Michael Steele Comes Out Against Marriage

From the AP:

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."

This argument counters the "No one's hurt by it" defense of same sex marriage. The only problem is that Steele's argument is also exactly an argument against "opposite marriage."

Yeah, there's a winning platform for the Republicans: End the nuptial welfare state! Ban marriage!

Comments

[Maerwynn]

Weak argument for a couple of reasons.

Health care is going to cost one way or another.

Same-sex spouses can be recognized and covered under employer insurance or they can be denied recognition and coverage.

In the event of serious health issues, they would then be treated at much increased cost through the ER.

Since there is no recognition of the relationship, there is no obligation for one partner to pay the medical costs of the uninsured partner.

When the uninsured partner cannot pay, the hospital must balance out that cost. This is done by passing those costs on to everyone who is treated by that hospital or the hospital eventually goes out of business.

Or they may be on Medicaid. Medicaid funding is a joint federal-state program. Which means it is funded by me and you baby!

The author's statement that Steele's argument is also exactly an argument against opposite marriage is correct because then not only does the insurance cover the spouse but any children that come along.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, medical expenditures associated with an uncomplicated pregnancy and hospital birth averaged about $7,600 in 2004.

According to the March of Dimes, the average cost of medical care for a premature or low birth-weight baby for its first year of life is about $49,000.

Darn breeders! They're costing me money! I want opposite marriage banned immediately!

[YellerDawg]

Michael Steele sounds more daffy every time he opens his mouth. The Republican Party is the funniest show in town.

[Peter007]

I don't like this article. It never says Michael Steele is against gay marriage. It only states that a person in favor of gay marriage presented Michael with an argument he could use to defend a conservative position. IN this case it was gay marriage.
Gay marriage is somewhat complex. Those in favor of it are normally advocates for increased federal powers except in this one case. The democratic party is against gay marriage as is the republican. The libertarian party is the only party that advocates eliminating the marriage legal status from government and using only civil unions.
It seems that the article is stating that Steele has a position he may or may not have. It is never stated clearly.

[wandering girl]

"Those in favor of it are normally advocates for increased federal powers except in this one case."

prove it.

[Peter007]

Its a political theory. Democrats are presently and have historically demanded more power in issues that the constitution delegates to the states. ie Education, crime, welfare, health care, union negotiations. Traffic control now marriage..­..

The Tenth Amendment restates the Constitution's principle of Federalism by providing that powers not granted to the national government nor prohibited to the states are reserved to the states or the people.

[Disuberence]

"Those in favor of it are normally advocates for increased federal powers except in this one case."

Or we just want to be able to marry the man or woman we love.

[LeftRight]

Really? All of us who favor allowing gay marriage want MORE govt intervention?? That's why we were opposed to the illegal activities of the Bush admin. That's why we were opposed to the govt stepping in to the Terri Schaivo case. I'm sorry, but you have NO CLUE what you're talking about here!