rymenhild: Manuscript page from British Library MS Harley 913 (Default)
rymenhild ([personal profile] rymenhild) wrote in [community profile] om_nom2009-05-16 01:54 pm

A modest [marriage] proposal

[cross-posted to [livejournal.com profile] rymenhild]

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.