is another word that changed dramatically. At the supposed time of Y’shua, it meant Friday sundown through Saturday sundown (not to mention being pronounced shabbat). Now, for 1.2 billion people, it means all day Sunday.
What do you think it means? And why?
Anyhoo. Up here in Canada a minority federal government passed the law after various court cases were cropping up all over the place. I really believe the governing bodies need to do this (one way or another) and not courts nor popular referendums which are so prone to media manipulation.
And yes, we all know we’re going to hell. And no, we don’t care.
Can anybody name the Democrats equivalent to Steele?
There’s something wildly wrong with the GOP when their largest mouthpieces are both raving lunatics, and unelected [& unelectable] entertainers.
Love that Steele is considering running for President. I hope me makes Rush his VP choice.
What jackasses the GOP has become.
#6 I’m still waiting for the “White smoke” to come out of Rush Limbaugh’s ass to see who will be the party leader.
I am sure you have a ringside err hole side seat so let us know.