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!
#30, Ayatollah,
AND make marriage as a legal term, obsolete…something found only in dusty Bibles.
Well gee, I don’t know. I’ve always felt that if marriage was good enough for my parents, it should be good enough for me. Your mileage may differ.
BTW, Marriage IS a legal term meaning the civil union of two people in a contractual, relationship.
Alphie thinks I am moonbat loon and that make me appreciate moonbats as something superior to evangelical, religious, nutballs. And I’m proud of the association.
Mr F, you’re right about marriage being a legal concern. The irony is that just about any fool can marry two people one they have a license, which is a mere formality.
But let me tell you, I’m in the middle of ending my marriage and it is ABSOLUTELY a legal issue, one that requires a court and judge to terminate. And most likely lawyers, too. Churches have NOTHING to do with the end of a marriage, even though they may react to it in various ways.
Churches need to STFU and keep doing what they’re doing now and not doing what they’re already not doing. Nobody asked their opinion, and this doesn’t impact them.
#64
Clearly you have yet to understand that quoting scripting hurts your position. The Bible ALSO says that homosexuals should be put to death (Leviticus 20:13).
> Those who don’t know scripture
> , go to absurd lengths to assert
> the founders weren’t Christians…
Many were not. Paine comes to mind. Washington, along with others, was thought to be a deist as he regularly refused communion. Some were clearly Christian. Some were not.
> I submit to you they were expert
> expositors of the Bible, and
> theologians of the first water
Which would explain why many were not Christian. The more you actually know about the Bible, the less dedicated to believing all that is in it. (http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/05/15/bible.critic/index.html).
> Government has no place
> in religion…religion
> no place in Government…
This represents a rare moment of clarity. Perhaps our continued barrages of actual logic, instead of what you have used to this point, are starting to rub off.
Americans are able to choose one or the other. We live in a land that you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage.
Carrie Prejean
Why is it that no one sees the real point of marriage from a government viewpoint? Couples that make more children make more TAXPAYERS! What the hell is wrong with you people? All you “small business owners” that hire younger staff to save on costs / replace aged workers: where are they coming from? Your ass? No. Couples that have children; whether from adoption, kidnapping, birth or whatever.
Governments in the West encourage couples by granting them tax breaks because they need more tax payers. If couple A with 6 kids is compared with the future tax paying potential of a childless couple B… who the hell do you think will win that?
And besides… all you old farts are going to need your diapers changed. The kids of your employees will probably be the ones who do it… or at least know someone who does.
Hum? Medical benefits and such? An obvious extra cost but since when have liberals cared about costs? God or somebody else is going to fix it for them.
My biggest laugh out of this was a gay Rhode Island woman who had been married in another state who wanted Rhode Island to recognize gay marriages so she could get a divorce! Huh?
Afraid I agree with #75. We need to give couples with more kids some major tax breaks. The U.S. is a slight population sink as is and we don’t want to end up like the EU where more than half of the population is going to be of recent non EU decent in 50 years. The entire European culture is going to be small dying minority in Europe in a hundred years with a great big Darwin award.
#75, #76
The argument that tax breaks are to encourage procreation falls apart when you consider heterosexual couples that do not procreate and homosexual ones that do (in vitro etc.). If encouraging procreation is truly the goal then:
A. The government should come out and say so point blank.
B. Couples that do not procreate should have their benefits removed.
Btw, what do you do about couples that adopt?
Legalizing gay marriage will be a huge boom to glitter manufacturers.
Seriously, weddings are one sector of the economy that hasn’t yet been taken over by big corporations.
Steele is a major embarrassment to the GOP. He makes twisted arguments like a Democrat or neoconservative.
#72, Mr. Baggins,
I offer my sympathy. Several years ago, in a different life I went through the same ordeal. Even though we were relatively amiable, the whole thing was very traumatic.
You are absolutely correct about the church not helping during the separation / divorce process.
As it is now, a marriage in my State is just as legal and binding as if it were done by the local Catholic Bishop, the Governor, or some dude in an Elvis costume in Nevada and they have only known each other a couple of days.
*
Historically, marriage has been a solid portion of society for many millennium. It has provided a stability that enabled society to function around. As a political tool, that was a rare incident and usually only with the top echelons of power. Even the great houses of Europe usually married close.
#75 – Named,
Why is it that no one sees the real point of marriage from a government viewpoint? Couples that make more children make more TAXPAYERS!
There are at least two major problems with this statement.
1) No matter what government does, some like myself and my wife, will chose not to have children anyway. Our marriages are valid, why not same sex ones?
2) More children is indeed more taxpayers. It is also thoroughly and completely unsustainable. Any population growth rate above zero will eventually have the mass of humans on the planet being greater than the mass of the earth itself, an obvious physical impossibility. At present rate of increase on the planet, I hear this is scheduled for just 5,000 years from now. (Heard at a science lecture, sorry no link.) Again, this can’t and won’t happen. Population growth will stop. We must learn how to deal with that, and even encourage it.
I heard a biologist in Belize state that one of the means by which populations reduce their numbers is actually an increase in homosexuality. He was talking about non-human animals as well as human populations.
Again, sorry I don’t have a link for this. I’m not sure where he got it. I’ve tried to confirm it and haven’t been able to. So, take it with a grain of salt. Interesting if true though, no?
Mr F…thanks. The trauma part is past, now it’s just “let’s get this thing done!”
Anyway, churches work from the idea that marriage is holy matrimony, and that’s fine. But us heteros, having cheeze-wiz for brains, have turned it into a temporary agreement to live together with benefits. Not only a dude in Elvis garb, but a wacko friend can marry people…his qualifications are a thing he did online.
Christian marriages do last longer, partly because churches offer loads of support and plenty of pressure to work it out rather than give up.
But IMHO marriage has already been redefined in part due to the ease with which we can start and end it, and also the reduced stigma attached to being divorced.
Churches will keep their sacred vows and holy matrimony, and the rest of us with cheeze-wiz brains will continue to do our thing.
Maybe the christians need a new term that better defines their marriages.
#84 Alfred1 wrote “Your Historic Leader campaigned on marriage being between a man and a women [sic]…
How is it you contradict him?”
Unlike a mythical deity, Obama doesn’t have the absolute authority to lay down rules that cannot be contested except under penalty of torture.
“Woof, woof!” (moonbat barking here)
#83
You really just walk into these things don’t you? Here is your original statement from #64 with emphasis added:
“Those who don’t know scripture, go to absurd lengths to assert the founders weren’t Christians”
You make no qualification whatsoever implying you believe all founding fathers to have been Christian. I need only find a single example to refute your claim and I gave you two. Therefore, your sophomoric “not all” retort in #83 is really a rebuke against your own argument. Frankly, you have no argument…again. Do you want to play again for double the prizes or are you content to again accept your defeat quietly?
#84 – Alfie Ralfie Malfie,
You will never understand the minds of those who are not slaves.
I do not believe in infallibility … including my own.
You seem to think leaders, whether they be Yahweh, Y’shua, Allah, Zeus, Confucius, Buddha, Ayn Rand, L. Ron Hubbard, or any other, must be infallible.
Why is that??!!?
Personally, I like most of what Obama is doing, but disagree with him on marriage and faith based discriminatory initiatives.
Actually, I disagree with him on more than that as well. But, that’s besides the point. I voted for him because the alternative was unthinkably bad and he’s pretty good.
So, again, why do you assume that because I vote for someone means that I think they’re perfect? Are you incapable of liking someone or voting for them if you believe they are fallible? When you voted for McPalin, did you really think s/he was infallible?
It makes no sense. Obama wasn’t even my first choice among the primary candidates.
Scott:
Any population growth rate above zero will eventually have the mass of humans on the planet being greater than the mass of the earth itself, an obvious physical impossibility. At present rate of increase on the planet, I hear this is scheduled for just 5,000 years from now. (Heard at a science lecture, sorry no link.)
I recall Isaac Asimov, in one of his non-fiction books, figuring how long it would take to turn 100% of Earth’s mass into humans.
I do NOT have the article, or its name.
🙁
J/P=?
What does gay marriage cost us? Freedom of thought, of conscious, of religion, and of speech. Descent is now hate; disagreement is intolerance. How long do we need to fear the gay McCarthyism?
# 89 Benjamin said, “How long do we need to fear the gay McCarthyism?”
Until Obama and his gay hating opinion is gone?
#89 – Benjamin,
What does gay marriage cost us? Freedom of thought, of conscious, of religion, and of speech. Descent [sic] is now hate; disagreement is intolerance. How long do we need to fear the gay McCarthyism?
Denial of human rights is the very definition of hate and intolerance. Sorry to inform you of that. But, it’s gay rights, not McCarthyism. No one is asking you to be gay. No one is being blacklisted for being straight. No one is putting “In Gay We Trust” on our money. No one is inserting “under Gay” into the pledge of allegiance.
If you believe homosexuality is cause to deny someone the same rights you and I enjoy, you do indeed hate gays. Why else would you deny them their rights?
Oh … and I think you mean dissent, not descent.
# 91 Misanthropic Scott said, “Denial of human rights is the very definition of hate and intolerance. ”
Wow, you must hate Obama…
#91 Like I said: anyone who dissents is accused of hate.
“If you believe homosexuality is cause to deny someone the same rights you and I enjoy, you do indeed hate gays. Why else would you deny them their rights?”
So where am I denying homosexuals rights that you and I enjoy? Gays should be able to have free speech, publish newspapers, buy property, and leave it to anyone they designate when they die. These are not gay rights. They are just rights that apply to everyone.
Marriage is not a right. It can be taken from you when your significant other doesn’t love you anymore. Wanting to marry doesn’t give someone the right to marry.
Single people that are unloved can’t get married either. By being against gay marriage, I a not denying gays a right that I don’t enjoy.
#93 – Benjamin,
Unless you are being monumentally unclear, you are denying homosexuals the right to marry.
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness ring a bell with you?
It is true that one’s significant other must consent to marriage. However, you have the state deciding that even when both parties agree, they may not marry.
Why?
Why should the state have anything to say about who marries whom? They used to deny the right of blacks and whites to marry. Would you still support that? Or, is it only homosexuals you hate? Why not Jews? Muslims? Hindus? Chinese?
Why only people of the same sex?
The fact that no one loves you is sad. However, if you find someone who loves you and will marry you, would you want the state to say no?
It’s all about life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You deny the right even to pursue.
Yes. You are full of hate.
That you deny it does not make it better. Perhaps what you are really denying is your own sexuality thus denying yourself the right to love.
Or, perhaps you’re just an asshole.
#92 – Patrick,
Have you ever actually contributed to any of these discussions? Perhaps you should see if you can form an intelligent thought before typing.
# 91 Misanthropic Scott said, “Denial of human rights is the very definition of hate and intolerance. Sorry to inform you of that. But, it’s gay rights, not McCarthyism.”
Scott, why did you support a candidate that is the very definition of hate and intolerance? That’s illogical.
#93 Benjamin, since you don’t see marriage as a right that people should be able to exercise without discrimination, would you be comfortable living under a government that did not allow marriage for red-haired people? It seems to me that whether you see marriage as a basic human right or as a privilege defined by the government, the essential element is what criteria are allowed to determine who can marry.
The debate is whether sexual orientation is a reasonable criterion for discrimination in our society, and increasing numbers of people are deciding that it is not, and that it deprives many people of an institution that many married people say enhances and solidifies the relationship with their partner. According to many married people, the stability provided by the bond of marriage is also good for society.
It sometimes makes me wonder about the Catch-22 that is created when disallowing marriage for gays, and whether it is intentional. Religious people sometimes point out that same-sex relationships are statistically less stable than opposite-sex relationships, and yet they constantly fight to deny homosexuals from having those things that lend stability to any loving relationship, such as legal marriage and adopting children.
# 97 Gary, the dangerous infidel said, “The debate is whether sexual orientation is a reasonable criterion for discrimination in our society,…”
No, the debate is whether we should change the definition of the word marriage and thus change the laws therefore.
#98 Patrick, I think you’ve bought into the party line on this. The essence of the debate is about discrimination, and the semantic aspect of the debate has just been a surprisingly effective diversion from that.
# 99 Gary, the dangerous infidel said, “#98 Patrick, I think you’ve bought into the party line on this. The essence of the debate is about discrimination”
Actually, no. The existing laws (we are a nation of laws) were written using the actual definition. That is the reason people have been trying to get the judicial to legislate. Even in CA the population wants to keep the definition. There is no right to marriage. This was already decided in the US by disallowing polygamy.
There is no right to marriage. This was already decided in the US by disallowing polygamy.”
And there’s no right for red-haired people to marry, but would you find such a prohibition acceptable?
# 101 Gary, the dangerous infidel said, “And there’s no right for red-haired people to marry, but would you find such a prohibition acceptable?”
There is only a right for men & women to marry, same as throughout our history. A gay man has the same rights as I. We can only marry a woman… No special rights for either… Pretty simple.