[Elspode]

I don't know what Steele is trying to do. What I do know is that the whole argument is fallacious. I mean, why didn't he just say, "Gee, its a good thing there are queers out there who can't legally be married. Otherwise, it would cost businesses gazillions of dollars in additional benefits." It makes as much sense - which is to say, no sense at all.

"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.", said Steele. *Anyone* who holds a job and is not married, then gets married, causes such costs to be incurred.

Mr. Steele is merely attempting to add yet another log of prejudice to an already overflowing woodpile. The fact remains that, if gay people were not gay, and married into a heterosexual union, then those same alleged "additional costs" would be incurred, therefore, it is utter crap. The net financial effect of gay people marrying as opposed to them marrying if they were not gay is zero, period, end of story. Sexual orientation doesn't enter into the total number of people who may or may not get married, fer cryin' out loud.

I can't believe this guy is head of the Republican Party. This is the smartest guy they've got? Scary.