Michael Steele: Gay Marriage Is Bad For Small Businesses

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.

Comments

[DarthVector]

Goodness, Steele shoots nonsense: "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. So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money."

Fundamentally, Steele's illogical nonsense on the cost of gay marriage means he must accept that that new heterosexual marriages are also a problem, as each new wedding *period* costs a small business somewhere. So, if the problem is new marriages, shouldn't we just ban all new hetero ones? Surely there are far more of those each month than there will be gay marriages every year?

Here in the real world, Michael, now that Dick and Harry are married, I'm assuming that like lots of people, they'd like to raise children. They can now focus as spouses on creating the long-term family wealth that normally accrues to married couples. They could even pass that money to their children like the rest of us do. They will also spend income on a new range of products and services associated with families - that benefits the rest of us all, by bringing the cost of these items down that little bit further. They can even support each other during the hard times, lowering their possible dependence on social services money.

Hell, that gay marriage might even save some dollars! Word up, Log Cabin Republicans...

[CJWebber]

This guy is a complete idiot. Marriage as an effect on small business is the same whether it is traditional or gay.

There is no other country in the world where its citizens get frenzied over things like this. Not in the western world, anyway.

[MeanWorldSyndrome]

American50....is bad in his current form or any other form.

[barivest]

I wonder if it occurred to him that by the same logic, straight "marriage" is also bad for business. "You know, I mean ..... a man marries this .... this ..... woman, you know .... and the next thing you know ..... he wants her insured!!!! It's bad for business!"

[pvdwgb]

There is a point that everyone seems to be missing about Same-Sex Marriage impact upon small business. Michael Steele claims it would hurt small business because of health insurance and social security claims. Well, if every gay person in the US suddenly turned straight and got married (which is what the Right wants them all to do), what would be the affect on small business? It would be exactly the same! Suddenly there would be spouses to deal with. There would probably be more, because in a gay relationship, usually both partners work, whereas in straight marriages there are often 'stay-at-home' moms, even in a bad economy.

[Yikes10036]

Interesting point.

[Vickie Gassman]

Michael Steele is brilliant, really. If we can convince people that gay marriages will kill our economy, because that's where he's going with this, maybe we can stir up some real hysteria and propose the idea that gay people will eventually end up with weapons of mass destruction and obliterate the human race. That makes about as much sense as Mr. Steele's proposition that small businesses will be hurt if we allow these unions to happen. Good thinking Mr. Steele, no wonder you're the only one left that voted for you as Chariman of the RNC

[rharris513]

Study just released by the Williams Institute part of the UCLA School of Law found that Same-sex marriage brought in $111 Million worth of business to Massachussetts. And that doesn't even count the secondary business of guests and honeymoons.

So much for it being bad for business!

[Vickie Gassman]

Wow, maybe Steele needs to read that study,,,,,,,nah, he'd discount it as being published by the Dems, why take into consideration the facts? He can't do that because then he'd figure out his position is a ruse

[Matt Carter]

So, Steele and the RNC now want to argue that allowing same-sex marriage is bad becuase it will be a financial drain on businesses who now have to support same-sex spouses. I suppose by that reasoning, opposite-sex marriage is worse because (1) there's more of them, and (2) hetereosexual couples can have children naturally, thus creating even more profit-sucking black holes for the small businesses. Right? So, by extension, Steele's really arguing that (1) all marriages should be abolished, or (2) that business should not be required to provide health benefits to employees.

This would be funny if weren't so pathetic.

[GabeSmall]

Hey Michael, You know that stunned looked the college kid on the plane gave you when you delivered this argument? It wasn't because she was struck dumb by your awesome powers of persuasion. I'm just saying.

[newyorkjoe]

Micheal Steele says, "Gay marriage bad for small businesses."
I say, "Michael Steele good for big Democrats."

Keep 'em coming, Mr. Chairman. We're counting on you.

[ConstitutionCrusader]

I work for a small business, and I just can't imagine my boss, on hearing of my engagement to my boyfriend, saying the words "You just cost me money."

[olmossy]

Mister Steele Must be right. Not only Is gay marriage bad for Business it is also bad the environment and global warming ( Not that glogal warming is real or anything!) NEVER MIND How it's bad! We will think up a reason later!
In must be so! It must be so! It must be so , Because We All SAY IT is so! WE ALL SAY IT IS SO!

[Martha12]

Finally! A republican admits all the fuss is only about the money! As in taxes, inheritance, benefits and pensions.

If gays were equal, it would cost the government and every business more money. If gays inherited assets and monies, they would have a stronger voice.

Thank you Steele, for pointing out that gay marriage is simply about equality.

America just can't AFFORD equal rights for gays, according to the GOP.

[texastrixie]

Well, by this logic, if we denied health care benefits to ANY spouse or child, a company's health care costs would go down! Pure bigotry that the ONLY family units that are denied benefits are gay and lesbian partners! Why not blue-eyed blondes being exempted from coverage? Or anyone over 6 feet tall? Pure conservative bigotry at work.

[loubque]

hmmm subsititute gay marraige for black marriage and would he be saying the same thing? Would that college student be seen as nothing more than a bigot? I dont know why it doesnt equate to the same, when you are dealing with intelligent and capable people.