A modest [marriage] proposal

[rymenhild]

[cross-posted to om_nom @ dreamwidth]

Heterosexual marriage damages traditional conservative values. You didn't know that? Well, take a look at the newest wisdom from Michael Steele.

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."

Imagine the (presumably Republican) small business owner A. A's employee, B, marries an otherwise uninsured person of the opposite gender, C. In the present American health-care system (if it can be called a system!), A now has to insure C, so B's marriage is a burden on A's business. I fail to see how this situation is any different from the marriage of employee D and otherwise uninsured spouse E, when D and E happen to have matching XX or XY chromosome pairs. In both cases, marriage impoverishes the small business owner! Shocking! Wouldn't it be easier for A if no one got married at all?

You know what's even more shocking? Married couples sometimes produce children, and they too have to be insured by small business owner A. A's employees' procreation places an unwarranted burden on A, that good Republican business owner. By this logic, Republicans should be anti-childbirth! In fact, they should support all manner of birth control and abortion, because these things save small business owners money. Oh, wait, I forgot, Republicans are against abortion. Why not outlaw sex, extra- or intra-marital? Then no one will have to worry about poor A's insurance outlays.

Actually, I have a better idea. Why not let the American government provide us all with health insurance? Then A won't have to worry about it, and all of those heterosexuals and homosexuals and bisexuals can get married and have children without imperiling A's bottom line. Now, that supports good Republican values.

Comments

[reconditarmonia.livejournal.com]

The stupid, it burns.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

I know, I know.

[gramarye1971]

If only 'good Republican values' weren't also synonymous with Ronald Reagan's oft-quoted belief that the most frightening words in the English language are 'I'm from the [federal] government, and I'm here to help you.' *sighs quietly*

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Sigh. You're right, of course.

As long as health insurance status in the US is determined by one's employment status or one's legally recognized spouse's employment status, the insurance system actively discriminates against otherwise uninsured people who are married, in legally unrecognizable ways, to people who have work-related health insurance. And Steele appears to consider this a feature worth advertising rather than a particularly pernicious bug. GAAAAAH.

[just-ruth.livejournal.com]

*snort* Those "good Republicans" never ran into Jack on election day! Balls, for lack of a better term and I can think of several that will ruin my reputation for being a lady.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Oh, I have confidence in your ability to utter those better terms in a most appropriate and ladylike manner!

[innerbrat]

The cross posting link is broke.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

Oh, dear. Let me fix that.

[muji]

And Michael Steele was the lieutenant governor of my state. I met that guy. I've never stood that close to evil, as Lewis Black would say.

[rymenhild.livejournal.com]

I'm so sorry.

[deborah-judge.livejournal.com]

Agreed. We should ban marriage altogether.

[tainry.livejournal.com]

Oh bravo!!!! :DDD

[emilymorgan.livejournal.com]

*sigh*

[shirei-shibolim.livejournal.com]

You'd be much happier if you thought less. Have you considered that? Have you?

[fleurdelis28.livejournal.com]

Clearly, only homosexual marriages should be allowed. There are fewer of them, and they're far less likely to produce children by accident - and that without resort to either contraception or abortion! - thus minimizing the cost to the the small business owner while showing that we as a society do value the continued existence of marriage as an institution.

[deborah-judge.livejournal.com]

I like this thinking. Further, only same-sex couples should be encouraged to experiment sexually in high school, since even as teenagers they have an accidental pregnancy rate of 0.0% and are therefore clearly much more responsible.

[the_croupier]

"Actually, I have a better idea. Why not let the American government provide us all with health insurance?"

So true.

It never ceases to amaze me how people can be convinced to adopt positions that only hurt themselves. Universal health care would fix so many things. Even if it was clunky and not always incredibly efficient, which I suspect it would be, we'd be so much better off. And not the least because it would bring some much-needed sanity to this too.

[nigita.livejournal.com]

You made a perfect circle! Love this post.