GOP Chairman Michael Steele isn’t prejudiced. He just supports small business. He argues that legalizing gay marriage will force small businesses to insure the spouses of their gay employees. (As quoted in Pam’s House Blend)
He belongs to the party that is just fine with millions of Americans uninsured, but he’s occasionally gotten into trouble with the Republicans for accidentally saying things that make sense to Democrats, and then he apologizes. I think he will need to apologize again if he doesn’t take his most recent statements to their logical conclusion.
If an activist Supreme Court had not invalidated all state laws against interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia dozens of small businesses might now be saving insurance money. I wonder how Judge Clarence Thomas would have ruled in that case, as he himself is in an interracial marriage. How does Chairman Steele feel about that decision?
Meanwhile, small businesses look to the Republican party for guidance. Since the vast majority of marriages are heterosexual, and heterosexuals have a very high rate of marriage and even have children that they presumptiously think are entitled to be insured, small businesses have to do something about rampant marriage.
Non-Catholics may not be aware that nuns work regular jobs. Some may be looking for work. Hire them. Monks also. There’s even a good number of Buddhist nuns and monks in this country, and they all take vows of celibacy. There’s also confirmed bachelors and people who don’t like kids. A smart business owner can look for cues during the interview process that indicate a person is at high risk of getting married. It goes without saying that it should be easy to hire only the single.
It will take some doing to turn public opinion against married people with families and reframe them as mooching freeloaders on their employer’s insurance. Ronald Reagan might have been able to do it, Michael Steele should watch his old movies. The slang Steele uses is just weird, hard as he tries to be ‘hep to the beat’. He should try the folksy accent and see how that works.
Kmareka.com 
Nancy-I notice you took some issue with Chris Young’s demeanor at the hearing over at RI Future.Chris blurted some comments while others were testifying and was ejected by the police at the request of the committee.Okay,he was out of order.
Then his girlfriend,Kara Russo,was holding up a Jesus image during someone else’s testimony-a permissible form of behavior at such hearings.She wasn’t interrupting or anything.At that point,an individual next to her in a robe and skullcap,claiming to be a priest in the “Old Catholic Church”(??),who had already testified,started poking her in the side of her chest-it wasn’t innocuous or playful,but nasty and assaultive.She eventually left the place she had been sitting in to get away from him.
The committee acted like they didn’t see it happening.You couldn’t miss it.
If someone did that to my wife,either they or myself would be in the ER.
This yhas nothing to do with the issue of SSM,but rather differential treatment of people being disruptive.
I think the General Assembly has had more than enough time to “study”SSM and the issue deserves an up or down vote.I know you believe that also.
Let me ask you a tough question-do you believe E-verify deserves an up or down vote in the Senate?It’s had three in the House.
Both issues are important enought o a large number of people in this sate that to do differently would be a cop-out of the worst sort by legislators.
I bet you anything most “progressives” would not agree to a vote on both issues.
They’d find a way around the E-verify question.
I think you’re generally a straight shooter-what say you?
I’m not sure we’re talking about the same hearing. I didn’t see that, but I didn’t make the most recent.
I wouldn’t vote for anyone who based his policy on scripture, any scripture.
Law should be applied fairly and equally to everyone regardless of religion, and allow maximum personal freedom within the boundaries of respect for the rights of others.
Don’t hear much about The Pursuit of Happiness, but that’s an American value.
C’mon Nancy-just tell me if you think both issues deserve a floor vote in both houses.I do.
I saw the behavior direted at Kara Russo-it wa intrusive and physical-I’m not endorsing her point of view,but I think the guy should’ve been arrested for simple assault,or at least disorderly conduct.NY has a misdemeanor charge of harrassment on the books-I’m not sure if RI does,but that also would have been appropriate.
If you don’t think E-verify deserves a floor vote in the Senate,please tell me a concrete reason why.
Hi Joe, What is your position on SSM? I have not heard you talk much about it. Just curious.
I was at the hearing at the end of February, didn’t see anyone get physical. I did watch in disbelief as Chris Young lost his place and shuffled papers and no one as far as I could see set a time limit for testimony.
As far as E-Verify, I have heard that the error rate is unacceptable to many people. If I was denied a job unjustly because the E-Verify didn’t work it would be unacceptable to me. I don’t have an accent though, so realistically I’m not the target of that legislation.
A majority vote on minority rights is a problem. Imagine voting to legalize interracial marriage. Do you think it would pass?
I’ll go with whatever the legislature decides.It is not an issue that I have much an opinion about one way or the other.
Maybe if civil unions included all the same rights as marriage it wouldn’t be that controversial.
My marriage isn’t threatened by SSM,but I just don’t care that much about it.What bothers me is that a lot of Rhode Islanders DO care about it,one way or the other and they deserve decisionmaking by the General Assembly.The “further study”business just won’t wash anymore.
Add to that the fact that there is no voter initiave in RI and the General Assembly has even more obligation to act than in some other states.
Same thing with E-verify,although in that case the House has been responsible and Teresa Paiva-Weed in the Senate has playd the obstructionist role for going on three years now,both as Majority Leader and now Senate President.What she is doing flies in the face of representative democracy.
I am as libertarian as I am conservative.
I oppose marijuana laws,particularly for personal use amounts-it is a senseless political holdover from the 60’s to ruin someone’s life for smoking a joint.
Not to mention the necessity of medical marijuana.I have had seriously nauseating cancer treatment in my lifetime and nothing effective to alleviate it.
I oppose gun laws that target law abiding citizens and legal residents,unless they are seriously menrtally impaired.
I am for less taxation and less wasteful governmental spending.RI Care could be solvent if some truly wasteful spending stopped.
I support strong enforcement of immigration laws because that makes common sense,more so now than ever.I have no xenophobic feelings whatsoever.I am not afraid of “losing”our culture,because as immigrants assimilate they pick it up,and add something also.Isolated ethnic enclaves are not good for anyone.
My positon on immigration enforcement is based on countering criminal behavior and national security.Not knowing who is coming in at will is dangerous.
I opposed the indoor prostitution bill because there are effective laws to deal with real trafficking,sexual or not.
Handing out jail time to women(or men)who choose to enagage in off street prostitution just strains the institutions’ capacity to deal with really dangerous people and don’t forget that if mom’s in jail you and I pick up the tab for the kids.
Merely being a prostitute doesn’t make someone an unfit parent.
So there is my opinion on most current issues.
Oh,yeah,the stimulus spending has me concerned.It is a tremendous gamble and it could turn out very badly.I just don’t know.
No one in their right mind spends beyond their means like that without going bankrupt.Maybe macro-and micro-economics are different.