Michael Steele: single gays are cheaper
RNC chairman Michael Steele is now arguing same-sex marriage would create an undue financial burden on small businesses:
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.”
Logical Conclusion? In states where same-sex marriage is still illegal, fire the married straight folks who cost your small business money and hire the single gays instead. (via Box Turtle Bulletin)
Michael Steele: proving once again logic isn’t the strong-suit of the RNC.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
I can only respond by saying: FAIL.
It seems that FAIL is the thing Steele is best at.
According to Steele’s logic, we should de-fund ALL partner benefits. Those husbands and wives from heterosexual marriages are costing us money too!
Actually, this mode of argument also almost seems like an admission of the general weakness of their position; once they say “well we can’t do that because it’ll cost too much,” it seems like another way of saying “we should do it, but we don’t want to/can’t” (I know that’s not what he’s saying, but it could come across that way). Once you go there, it’s not hard to say “but we spend that much money on X, why not on this?” etc.
Yeah, it’s yet another asinine reason not to support LGBT rights.
Matt, I think you’re right that this reveals that perhaps Steele realizes that an ethical/moral argument isn’t as salient, so the argument needs to be made in economic/prudential terms. Perhaps it also makes clear the extreme cynicism of the Right.