The Evil Genius Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 New angle huh (although I do wonder if the same argument was made when the states started allowing interracial marriages)? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/16/michael-steele-gay-marria_n_204263.html Michael Steele: Gay Marriage Is Bad For Small Businesses RUSS BYNUM | May 16, 2009 12:47 PM EST | AP SAVANNAH, Ga. — 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." As Steele talked about ways the party could position itself, he also poked fun at his previous pledge to give the GOP a "hip-hop makeover." "You don't have to wear your pants cut down here or the big bling," he said. Vermont and Iowa have legalized gay marriage in recent weeks, and a Quinnipiac University poll released in April found that 57 percent of people questioned support civil unions that provide marriage-like rights. Although 55 percent said they opposed gay marriage, the poll indicated a shift toward more acceptance. The chief of the Republican National Committee has been criticized by some social conservatives in recent weeks after GQ magazine quoted him as saying he opposed gay marriage but wasn't going to "beat people upside the head about it." Steele, a Catholic and former Maryland lieutenant governor, was elected chairman of the committee earlier this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 "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." Sounds like he just made an argument for getting rid of marriage entirely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. By that logic straight couples shouldn't get any benefits either because that also costs small businesses money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Evil Genius Posted May 19, 2009 Author Share Posted May 19, 2009 Sounds like he just made an argument for getting rid of marriage entirely. Michael Steele - fo shizzle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Woot about time we get rid of marriage benefits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 He makes it seem like marriage in general is bad for small business. Then couldn't he argue having kids is bad for small business too? That makes no sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 He makes it seem like marriage in general is bad for small business. Then couldn't he argue having kids is bad for small business too? That makes no sense.By his logic having to pay employees is bad for small business Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 By his logic having to pay employees is bad for small business Lol, maybe we should just do away with small business altogether then Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 This guy is the GOP leader? :hysterical: Abortion is good for small business as it cuts down on the number of dependents covered under the company health plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Switchgear Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Yeah, it's a moronic argument. Ladies and gentlemen, your 2009 Republican Party chairman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjah Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Abortion is good for small business as it cuts down on the number of dependents covered under the company health plan. LOL! :hysterical: Don't forget murder. Murder is good for small business too. A murdered employee means one fewer family drawing benefits as you take your time to hire for the new job opening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattFancy Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I think we all can agree that this makes no sense at all lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 In an effort to help small businesses, Michael Steele just proposed that all small businesses get free cable, electricity, water, sewer, telephone service, internet service, trash pickup, and newspaper delivery because these amenities are essential to small business operation, and paying for them costs money... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Yeah because half the population is gay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 :doh: Steele as CRNC was a major error in judgment. Lower taxes, stay out of the private sector, defend our shores, and deliver the mail......... What's so difficult about this message? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
egtuna Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Freedom is bad for small businesses too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 That is the dumbest thing I have ever heard.By that logic straight couples shouldn't get any benefits either because that also costs small businesses money. I would agree,but since I'm a smoker and accused of costing ya'll money,it just might not be the stupidest thing I've heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 It's been one of my arguments against it for years. And it's a legitimate argument. You may disagree. But he is correct. What's going to be interesting is this- 2 women marrying will cost companies MORE money than traditional marriage, while 2 men will cost companies LESS (assuming certain diseases get excluded, which will be the ins co next steps) for HEALTH INSURANCE. However, the roles will revers for the LIFE INSURANCE portion of bennies. So, will companies have the right to charge lesbian marriages more for bennies than they charge for homosexual males? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 It's been one of my arguments against it for years.And it's a legitimate argument. You may disagree. But he is correct. He is correct that it will cost companies more money because benefits have to be provided to more people. But by that logic heterosexual marriage is also bad for small business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 He is correct that it will cost companies more money because benefits have to be provided to more people. But by that logic heterosexual marriage is also bad for small business. Sure. But it's already accepted as a cost of business currently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Sure. But it's already accepted as a cost of business currently.But if Steele's concern is to save small businesses money he should be saying the same thing about heterosexual marriage that he is about homosexual marriage.If heterosexual couples didn't have to be covered think how much money small businesses could save. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Well businesses have the option to NOT cover spouses. They will not have the option to only cover hetero spouses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUSkinsFan Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Well businesses have the option to NOT cover spouses. They will not have the option to only cover hetero spouses.So your argument is that businesses would still have the option to cover spouses, they just wouldn't be able to cover heterosexual spouses while at the same time not covering homosexual spousesI'm just trying to figure out where you are coming from... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunClintonRun26 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 I have a huge smile on my face everytime this clown opens his mouth. In an attempt to win over "on the fence voters" and bring the party to more current times, the Republican Party made a horribly brash and poorly thought out choice in naming this moron the voice of the party. They assumed that putting thier own minority candidate up there would bring some voters with him. As a Democrat, I absolutely love it. As an American, I am embarassed as hell that this guy not only has a job, but has a prominent and powerful one at that. With Steele, Bobby Jindal, Palin, and Limbaugh leading the way, the Republican Party has thrown up the white flag for the next 7+ years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 If a business currently chooses to cover spouses, they will not have the option to NOT cover homosexual spouses. As a result, a business will have an instant increase in their employee bennie cost. The same thing will happen with govt benefits (social security, medicare/aid etc). And the only way the govt can make that up is to raise taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.