Alex Blaze

Michael Steele, I'm unimpressed

Filed By Alex Blaze | May 17, 2009 5:30 PM | comments

Filed in: Living, Marriage Equality, The Movement
Tags: Barack Obama, gay marriage, health care reform, LGBT, marriage, marriage equality, Michael Steele, Republicans, same-sex marriage, same-sex partners

Michael Steele thinks he's going to blow us away with a new argument against same-sex marriage that pretty much amounts to "Equal pay for equal work is too expensive, so we have to preserve a two-tier system of benefits distribution."

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.[...]

"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."

Um, "recasting"? They've been saying that equal rights are too expensive ever since this country began. And the GOP's main frame against universal health care is that it'll cost too much.

I'd probably have been a bit more impressed if Michael Steele were willing to recast the war in Iraq, back in 2002 and 2003, as too big of an expense for taxpayers to burden. Funny how health care for a few same-sex partners who don't currently have health care to people whose health care is covered by their employer is the straw that'll break the camel's back, not, you know, the cost of a 6+ year invasion and reconstruction of two countries.

Not only is every single rights expansion and move towards equal pay and the entire debate about providing people health care always, always, always "recast" as a fiscal conservative issue, so are the main LGBT rights issues. ENDA is a good example, as well as funding to fight HIV, from the 80's to today. Even Mike Huckabee was saying that back in 1992, and he definitely wasn't the first.

Republicans and other conservatives have been using the "saving taxpayer money" argument to oppose anything remotely beneficial to real people for centuries now. There's nothing new or creative about that. He got the idea from a college Republican, for crying out loud.

Too bad GWB blew that one. After being told since the New Deal that America just doesn't have enough money for any good projects, he goes and starts two huge wars, gives major tax breaks to the wealthy, and bails out banks, their shareholders, and their counterparties to the tune of trillions of dollars. People are on to their little game.

And, I should point out, that argument might be moot by the end of the summer if Congress passes a bill to create a public option for health care. He's right, small businesses shouldn't have to provide health care for employees same-sex partners: the government should.

(I also feel the need to point out that if this becomes a major talking point, which I doubt it will, at least we know now that it's origin wasn't small businesses in Maine, Massachusetts, Vermont, Connecticut, and Iowa complaining about the burden - it was just a cynical attempt to grab more votes.)


Recent Entries Filed under Living:

Leave a comment

We want to know your opinion on this issue! While arguing about an opinion or idea is encouraged, personal attacks will not be tolerated. Please be respectful of others.

The editorial team will delete a comment that is off-topic, abusive, exceptionally incoherent, includes a slur or is soliciting and/or advertising. Repeated violations of the policy will result in revocation of your user account. Please keep in mind that this is our online home; ill-mannered house guests will be shown the door.


Geez, if they think it's too expensive to offer health benefits to same-sex partners, why don't they take it away from heterosexual married couples? That would even out the playing field. Give me a break!

that is the more obvious response. Along with the general lack of children, gay benefits are a steal compared to straight ones!

"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,"

I guess that we can use this same argument to point out why straight people shouldn't get married either. It fits.

Equal rights or more to the point equitable distribution of resources are too expensive for this country. Tell me, Alex, Annette, and Monica; what are you willing to give up so those with less than you can have more?

When you play into the Economic Theology that guides the Corporate Capitalist Parties, that is the only question that can be asked of liberals. So, what are you willing to give up?

The Economic Theology of which I speak is the notion that the individual is highest good. It is a theology that is lost on the least in our culture. It is a theology lost on the people that we tend to speak of, but rarely speak with.

Why are we trying to figure out what animates Michael Steele and his lot? We know. We know because we want our own individual identity to rise to the level of recognition and hence power.

So are we trying to swap "privilege" or create a world where we are part of a global one?

I think we all strive to BE Alan Ginsberg* instead of being guided by Alan Ginsberg*.


* Pick your favorite poet: mine are Ginsberg, Blake, and Whitman


Michael Steele is a person that at one time was considered to be 3/5 of a man in the US.

Yes, I have a same-sex spouse...and he is 5/5ths of a man.

Shocking isn't it, Mr. Steel?

How did your 100% citizenship affect the pocketbook of small business? Would you like to go back a fifth or two to help save businesses a few bucks?

I'm sure they'd be happy to accommodate.

You first.

This man makes a rock look smart. He's making an argument for ALL marriage benefits to be cut. What an idiot. And I live in Maryland, where the douche is from! Thank god he's head of the headless idiot party.

This man makes a rock look smart. He's making an argument for ALL marriage benefits to be cut. What an idiot. And I live in Maryland, where the douche is from! Thank god he's head of the headless idiot party.

christophe | May 18, 2009 12:24 PM

I won't be happy till the corrupt republican party is dismantled.

Brad Bailey | May 18, 2009 1:11 PM

What better example of the huge gap between the beliefs and the actions of the Republican Party? They have strayed far from actual conservative thought, which stresses the consistent application of its principles, including fiscal responsibility.