Does Michael Steele like slavery? How about apartheid? Maybe he would prefer to do away with the Civil Rights Act?
The Huffington Post reports that Mr Steele is now pitching the concept that gays will cost small business more money because of the extra costs in giving gay employees the spousal benefits of other straight employees. This concept Mr Steele is pitching is patently absurd because of the implications it conveys.
First, I am forced to conclude that small businesses in America are hiring gay employees over straight employees because the business owners would not have to provide spousal benefits, thereby saving money. This is absurd because most employees are straight, not gay. The increase in cost can only occur if gays are starting to outnumber straights.
Second, to subscribe to Mr Steele’s flawed thinking, the conservative Christians of the Republican Party must recognize and agree that the lower marriage rate of straight America is not a problem, so much so that it isn’t even happening. This defies the statistics that show an increasing number of Americans are choosing not to marry their own partners and are more often having children out of wedlock. Given the statistics for this trend, Mr Steele assumes that only gays will marry and straights won’t. Is this how gays are undermining straight marriage, when straights started giving up on marriage long before any gays could become married?
Third, if social concerns are to be entirely decided based upon the merits of lower expenses for small businesses, shouldn’t Mr Steele advocate that nobody marry? He should promote the idea that each person must work for a business to obtain health insurance, for example, eliminating the need to provide spousal benefits which will reduce costs. I don’t think the party that prefers traditional stay-at-home moms can logically engage in permanent non-marital relationships for the future of the party — hardly traditional.
I don’t know whether to consider the concept promoted by Mr Steele as prejudice or reverse-prejudice. Does Mr Steele think of the employment of (unmarried) gays as some modern form of slavery? It certainly smacks of a formal endorsement of apartheid. These consequential concepts are something Mr Steele, of all people, should understand, appreciate and strive to avoid.
Michael Steele continues to find ways to not only further marginalize the Republican Party into obsolecence, but to further marginalize himself into unemployment.
