I might be a little late here, but I just have to comment on this story.
GOP Chairman Michael Steele explained in a recent speech how his party should "recast" the gay marriage issue as not just a social issue, but a business issue:
"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."
It's almost unfair to comment on this because it's so hard to figure out what Steele even means here. I guess he's saying that if a small-business owner has gay employees who suddenly are able to get married, that owner will have to pay higher benefit costs, such as higher health-care premiums to insure the spouse.
The GOP should sincerely hope that Steele did not think out this argument before saying it. Because if this is actually what he meant to argue, the party's leadership is in bigger trouble than has been thought.
The argument basically is "more marriages are bad for small businesses." In no way does it single out gay marriage--if a straight employee decided to settle down, the employer would face the same increased costs.
Does Steele really want to argue that marriages for small-business employees (and small businesses are the largest type of employer in the country) should be discouraged? That doesn't sound like the stance the Republican Party---the same party that bemoans the horrors of single motherhood and the death of the family--wants to be taking.