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!
Finding holes in a conservative’s logic is like shooting fish in a barrel. No story here.
the GOP never disappoints when I need a good laugh
“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.”
This is generally true of every argument against gay marriage.
“Gays should not be allowed to marry because they can’t procreate” – Under that logic infertile men and women, and women over the age of 45 should not be allowed to marry either?
When you analyze all the arguments, the only ones that make any consistent sense are the homophobic arguments, which tells you a lot about person making the argument.
“I’m against gay marriage” is synonymous with “I hate gay people”.
One word:douchebag
Pffft.. The party is irrelevant and dying. Who cares.
Even more, Steele is irrelevant within his own party.
I’m still waiting for the “White smoke” to come out of Rush Limbaugh’s ass to see who will be the party leader.
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. Gay couples were not born this way, thus they are not equal in this area of commitment. When when the union of a sperm and sperm or egg and egg by nature is equal to the union of a sperm and egg please let me know and then I will support you with all of your demands for equality. It is entirely acceptable for society to use the term “civil union” for gays who would like equal protections under the law regarding commitments in adoptions, property, etc. and other matters that should be looked at as equal, but until gays can procreate, leave the term marriage to define that aspect of that special bond. There is a line to be drawn here, gay couples are simply not 100% equal to straight couples. If they were able to procreate, then sure, use the term marriage. Adoption does not make gays equal, neither does just committing to each other. Creating human beings is the thing here that makes it unequal. I’m sorry, that’s not bigoted, that’s life. There is nothing more wonderous than the natural ability to procreate. That’s how gays came into being and marriage is what did it. Gay marriage cannot do this so it is not equal. The term marriage is just a word, that only Miss California and her choice of mate deserve to have as special expression of their commitment because in most cases opposite sex couples can and do make new people. Gays, get over it, accept civil unions as the legal expression of your commitment and legal protections and accept that your are not 100 % equal to straight couples. Lawmakers please explain it this way, as human beings gays are equal to other people, as with employment and other matters, but as couples they are NOT.
P.S. I’m gay so don’t even begin to claim bigotry
Your sexual orientation should not be a consideration for marriage.
That being said, the chance for more clients must be filling the divorce industry with glee. They don’t even publish the divorce rate in CA anymore because it’s so bad.
Marriage is a dying institution.
i really think that if the gay marriage movement wanted to get this thing done, they need to change the name of gay marriage. i really think that conservatives really are just hung up on the word marriage. i dont know of many ‘normal’ conservatives that i know that would object to giving rights such as medical rights and the like to gay people. its the part of saying they are ‘married’ is what conservatives get hung up on. the legal rights of marriage (and i dont have a laundry list in front of me, sorry) i believe should be given to any 2 HUMANS (thatll leave the man-cow marriages out of the debate) that want to have them. but, in legal terms, how would this prevent any boyfriend-girlfriend couple from having the same rights? would this not be considered discriminatory also?? and, in tough times (california?) why would a state not look at this for an extra source of revenue? and to top it off, lawyers would have a field day with the extra revenue from more divorce cases…..
7. “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”
God, you contradict yourself in your very first sentence!
First you tell us what marriage “is.” It “is” in your opinion a union to create a new human being.
But then you tell us that it’s not really that. Because sometimes heterosexual couples choose not to create new human beings.
So under your definition, marriage is both about the creation of new human life and is not about the creation of new human life!? What the frick?!
“If they were able to procreate, then sure, use the term marriage”
So let’s assume that a man and woman get married with the intent to have children. Under your definition that would constitute a marriage. But let’s assume that later on they find out they’re infertile. It’s impossible for them to conceive children. Should the government take away their marriage and call it a “civil union” instead?
And what about married couples who simply become to old to have children? Should their marriages also be taken away and converted to civil unions?
Are you really saying that the government should have the power to take away marriages based upon medical conditions and age?
Logic is not your strong point, is it?
Stupid Repubs. All they have to do is say that they agree with Pres Obama, that gay marriage should be illegal. Done.
Why should spouses be covered by medical insurance? Let them pay their own! Children of a worker should be covered, but the worker should pay for all or part of the extra cost. End of problem. I have worked at a company for 31 years. When I retire, I get no medical insurance. Yet, previous employees’ WIVES will get insurance for the rest of their lives, and they never worked there a DAY! Burns me up. To hell with spouses getting a free ride! Gay people should get all the benefits of Family Court, I say. Let them learn the hard way.
13. “Why should spouses be covered by medical insurance?”
Because our puritan based society favors marriage over promiscuity, so it created benefits to compel people into marriage.
Rewind history and change gay to black…
I’m a small business and I’m certain that the very act of two people being together in a union that requires me to cover both of them jointly for medical insurance will ruin me.
But it’s not just the gays. It’s them goddamn marrieds–and especially the ones with kids. Now there’s the real problem. You put two of them damn heteros in a room, and pretty soon you got three, four, maybe nine of them all under that policy I have to support.
From now on, I’m hiring ONLY gays and lesbians. Verrrry few kids there. Lower insurance premiums for me.
The final solution turns out to be the exact opposite of what the elephants claim it to be. And isn’t that the real issue–getting the elephant out of the room?
How about employers get stop providing health care all together. Your employer provided health care isn’t free, it comes out of your salary. Take the cash and buy the health insurance you want.
#4, Ayatollah1,
Do you want a future where your diet, lifestyle, what you possess, is DICTATED by the state, lest you get sick and cost it money, or harm the planet…
Let’s rephrase that just a little to something everyone would be more in tune with.
Do you want a future where your diet, lifestyle, what you possess, is dictated by religion, lest you go stray and incur the wrath of the Ayatollahs running the show.
I’m a moonbat loon, and proud of it!
#18, Ayatollah1,
The only reason I object to gay marriage is the changing of the meaning of the word marriage to something its never been.
No, the main reason you object to Gay Marriage is you are a bigot. Plain and simple.
As SN pointed out above, there have been many childless couples that knew up front the chances of children were minimal or non-existent. I have yet to hear of any right wing nut evangelical nut case religion thumper ever decry those unions as anything less than legitimate.
My wife’s widowed aunt remarried at 60. After having had her uterus removed very early in life, she never had a chance in either first or second marriage to bear children. Yet she is very committed to her husband, a fine man. Please explain why their relationship is any less deserving of being called a marriage than what my wife and I enjoy.
I’m a moonbat loon and proud of it!
#16 – Buzz – You put two of them damn heteros in a room, and pretty soon you got three, four, maybe nine of them all under that policy I have to support.
LMAO
#18 – alfred1 – As a born again evangelical fundamentalist Christian…
We all know your mental illness… there’s no need for you to state it in every thread…
So basically the Republican party is against marriage period.
Regarding “changing the meaning of marriage,” so what, marriage is a made up thing. People made up the word it doesn’t exist in nature. Some animals may mate for life but they don’t get a piece of paper with their names on it. People made up the word marriage and they can change what the word means.
The word brassiere used to mean “arm protector.” I don’t see people complaining about women “changing the meaning of the word brassiere.” Citizen used to mean a white land owning man but I don’t see people complaining about changing what that word means.
Marriage is about reproduction, so does that mean that senior citizens shouldn’t be allowed to marry either because they can’t reproduce?
Solution…
– Recognise gay marriage.
– Remove spousal support.
It used to be that one (male at the time) could support a family on his earnings, now both (whatever sex) have to work for the same outcome. People should be paid enough so they can decide how best to look after their own commitments.
# 7 Not equal
Bigotry is intolerance of the views of others. If you are intolerant of the views of gay and straight people who disagree with you about marriage then you are a bigot (I mean this in the literal not emotionally charged sense) regardless of your sexuality. There are worse things to be, I for example am bigoted against the Taliban’s views on women’s rights and Buddhist statues.
That said, you do realise that using the word marriage does not enable or prevent the creation of life. I have never met a married gorilla and they still manage to procreate. Also we have a special word for that (not marriage) which does not apply to people who do not procreate, parents.
I do agree in principal with your point about a strong loving union for the purpose of creating and bringing up healthy and happy children but the word marriage does not ensure or prevent that, it requires love, commitment and sacrifice.
If the word marriage makes some people feel less marginalised what is the problem?
#18, Ayatollah1
Don’t expect my church to ok gay life as an alternative life style or have gay ministers… it aint gonna happen…
Well, the probability of already having gay members in denial and even gay pastors are pretty good. Only your congregation is in denial that it is not only a possibility, but a good probability.
# 18 Alfred1
I think that is a very reasonable and refreshing point of view.
SN, are you gay?
#7
So straight couples that choose not to procreate, or get “married” at ages that exceeded reproduction, or are incapable of reproduction because of some physical limitation other than gender can only have “civil unions” If they did get “married” within there breeding age but failed to procreate should have there “married” down graded to “civil unions” ?
Separate but Equal never works.
to just slightly rephrase Steel…
Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting equality for BLACKS 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 GAYS 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 EQUALITY FOR BLACKS
Now all of a sudden I’ve got someone who wasn’t a FULL HUMAN before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a HUMAN 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.”
If religious folk think marriage is a sacrament, what business does the government have sanctioning it regardless of the gender of the people involved? Government control of what is considered by many to be a spiritual event is no different than church-state collaboration that enforced the Inquisition or taxed people to support the Congregational Church in Massachusetts or the Episcopal Church in Virgina before the First Amendment was fully enforced. If you want a sacrament, go to church. If you want a legal document, hire a lawyer, draw up a contract and file it. The law treats marriage that way at the end as anyone who’s tried to dissolve one knows, so why not start it that way. Sitting down with your lawyer and his/her lawyer also could convince a lot of people not to rush into it.
Oh yeah, and one more thing. Show me a small business that provides spousal benefits or even does more than set up a group rate for the employee to buy their own coverage. Even many large businesses, known for the way they screw their workers, don’t do more than that. Any employer does pay premiums for both workers and dependents is extremely generous. And if this will hurt them, it sounds more like they’d welcome a single-payer health insurance than jumping into bed with a bunch of fundamentalists who, with good reason I suspect, are afraid more gayness is going to convert them. Tap Tap Tap.
# 29 that’s bull poop!
The stock response to that is “you do not choose your race” so it is not an equivalent argument. I do not think we choose our sexuality either but I can not prove it (and they will take that as a win).
Correct me if I wrong, but isn’t health coverage a benefit as part of competition for employees? You are free NOT to offer it or free to only offer it to your employee only(unless mandated by legislation that states if you offer it at all, it must be extended to /spouse/dependents). It is a competitive job market in general so labour/employees will offer their “work” to the employer with the best offer. Some employees might prefer higher salary with no benefit, where others would rather have benefits in lieu of higher salaries. Don’t offer health coverage, but take a chance that an employee would rather go down the road to work for your competition if they offer it. Free market at work.
Language changes. Get over it. Otherwise there would be no such thing as “Old English” or even English in the first place.
I run a small business. I provide some decent health-care benfits to my employees. If one of my employees decides to get married (to a man, a woman, a goat, a blender, whatever) – why the hell is it my responsibility to provide additional health-care to the spouse, and possible to whatever spawn they decide to squirt out?
And why do my single employees get short-changed?
If I have 2 employees, doing the same kind of work, with identical experience, and I pay one more than the other – I will probably get sued for discrimination. But if one of them is married, the feds say I must give the married employee more.
The government should get out of the marriage business and stop dumping the social costs on businesses.