Full Story Link Here

From AP:

In a breakfast speech to delegates of the Georgia Republican convention, Steele put himself in the shoes of a small business owner having to pay for health care and life insurance for a same-sex couple.

“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 said. “So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.

….

That example, Steele said, should serve as an example to Republicans of how to retool their message to appeal to a broader base – such as young people and minorities – without sacrificing the party’s core conservative beliefs.

We’ve all heard a lot of things over the last couple of years regarding the gay-marriage debate. People have argued that gay couples will tear away at the traditional family values of Americans. Some have argued that homosexuality is morally wrong based on the teachings of the Bible. And some have argued that they simply don’t want queers publicly making out or holding hands in front of them. I can’t say any of these arguments aren’t victim to fallacious logic, nor can I argue any of them are particularly charming. But I’ve never seen someone argue against gay rights on financial terms before.

It’s tempting to dismiss Michael Steele’s anti-gay stance as endemic to any member of his party, but keep in mind Steele was a member of the Republican Leadership Council from 1993 until 2008, a group of Republicans poised to focus on “fiscal conservatism, social inclusion,” which meant among other things, bringing the reigns down on spending while simultaneously being pro-choice. The group also strives to quell what it deems to be a “disproportionate role of conservative Christianity in the Republican party” (Thank you Wikipedia). Steele has publicly said he doesn’t support gay marriage, but he was also quoted as saying he didn’t want to “beat people upside the head about it,” a comment which upset some in the Republican party. But isn’t stanching a homosexual’s earning equality in the workplace “beating them upside the head about it”? Come to think of it, if I were gay I’d much rather be lectured than denied money or benefits, especially when working just as hard as straight employees.

It’s no secret that some gays were a little peeved with blacks following the Prop 8 voting in California, where between 57-70%(depending on who’s data you trust) of the state’s black denizens voted FOR Proposition 8. Many gay citizens felt blacks should have been more empathetic, stating that they shared a common bond with black citizens due to their own experiences with discrimination and injustice, but the polls showed that blacks are just like whites in this regard; their ecumenical ties are currently preventing large portions of them from forming any meaningful alliance with gay voters. It seems the RNC’s most prominent black politician is trying to capitalize accordingly, since there’s evidence it’s worked in the past, as it propelled black support for former President Bush from 8 to 12 percent in 2004. All of this could mean additional headaches for current President Barack Obama.

Over the first 100 days of his presidency, some have noted that Obama seems to have tip-toed around the gay-marriage debate by leaving the rulings up to the individual states, wanting to focus his efforts on more pressing needs such as the economy and healthcare. There’s also been speculation that he doesn’t want to fuel a “culture war,” especially after already opening the doors for additional stem-cell research. But with a black RNC chairman trying to swing leverage the Republicans’ way by urging financial and other discrimination against gays, they will stress more fervently for the Democrat’s most prominent black politician to fight back. While some have argued that blacks are being inaccurately assailed by the gay community, it probably won’t matter. The perception among some gays is that black voters betrayed them. Its’ not implausible to think they’d want Obama to push for gay acceptance among a group where he was wildly successful during the presidential election, garnering 95% of the black vote, especially when some gay voters are viewing blacks as a pivotal constituency in actualizing their agenda. But what if he doesn’t budge?

Until gay marriage is federally mandated as legal, people opposed to gay marriage will search for every possible loophole available to undermine the gay-rights movement. From arguing that it erodes family values, to arguing that gay parents adopting forces the children to turn gay (all data so far says it doesn’t), to arguing that it increases financial burden, they won’t stop until they’re forced to. And in the meantime, gay anger with blacks could intensify at worst, stagnate at best. And the more vocally Michael Steele objects to gay rights, the more likely he is to become the face to the residual anger of Prop 8 and similar rulings that some gays still have for blacks, meaning Obama could be faced with a dual-edged sword: mandate gay marriage’s legality federally and start a culture war, or allow one anyway between not only sections of gays and religious conservatives, but similar proportions of gays and blacks.

All of this is still speculation at this point, but it looks like Obama may have to face a culture war at some point in his presidency, whether he likes it or not. Personally I’m hoping that if a culture-war happens, it’s one he started by supporting gay marriage on the federal level, as opposed to one he let happen by idly standing by.