RNC chief: Gay marriage will burden small business

[Invictus ChiKen]

SAVANNAH, Ga. (AP) — 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.

So if I understand this logic should we also forbid anyone to marry once they start working?

After all the line "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," applies to me as much as it does to any homosexual out there.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

So if I understand this logic should we also forbid anyone to marry once they start working?

I think it means that small businesses should hire as many gays as possible.

[Invictus ChiKen]

So if I understand this logic should we also forbid anyone to marry once they start working?

I think it means that small businesses should hire as many gays as possible.

Ahh thanks for clearing it up.

Of course I wonder if Steele has stopped to consider how he is affecting the wedding and divorce industry with this action? He is denying them an entire demographic, what the fuck is he a communist!?

[Teebs]

I really hope the Republicans follow that line of argument. It's one that's likely to backfire horrifically. If you say you don't want gay marriage because you'd have to pay for gay spouses you look cynical, greedy and churlish. The middle ground voters might entertain the religious arguments and undermining marriage but that sort of argument... I doubt it.

[General Zod]

I really hope the Republicans follow that line of argument. It's one that's likely to backfire horrifically. If you say you don't want gay marriage because you'd have to pay for gay spouses you look cynical, greedy and churlish. The middle ground voters might entertain the religious arguments and undermining marriage but that sort of argument... I doubt it.

There's also the little fact that they don't seem to realize it applies just as well to any couples who want to get married on the job. But then again I don't think the RNC thought through that very well. (And for fuck's sake can we get a source on this article?)

[The Duchess of Zeon]

The rest of the Republican party may have gone insane, but Steele is like the poor sad clown trying to make their insanity funny.

[Starglider]

Of course if the US had universal health care this wouldn't even be an issue.

[Patrick Degan]

This is desperate even for Steele and the GOP. This very same "logic" could be applied to essentially forbid any employee of any company from getting married to anyone because of the "burden" it would create for the company.

Their entire argument for opposing gay marriage is melting faster than an iceberg in the tropics and now they're down to pettifoggery about burdens on business.

I'd ask if they really expect this to fly, but then they also expected the "Democrats r' FASCISTS" propaganda campaign to fly as well.

[CarsonPalmer]

I think, honestly, that this is more immoral and disgusting than the typical religious objection to gay marriage. At least a typical religious objector can claim ignorance as a defense; the person expounding this theory admits that the moral arguments against it are weak, and doesn't give a damn because of the almighty dollar.

[Count Chocula]

Wow. Just...wow. Don't condone gay marriage (or the legal equivalent) because you have to pay benefits? What the fuck does Steele think happens when a married man or woman is hired? Should businesses hire bachelors only? Or single women? What a goof. He doesn't even deserve a good curse.

This just makes me think even more strongly that the Republicans' only hopes will come from new blood at the local level.

[Lord of the Abyss]

(And for fuck's sake can we get a source on this article?)

Here's one.

[Qwerty 42]

Wow. Just...wow. Don't condone gay marriage (or the legal equivalent) because you have to pay benefits? What the fuck does Steele think happens when a married man or woman is hired? Should businesses hire bachelors only? Or single women? What a goof. He doesn't even deserve a good curse.

This just makes me think even more strongly that the Republicans' only hopes will come from new blood at the local level.

I think they might be trying to unify the base, however opaquely: the business interests of the Republican party only care about gay marriage because the ultra-religious sect does, so this could be an attempt to give them a real reason to care.

[The Yosemite Bear]

This is desperate even for Steele and the GOP. This very same "logic" could be applied to essentially forbid any employee of any company from getting married to anyone because of the "burden" it would create for the company.

Their entire argument for opposing gay marriage is melting faster than an iceberg in the tropics and now they're down to pettifoggery about burdens on business.

I'd ask if they really expect this to fly, but then they also expected the "Democrats r' FASCISTS" propaganda campaign to fly as well.

also what about the burden of having to cover additional humans that the employee might create? *I know more then one company that has to provide services for out of wedlock children too*

[Rahvin]

My company provides Domestic Partnership benefits - and it's independent of state recognition. You just need to live together, not be married to anyone else, and have a couple of things like a shared bank account, and you can sign up for benefits. It's how I got my girlfriend health benefits.

So for at least some companies (and Id hazard to guess most companies in states that recognize Domestic Partnerships), Steele isn't even right about gay marriage costing more. In fact, because the Feds don't recognize Dom. Partners, both the business and the employee have to pay more than if they were married because there are no Fed. tax breaks.

This is beyond laughable.

[Crossroads Inc.]

I think it is more a matter of the GOP realizing they are slowly but surely loosing the "War" on gay marriage, the writing is on the wall and stat by state it is going to start to pass. As a Result they are becoming increasingly unhinged and are desperate ot say Anything to discredit gay marriage, even if their argument makes no rational sense.

[K. A. Pital]

The GOP is simply grasping at straws after looking completely insane in Mustardgate and "Democratic Socialists". Doesn't help of course. They still look insane.

[The Yosemite Bear]

they have become too much of a parody, hell they even name things in an orwellian double speak.

[Twoyboy]

What percentage of the US is homosexual? At maximum half of these people would leave the workforce. Now, what percentage of the US is unemployed?

If the former is lower than the latter, then Steele's own argument is that official unemployment and welfare dependency would be reduced as the unemployed take up the jobs left by those leaving to become dependents of their spouse... He didn't really think this through, did he?

[General Zod]

What percentage of the US is homosexual? At maximum half of these people would leave the workforce. Now, what percentage of the US is unemployed?

If the former is lower than the latter, then Steele's own argument is that official unemployment and welfare dependency would be reduced as the unemployed take up the jobs left by those leaving to become dependents of their spouse... He didn't really think this through, did he?

The popular myth is about 10% of the population is homosexual, but the figure is more accurately about 5%, give or take.

[Twoyboy]

What percentage of the US is homosexual? At maximum half of these people would leave the workforce. Now, what percentage of the US is unemployed?

If the former is lower than the latter, then Steele's own argument is that official unemployment and welfare dependency would be reduced as the unemployed take up the jobs left by those leaving to become dependents of their spouse... He didn't really think this through, did he?

The popular myth is about 10% of the population is homosexual, but the figure is more accurately about 5%, give or take.

Thanks... Wolfram Alpha failed miserably

So that's a maximum workforce exodus, over time, of 2.5% (or even 5% if you want to use the myth)... unemployment is around 7%, according to a quick Google search... yeah, he's right, it's a really bad idea

[Pint0 Xtreme]

What percentage of the US is homosexual? At maximum half of these people would leave the workforce. Now, what percentage of the US is unemployed?

If the former is lower than the latter, then Steele's own argument is that official unemployment and welfare dependency would be reduced as the unemployed take up the jobs left by those leaving to become dependents of their spouse... He didn't really think this through, did he?

The popular myth is about 10% of the population is homosexual, but the figure is more accurately about 5%, give or take.

Not to rail on your claims or anything but what kind of source is that?!? It's a freakin' right-wing looney website that identifies homosexuals by their "detrimental behaviors".

[Pint0 Xtreme]

And more to the point of the OP, Michael Steele should also take heed of the effects of marriage equality on the economy.

Study: Gay marriage cash cow for Mass.

(Boston, Massachusetts) A study by a noted university think tank has found that same-sex marriage in Massachusetts has resulted in a $111 million windfall for the state’s economy.

The study was one of two by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law showing the state has significantly gained as a result of the legalization five years ago of gay marriage.
The state’s Supreme Judicial Court ruled in 2003 that banning same-sex marriage was unconstitutional and gay and lesbian couples began marrying the following year.

That made Massachusetts the state with the longest record of same-sex marriage and research over the past five years has provided an insight into what other states could expect as a result of marriage equality.

One study by the Williams Institute looked at money spent by same-sex couples at their weddings. The other examined the impact of people moving to Massachusetts because of the law.

The survey of married same-sex couples shows that the typical gay or lesbian couple spent $7,400 on their weddings in Massachusetts, with one in ten couples spending more than $20,000. The study’s analysis of state data on hotel occupancy tax payments confirms the boost from out-of-state guests at these weddings.

“Florists, caterers, hotels, bakers, restaurants, and many other businesses have gotten a share of the $111 million spent on the 12,000-plus weddings of same-sex couples,” noted economist M. V. Lee Badgett, a study co-author and director of the Center for Public Policy & Administration at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“Allowing gay couples to marry won’t end the recession, but their spending still helps in tough times for businesses.”

The second study, found that Massachusetts gained a competitive edge in attracting young, highly educated “creative class” professionals who are in same-sex relationships.

“Data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey show that same-sex couples in the ‘creative class’ were 2.5 times more likely to move to Massachusetts after 2004 than before,” notes Gary J. Gates, Williams Distinguished Scholar at UCLA’s Williams Institute and the author of one study.

“The timing of this movement to Massachusetts suggests that those couples were flocking to the first state to allow them to marry.” Gates argues that this infusion of younger and highly educated same-sex couples could help improve the long-term economic prospects for Massachusetts.

The findings of the two studies confirm the predictions made in previous studies. They also indicate that other states allowing gay couples to marry-including Connecticut, Iowa, Vermont, and Maine-will see similar economic gains the authors said.

[Samuel]

If all the states legalize gay marriage, none benefit- the spending is equally distributed between them all.

[Connor MacLeod]

We've already seen that the Republicans are coming apart in terms of their "convictons" because they're mutually incompatible. Given what Pinto posted, I could see greed becoming a HUGE motivator for allowing more same-sex marriages to occur - greed has always been a huge motivator in the US - and that's going to conflict with the religious nuttery something fierce. It will be interesting to see how far this goes (and by what basis. I'll admit that greed isn't one of the best possible reasons you could want for actually supporting same-sex marriage but I also think you take whatever approach works best.) and how the hardcore conservative fundamentalists react to it in the long term.

[Kon_El]

But what if the other person has a job with better health coverage? Wouldn't the employee take their spouses health coverage over that offered by the small business lessening their burden.