digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Census Won't Report Gay Marriage, Claims Defense Of Marriage

cbsnews.com — The Census Bureau says the federal Defense of Marriage Act bars the agency from recognizing gay marriages in the nation's 10-year count, even though the marriages are legal in Massachusetts and California.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • MaynardsTool, on 07/18/2008, -65/+11The joke is on us, the straight people of the world. If gay marriages are illegal on the federal level, but legal on the state level, then they can get married, but no pay the 'marriage penalty'. They save money on taxes and are still married! Brilliant.
    • SDDave0, on 07/18/2008, -4/+69Tool that is FALSE!!! Straight people under the Bush administration do NOT pay a "marriage penalty" tax, they enjoy a tax cut. Let me give you a hypothetical but very realistic scenario.

      Gay couple - one works, no children, no deductions. The one that works makes $60,000 per year. In 2007 that couple would have paid.......$11,430.......because the "worker" had to file single.

      Married couple - one works, no children, no deductions. The one that works makes $60,000 per year. In 2007 that couple would have paid.....$8,221......because they were able to file "married filing jointly".

      That is $3,200 LESS paid by the married couple, than the gay couple.

      Don't believe me? Check it out at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf
      • lamiaconfitor, on 07/20/2008, -2/+19See, the government hates Gay people afterall, Its okay conservatives!
      • userperson, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4At least you're complaining about money ... that makes sense.
        The business this article proposes that their marital status be reflected on their 'bar code' ... feel the gov't love. /s
      • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 07/20/2008, -2/+2The marriage penalty comes in when BOTH spouses work. Do the math.
      • Midtowner, on 07/20/2008, -4/+1SDDave,

        1) Plug in a couple of people into that section 1 part of the tax code who make $50K/year who are married.

        2) What is the tax liability (per person) if those people file "married, filing jointly"?

        3) What is the tax liability if each of those people file single?

        4) STFU, you don't know what you're talking about.
    • Myonosken, on 07/20/2008, -4/+11Well then you know the solution don't you?

      Make it legal at the ***** federal level.
      • Myonosken, on 07/20/2008, -4/+2Ahaha, I want to meet the two who buried me.

        Okay that wasn't an anal reference >_>
      • userperson, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2I can get tax cuts and other various little legal convenient knick-knacks. Though aside of that ...

        'cause your love isn't real unless it has W's begrudging approval.
    • PSotter, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3Aaaarrrgggghhhh... you've figured out out elaborate scheme to keep heterosexuals subservient by continued discrimination against ourselves! Muahahaha!!!!!
    • JigoroKano, on 07/20/2008, -0/+7This country subsidizes breeding and families.

      Really stupid in this day and age when you think about the population.
  • slantyeyed, on 07/18/2008, -8/+46so I can be asked my age and ethnicity and marriage status, but not sexual orientation?
    • secrity, on 07/20/2008, -15/+5I don't know what your context is and why it is important.
    • kd1s, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2I seem to recall on the last census they actually asked if you were in a same-sex partnership or cohabitation agreement.

      That was from the Clinton years of course so the government knows about it, it's just under Bush and the Christian Fundies they'd rather bury their head in the sand about it.
  • lisaawesome, on 07/18/2008, -7/+88You know the feds just don't want to count them because then there will be real numbers for committed gay couples. They won't be able to pretend all this gay marriage stuff is confined to a fringe culture in San Fransisco.
    • CRCulver, on 07/20/2008, -10/+6Informal committed relationships aren't marriages, they are just committed relationships. Marriage is a public contract which has always been considered something separate, except in common-law situations where a committed relationship has lasted for a certain amount of time. Since marriage is a public affair, those states which have legalized it between two people of the same sex can already provide real numbers.
      • secrity, on 07/20/2008, -1/+15A good number of gays have been in "committed relationships" for a long time. If common-law marriage still existed in the US they would meet the requirements for a common-law marriage.
    • fx666, on 07/20/2008, -6/+3Statistical data shows that only 2% of men are gay, and just 1% of females are lesbians. Unless you believe Dr. Freud, who wrote that ALL people are natural-born bisexuals, is right, you would see that the homosexuals constitute very small percentage of the population.
      • haxinator, on 07/20/2008, -0/+7I couldn't find the supporting data for your percentages, but even if they are correct that's still over 3 million people. 3% might sound statistically insignificant, but 3 million is a lot of people to simply ignore.
      • kd1s, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5Would you please provide citations of those studies? In most cases they're flawed because people still give false answers.

        Everything I've read goes in the range of 5% to 10% of total population. And there are slightly more lesbians than gay men.

        But based on where I live, the percentage is more towards 15% to 20%. The minute you put in more colleges and universities than churches you suddenly see an increased gay presence.
      • Pahtcub, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1So if it's a choice (bi sexualy) that means that a guy at one time turned every single person on sexually.
      • Elranzer, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4I've always heard it was 10%.

        I've only ever heard it was 1%-2% since 2004, back when gay marriage was a big red herring during the Kerry-Bush election. Trying to downplay the significance of gay people in the US?? Hmm.
      • fx666, on 07/21/2008, -2/+1Clinton was told that 10% of Americans are gay, so he was making advances to them, so to speak, before his second election. But then he checked the statistical data and saw the figures that I presented, so the gay population became of no interest to him. These figures are based on the statistical studies done by Gallop Organization, ABC News, to name a few reputable organizations. The only country where the number of male homosexuals reached 20% was the former USSR, as their Communist archives show. Amazingly, the number of lesbians in the USSR was at the 1% level, which is the same as in the West.
        The subjects of the "homosexual polls" are not asked to reveal their names in order to prevent them from lying, those studies are strictly anonymous. On the other hand, the gay groups provide incorrect estimates of the number of homosexuals in order to support their agendas, as the other statistical services have noticed (no, I do not mean they distort the statistical data to promote the gay marriage -- they provide incorrect statistical data in order to make the government to spend more money on the AIDS research.). Personally, I do not think that homosexuality is a some kind of religious sin, so I do not care about the gay numbers. But, as a scientist, I can see that the statistical data that the gay groups provide is wrong.
  • SDDave0, on 07/18/2008, -15/+68Just in case my reply to MaynardsTool gets buried:

    Tool that is FALSE!!! Straight people under the Bush administration do NOT pay a "marriage penalty" tax, they enjoy a tax cut. Let me give you a hypothetical but very realistic scenario.

    Gay couple - one works, no children, no deductions. The one that works makes $60,000 per year. In 2007 that couple would have paid.......$11,430.......because the "worker" had to file single.

    Married couple - one works, no children, no deductions. The one that works makes $60,000 per year. In 2007 that couple would have paid.....$8,221......because they were able to file "married filing jointly".

    That is $3,200 LESS paid by the married couple, than the gay couple.

    Don't believe me? Check it out at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf
    • lamiaconfitor, on 07/20/2008, -30/+6Buried for reposting.
    • ZebZ, on 07/20/2008, -0/+8The "marriage penalty" tax applies when both people earn income.

      A couple, not yet married, both file separately. That total will be a bigger deduction than when they are married and filing jointly.

    • PSotter, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5Maynard James Keenan of the artist TOOL is one of the gay-friendliest artists around. Irony?
    • BigConna, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2[lamiaconfitor] is correct; While I do consider your message important, the fear of getting buried does not justify a re-post and should not prevent you from replying to the appropriate corresponding comment.
    • cyrusuncc, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0The "Marriage Penalty" is generally used to describe the fact that if both partners in the marriage work, their combined income would push them into a higher tax bracket. Also, the standard deduction for married couples used to be less then two single people, but it's not that way anymore.
  • wonderchemist, on 07/19/2008, -16/+26Defend Marriage, Ban Divorce!
    • Traiklin, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4or even better, Ban getting Married in Las Vegas or just have everyone take a Breathalyzer and drug test there before getting married.
    • kman17, on 07/20/2008, -1/+12How about drop all marriage laws and tax statuses all together, and just leave it as a religious ceremony with no legal implications?

      As a single guy in an apartment, I for one am sick of effectively subsidizing other peoples wives, children, and homes.
      • smemily, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1How about no, because you'd actually BE redefining my atheist marriage right out of existence in that case.
        And you subsidize other people's families because you benefit indirectly from a society that supports committed relationship.
      • cyrusuncc, on 07/21/2008, -1/+0Thanks for subsidizing my wife, child, & house!
  • kdfrawg, on 07/19/2008, -8/+18Oh. No. Don't ban divorce.
    • Dustin00, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3He's trying to to treat a symptom and not the cause, the leading cause of divorce is marriage. Just make marriage illegal and then all these issues are solved.
    • shadeOfGrey, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Make divorce mandatory.
  • WordsnCollision, on 07/19/2008, -23/+45Ban organized religion and we won't have ANY of these "problems".
    • stonebear, on 07/20/2008, -3/+22"Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion." ~ written on a scrap of toilet paper seen stuck to a heel in a DC brothel.
      • lamiaconfitor, on 07/20/2008, -5/+11banning religions does not establish a state religion, does it?
      • jgzman, on 07/20/2008, -2/+5I think you will find that it says "no law respecting an establishment of religion"
      • Synova, on 07/20/2008, -0/+8"...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

        He left that out.
    • DataPath, on 07/20/2008, -4/+8Only organized religion? Then you're killing three birds with one stone. You're disallowing freedom of association, the right to peaceably assemble, AND the freedom of religion.

      Wow. You're a real patriot. I'm glad we have such intelligent, well-spoken people as you around to help set us straight.

      Or wait - maybe you didn't mean organized religion - maybe you just meant to ban non-scientific thinking. Mysticism, if you will.

      Well, there goes the "cult of organic", whose belief system attributes almost mystical powers to food grown under that label. And the "cult of health supplements", who make similar attributions. The "cult of alternative medicine". The "cult of ignore it an it will go away".

      You know what? This country would be a much better place if we banned mysticism outright. Heck, just by banning the "cult of ignore it an it will go away", we will be rid of all politicians.

      Too bad we'll be rid of everyone.
    • blast_flame, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5Bad, idea violates freedoms...
      Even if it didn't you'll have those right wing milita types believing the anti-christ is in power.
    • mithrasinvictus, on 07/20/2008, -0/+10No, everybody should be free to believe what they want.
      Since they seem to think marriage is a religious activity, they should have the tax breaks removed.
    • cusoman, on 07/20/2008, -6/+1Yeah, except for that whole thing that marriage is originally a religious institution. Say what you want about the institution brought about by governments over the years, but this is a fact.
      • ZebZ, on 07/20/2008, -2/+2That's true. But the marriage license you sign is a civil legal document. Let "marriage" be a religious status, let "civil union" be the official status when applied to legal and civil matters.

        ... but that makes too much sense.
      • DuneChild, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5Um, no, marriage was not originally religious. You are apparently forgetting that marriage was around before people could speak, and were still bashing each other on the head with clubs. In fact, the Christian church did not truly get in on the marriage racket until the 12th century. Prior to that, marriage was mainly a monetary and political arrangement between families. If you want to bring back "traditional marriage", then men in their 20's to 30's will start marrying girls in their early teens, and getting paid by the parents to do so.

        http://www2.hu-berlin.de/sexology/ATLAS_EN/html/hi ...
      • cusoman, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1That's funny, I read your linked article and I saw many religious connotations throughout, despite the author's obvious intentions to omit all religious relevance.
    • kman17, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3You can't ban religion - its horribly unconstitutional on so many levels. Religion is just a symptom of ignorance - if we put enough into our education system the problem will go away soon enough.
  • mycatsasha, on 07/20/2008, -3/+43I don't agree with gay marriage (which is a personal conviction. I won't marry someone of the same sex, but I won't complain if you do.) I still think that gay marriages should be included in the census! The census isn't about morality or promoting social norms. It's about statistics and demographics. It needs to be accurate.
    • cjhowe, on 07/20/2008, -0/+17The census is only supposed to be counting the number of people in a household for the purpose of allocating representatives to the states. All of the other BS is an invasion of privacy.
      • yosempai, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4The census collects important statistical data to be cited in scientific studies, court cases, etc.
    • oldgal, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3Depending on how the questions are asked and answered, I don't quite understand how they can tell. It is easy to not report gay marriages, but to not include them as families implies they can tell who is and who isn't.
    • PSotter, on 07/20/2008, -1/+7Logical arguments based on facts and evidence? That's not how this govt rolls.
    • koan, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1"I don't agree with gay marriage (which is a personal conviction. I won't marry someone of the same sex, but I won't complain if you do.)"

      This actually means that you *do* agree with gay marriage if aren't planning to interfere with a gay couple's desire for civil union - even if you don't particularly like the idea. Congratulations.

      Not wanting to marry someone of your own sex because you are not oriented that way does not make you against gay marriage - no one was ever expecting you to.
      • mycatsasha, on 07/20/2008, -1/+0It doesn't have anything to do with orientation. I believe it's wrong to marry someone of the same sex. Even if I was of the other orientation, I would not marry someone of the same sex. I would probably just never marry.

        That's my choice.

        I don't agree with gay marriage. If I agreed with it, I would vote in favor of it. If I am asked to express my opinions, I will. But I won't think any less of anyone else for theirs. I recognize that I am of a minority opinion. If the majority wants gay marriage, I'm not going to complain. This is a democracy, after all.
  • geekchic, on 07/20/2008, -3/+12According to the article, they can't count state approved gay marriages as "marriages" due to a federal regulation.

    Why not simply add a separate category called "state authorised same-sex marriages" then? Sounds like a rather simple way to get round that restriction.
    • jgzman, on 07/20/2008, -0/+7You've never worked for the government, have you?

      I'd bet good money that if they started on that now, if we're very lucky, it just might be ready in time for the next census. If we're unlucky, my grandkids will still be wondering the same thing.

      Legislature is bad enough, son, but you're tangling with bureaucracy now.
      • userperson, on 07/20/2008, -3/+2... or you could go masturbate, you'd accomplish more.
  • ChemiosMurphy, on 07/20/2008, -5/+20This government does not represent the people. Something needs to be done. Something drastic. Something crazy.
    • Psi57, on 07/20/2008, -1/+5The government does represent the people. Keep in mind that a majority of the country is retarded and from the Midwest.
      • userperson, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1Where are the bigots from?
        i.e. where do you live?
    • Elranzer, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1The Midwest to become its own country. There, problem solved.
  • kingofinternet, on 07/20/2008, -6/+12not a goddam surprise considering the us census is under the department of commerce, under the executive branch, and under dick and bush's policies.
  • matchmuchach, on 07/20/2008, -5/+33Damn, the US is getting pretty wierd lately... What happened to the Land of The Free? I'm gay, and I'm sooooo happy that I live in The Netherlands. Gay marriage is legal here since 1995 :) And if you ask me pretty soon in the entire EU, the EU is pressuring homophobic country's quite hard lately.
    • GorfTron, on 07/20/2008, -6/+20The USA is sucking it's share of *****. Trust me on than one.
    • pisces76, on 07/20/2008, -6/+2Sure...rub it in. Who doesn't already know that. Wait, does Canada allow gay marriage? Please inform an ignorant American, please.
      • apetrie, on 07/20/2008, -1/+9Yes gay marriages are legal in Canada.
    • zacharytelschow, on 07/20/2008, -27/+2You're operating under the pretense that gay marriage is a good thing. I would have to disagree with you there.
      • matchmuchach, on 07/20/2008, -0/+19And why is that? It destroys society as we know it? Jesus doesnt agree with it? Like I said, here in The Netherlands we've had gay marriage for 13 years, nothing bad has happened to our country, only happy couples.

        What is there to disagree with when two people love each other and want to share their lives together?
      • Myonosken, on 07/20/2008, -2/+24You're operating under the pretence that you are a good person. I would have to disagree with you there.
      • amoirae, on 07/20/2008, -2/+13We already know you're a *****, and thus can be disregarded.
    • ChemiosMurphy, on 07/20/2008, -2/+10The EU is going to be the successor to America.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/20/2008, -1/+9going to be?
      • nick1971, on 07/20/2008, -1/+4I hope too that the EU will one day stand next to the US as a fully fledged equal partner. We can certainly learn from you and I hope you can learn from us.
        However even now the I think that the US need to have a general look not just at gay rights but also at civil rights.
        Look at the run up to WWII.
        A democratic election was held. 1 month later a massive terroristic act happened in that the parliament building was burned to the ground. The perpetrator was quickly found and under enhanced interrogation techniques admitted a com-plot by the communist party.
        The government announced to the German people that they need additional powers to combat enemies of the state (terrorists).
        The new powers were 1st used against the terrorists. As a large number of people needed to be arrested we set up our 1st concentration camp in Dachau.
        The communists in general were then targeted.
        Then those in the opposition.
        The new powers revealed that the opposition was so infiltrated with enemies of the state that democratic elections were suspend.
        Enemies of the state were then used to justify the detainment of those who weakened the German race - the Jews, Homosexuals, Mentally and Physically ill
        What happened then is history.
        If you look at the big picture what civil liberties you have given up, what human rights are now violated I think you can all see that not being counted in the census as being in a gay marriage is the least of your problems.
      • userperson, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2@nick1971
        oh no you di-uhn't!
        since you've already opened up that can of goodwin: http://is.gd/2Qx

        Let me continue ...
        Yes. It's a good idea to have addresses of all gay marriages on file with the gov't that way should political tides shift the storm troopers know where to go. /s
        I mean I'd understand if they were getting a tax cut out of it like gay marriage, but much of the stuff they do seems more like "We need recognition from the state!" *shakes-head* Yes, because your love isn't real unless some bureaucrat has it on file.
      • JigoroKano, on 07/20/2008, -1/+4Just a few more Bushes

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_currency
      • jasoninoakland, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3Don't hold your breath. Europe has its share of issues to contend with. More equal footing with the US, certainly.
    • jasoninoakland, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4But it *wasn't* gay marriage in Holland until recently. They had identical-to-marriage "registered partnerships" since 1998 (not 1995) that were open to gay and straight couples (and my boyfriend's sister had one to her heterosexual partner - they just didn't want a marriage). Gay marriage came 3 years later. Gave it time to show the religious idiots (and NL has some, just not as many as we have in the US) to show that society didn't melt down.
      Countries like Poland, Greece, and Turkey (if they join) will take 40 years to legalize same-sex marriage. But at least in the EU gay Poles and Greeks can move to another country, get married, and have the full set of marriage laws apply to them at the national level. Gay Californians and Massachusettsans (?) don't have that option.
      • Elranzer, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Gay Californians and Mass-holes* can at least move to New York, where their marriages will be recognized. NY recently passed a law that recognizes gay marraiges performed outside of NY state (I think this may include Canada). But so far, you can't get gay-married in NY itself yet. I'm not sure what's holding us up, but it is a work-around for New Yorkers to temporarily leave NY, get married, and move back.

        *Sorry, I don't know the correct term for Massachusetts citizens, but that's what we call them in NY ;-)
  • jasoninoakland, on 07/20/2008, -3/+5Honestly, the only hope at getting any sort of legal equality at the federal level (where it matters) is when the government legalizes and tracks "civil unions" and recognizes that in some states they're called marriages. If we make "marriage" the only goal, then we're looking at least 30 years before it's legalized federally. The Brits sidestepped almost all of the homophobic rancor by avoiding the term "marriage."
    • userperson, on 07/20/2008, -1/+3"... sidestepped almost all of the homophobic rancor by avoiding the term 'marriage.' "
      I find it amusing that the gay lobby in the U.S. possibly could've pursued this route, and perhaps it would've gotten through quietly and gay couples might possibly be enjoying the rights straight couples do now, or in the near future. But they decided to hell with that! They want the official gov't distinction of some meaningless word, not later, but NOW!

      After all What good is it being "married" if you can't rub it in the face of the religious people and upset them?
      I get that, upsetting religious people can be fun, but as far as results, I question what they're really trying to achieve.
      "The Gov't accepts *****-gays, therefore you have to as well."
      Yes because people like being 'forced' to accept things.
      Do I smell more discrimination law and quotas in our future?
  • drape, on 07/20/2008, -34/+2I predict that after USA officially passes homosexual marriage, the people will be clamouring for human-animal marriages.
    • amoirae, on 07/20/2008, -0/+29You just want human/animal marriages to be legal so your parents can finally marry.
    • desertDenizen, on 07/20/2008, -0/+24You're either kidding or not very bright. Which is it?
    • Myonosken, on 07/20/2008, -0/+12/sarcasm....?
    • Pedobear, on 07/20/2008, -0/+20What part of "loving, consenting adults" don't you understand? Animals can't consent (which means that I, as a bear, am off the hook).
    • pintomp3, on 07/20/2008, -1/+10no more fox news for you.
    • PSotter, on 07/20/2008, -0/+8I've been performing marriages between loving, consensual furries in 2ndwrld. What's the problem?

      Sike. what a lame thread. The animal marriage argument fails everytime.
    • thebigshane, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4Human/sexbot marriages will come before animals.
    • IIAmusedII, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6Because animals can sign a marriage agreement. Idiot.
      • tehxen3, on 08/07/2008, -0/+0I predict that after USA officially passes homosexual marriage, Diggers will be clamouring for human-mac marriages.
  • zacharytelschow, on 07/20/2008, -28/+4So... gay people who are allowed to marry have the same benefits as other married couples, and now they're whining because they're counted differently than the other married couples? So what? What effect does this have on gay married couples at all? (Correct answer: none, but it hurts their tender feelings).
    • desertDenizen, on 07/20/2008, -0/+23You're really missing the point here.
    • Mrstupid7, on 07/20/2008, -0/+15Do you remember the separate but equal clauses? It's an underhanded form of discrimination.
      • zacharytelschow, on 07/20/2008, -15/+1This isn't separate but equal. Gay marriages have all the same rights as other married couples as well as access to all the same services, they just aren't being counted the same. Again, so what?
    • geekchic, on 07/20/2008, -0/+13Actually they are complaining because they are not counted at all.

      • zacharytelschow, on 07/20/2008, -13/+1And what effect does this have on them?
    • DuneChild, on 07/20/2008, -0/+10They don't have the same rights and benefits as heterosexual couples, THAT is the issue. Due to the Defense of Marriage Act, these people are not allowed to collect their spouse's Social Security benefits, they cannot file joint tax returns, and they do not get right of survivorship on their homes. They may enjoy some rights and benefits under STATE law, but federal law is still treating them as second-class citizens.

      If you don't think those benefits are a big deal, consider that when a spouse dies, the other spouse is not required to pay taxes on the house they reside in, the title for the home just moves to the surviving spouse. For gay couples, who can legally own a home together, the surviving spouse must pay capital gains taxes on half the value of the home when one spouse dies. This can result in considerable expense, and often will require the sale of the home.
  • desertDenizen, on 07/20/2008, -6/+63Dear Bush & Co,

    Not measuring a thing does not make it go away.

    Love,
    America
    • bizchris, on 07/20/2008, -0/+3You read the article, right? The Defense of Marriage Act that is forcing the census' hand here was signed into law by Bill Clinton.
      • desertDenizen, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5Yes, I did. The Census administrator's argument is weak, just playing it safe. There are many ways that the Census Bureau could have measured gay marriage without legally recognizing it (some have been suggested in the comments here). "Legal recognition" has a precise meaning, which need not have anything to do with capturing statistics, in the same way that measuring crime statistics does not decriminalize the crime. I strongly suspect that two forces are at play here:

        1. Bush administration influence... there are plenty of examples of this Administration's willingness to supersede federal agencies' experts pursuant to political agenda: FDA, EPA, etc., etc.

        2. (Probably the bigger of the two): Bureacratic Pussiness... the tendency for bureaucrats to wish to avoid controversy, because a ruckus is more likely to get them fired (see #1) than promoted. Again, the Census Bureau is just playing it safe. Ask all of the EPA scientists who have quit the agency over the White House redactions of documents regarding climate change, etc.


      • Elranzer, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1"The Defense of Marriage Act that is forcing the census' hand here was signed into law by Bill Clinton."

        And originally passed by the Republican-controlled Congress.
    • Bisquick, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1That's what she said!
    • UltraDavid, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1I'm not sure I would have used that particular outro line.
    • shadeOfGrey, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1I've been hoping measuring a thing will make it bigger.
  • TheTaoOfBill, on 07/20/2008, -1/+10The next census is in 2010. I have a feeling that by then we can hope for change...
  • gbudavid, on 07/20/2008, -22/+3It don't look to me that homosexuals are all that "gay" they seem to be an unhappy lot most of the time...
    • qdkk, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5Certainly not to validate your failed logic, but being a persecuted minority does not add to anyone's happiness.
      • gbudavid, on 07/20/2008, -6/+1Minority? If You are Black,Hispanic or Asian you are a minority. Being Homosexual is not a criterion.
      • qdkk, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4Racial identity isn't the only "criterion" to describe a minority. Take for example women of all races, who are often a minority in many many circumstances. In any case, to make a callus statement against a whole group of people (whether you consider them a minority or not) shows your own ignorance more than anything else.
      • UltraDavid, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4I'm a Jew. Am I not a minority?

        Don't answer if you're in law, banking, or the entertainment industry. Hey-o!
    • malex, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6They aren't as unhappy as you are.
  • chicofaraby, on 07/20/2008, -3/+16By the time the next census is taken the right wing idiots won't control it.
    • rnelsonee, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1The law that controls this was passed by 80% of the Senate and House, and signed to law by Clinton. This law isn't going away anytime soon.
      • chicofaraby, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1A) I include most Democrats when I use the term "right wing."
        B) I'm assuming that an Obama administration will merely be center right, not ***** right like BushCo. That would allow a sensible interpretation of the census bureau's rules.

        The fact is that ALL levels of government are obligated by the 14th amendment to provide equal protection under the law to ALL the people. No exception for homosexuals. No exception for census takers. And the constitution trumps silly ass laws like the ***** "defense of marriage" nonsense.
  • diadem2, on 07/20/2008, -1/+7Looks like blurring the line between states rights and federal power is working out pretty well so far... just great to know my tax dollars are going to diffrent branches of the government that decide to use the cash to piss on each other.

    I'm going to run my ac and space heater at the same time now and see who wins - I'll be flipping the bill for both sides.
  • Elderon, on 07/20/2008, -1/+9What boggles my mind is why there is a federal act to product a religious ceremony? what the *****. Let the churches deal with that crap. The government should have no part in it.
    • pagno, on 07/20/2008, -1/+2But..but.. this is One Nation. Under God. Under GOD! Church and State have become one, again.
    • smemily, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Because it's NOT just a religious ceremony - in some cases (mine) it's not religious whatsoever. It's a legal contract, a standard "package deal" that confers a whole bunch of legal rights to my husband and myself - rights that, if we had to obtain them outside marriage, would cost thousands in lawyer fees, and could be challenged by our families in court.
      That's what's happened to gays who tried to enter into contracts conferring some of the same rights as civil marriage - one dies, the family of the other challenges the contract in court. If they win, family gets all, partner gets none. If they lose, family gets none partner gets all but has to pay heft inheritance taxes on it.
  • rlh1, on 07/20/2008, -11/+2I assume that if gay marriage were legal, they would track it.
    In the southwest their is a very large polygamist population. I'm pretty sure that the census bureau doesn't track them either. They haven't counted gay marriage in the last 230 years of US census.
    • carpespasm, on 07/20/2008, -0/+8Over 150 years black people and women didn't have a right to vote because they were thought to be less capable of intelligence. Precedent doesn't make something right.
      • rlh1, on 07/20/2008, -6/+1OK, fair enough.
        If it was illegal for women to vote, would the census form ask women if they voted on the census form ? I doubt it.
    • userperson, on 07/20/2008, -3/+2Interesting comparison.
      In light of recent events, I don't think Polygamists (with children) want to be tracked by the government. Yet gay people are demanding this *head-scratch*
  • nick1971, on 07/20/2008, -1/+22Its funny that the US won't count for you in the Census for being gay but it will ask you the question on the immigration information that you need to provide to enter the US for a holiday.
    But just to give you guys and girls some hope. I live in Germany we have registered partnerships not marriages also due to the same christian right groups that you have. Slowly but surely the 2 institutions are moving to have the same rights as each other.
    I used to live in London. Having had to go through burrying 2 friends that died in a nail bomb attack in a gay bar, being cautioned by the police for kissing my lover in London, and watching someone slice the slide of somones face as I traveled to gay pride I have seen my fair share of discrimination.
    As I campaigned with they gay rights movement in London it took us years to move gay sex from decriminalized to legalized, years later to bring the age of consent down from 21 to 18 and years before it was 16 equal to heterosexuals and now I have not lived there for 16 years marriage is possible.
    Yes its terrible that gay marriages are not counted in the census and yes you should be sending protest letters to your government but my experience is that change happens slowly. I'd rather see that all of my gay friends could get married independent of which state they are in, that benefits where transferable, that marriages were recognized from 1 state to the next and and and
    Once I'd pushed the wagon so far then I would worry about not being counted.
    • carpespasm, on 07/20/2008, -0/+10Amazing stuff there. I'm glad you pushed for change. Being young enough to not remember a time when open violence toward gay people was accepted it's hard to realize the ***** storm activists like yourself had to go through to just be allowed to carry on a relationship without fear of direct violence. There's still a large gap to go between rights of gay and straight couples, but it's heartening to see how far it's already come.
  • rock774, on 07/20/2008, -10/+2HAHAHAHAHA
  • brstilson, on 07/20/2008, -2/+19I never understood this "defense of marriage." Marriage isn't under attack. You have too many of "those" Christians running around acting like they invented the concept. Marriage has been around a hell of a lot longer than Christianity, so to "those" Christians who want to define marriage as between a man and a woman: marriage is not yours to define in the first place.
    • pintomp3, on 07/20/2008, -0/+9it's pathetic how people think the idea of two consenting adults getting married is a threat to the "sanctity" of marriage but shows like "who wants to marry a midget" aren't.
      • JigoroKano, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5Well who doesn't want to marry a midget, they are adorable.
      • Witchdoktor, on 07/20/2008, -1/+3JigoroKano, obviously you have not watched "Time Bandits."
    • UltraDavid, on 07/20/2008, -0/+4Yeah, as if "marriage" has had any kind of set meaning over the millienia. Even just in the Western world it's gone through dramatic changes. It's been polygamist, it's been what you do when you weren't hanging out with your gay lover, it's been arranged, it's been something you do for political benefit, it's been something you do at age 13 with an old man, it's been something you need your family's consent for, it's been something you do with a first cousin, it's been something you can't do with a first cousin, it's been something that's only allowed between people of the same ethnic, racial, or religious group, it's been completely barred to some groups altogether, it's been for choice, it's been for love, it's been un-end-able, it's been end-able, etc.

      The whole idea of what these people think of today as "traditional" marriage, in which any man and any woman of appropriate age and non-familial relationship can make the personal choice to enter an equal marriage agreement out of love and can end the relationship at any time, is a really really recent concept. It's only been around since the latter half of the 20th century.
    • hcharger, on 07/21/2008, -3/+0 Marriage is not anyone`s to define, but it is God`s and he initiated marriage between a man and a woman...only.
      • brstilson, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2There's no evidence of that. All you have is an ancient book of stories written by bronze-age goat herders.
      • UltraDavid, on 07/24/2008, -0/+2The Bible is belly-burstingly full of polygamous marriages, dude. You're wrong even on your own terms.
  • jman583, on 07/20/2008, -12/+1That's... gay...
  • pintomp3, on 07/20/2008, -2/+8ahmadinejad: "you guys don't have gay marriages? neither do we!"
  • bfdonnelly, on 07/20/2008, -2/+4brstilson I agree with your sentiment -- I am for gay marriage -- but this is the "attack."

    Some people feel that marriage is not just between a man and a woman, but is divinely sanctioned, or at least sanctioned by society. They feel that marriages between men and women and that result in children make society strong and therefore deserve special privilege. They see gays trying to marry as usurpers, so to speak. Of course I think that’s nonsense, but that’s from where it comes.

    Also, the “marriage penalty,” to people who feel that way, is not just a matter of having a tax break or not – after all, if it’s better for you to file separately the IRS isn’t twisting your arm – but of not having a special and significant tax break for being married – akin to a mortgage interest deduction, and less for a “covenant” marriage.
  • seantubridy, on 07/20/2008, -1/+5Under the law, civil unions should be for everyone, gay or straight. That's the role the government should take and that should affect what you pay in taxes. Marriage should be left up to whatever religious institution couples choose to be a part of and it should have no effect on how the government categorizes you. Marriage and government should not be tied up together.
  • z28com, on 07/20/2008, -11/+1I don't see the point of being gay. Why be gay if it's just going to annoy others? This is why I am not gay. I don't want to go around pissing people off. It's easier just to be straight living on this planet. Maybe on another planet it would be okay, but not here.
    • PSotter, on 07/20/2008, -0/+6I'm gay and I piss off reactionaries by my mere existence. It's an added bonus.
    • matchmuchach, on 07/20/2008, -0/+7Maybeeee, because a certain percentage of people are just born gay?
    • qdkk, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Unbelievable. But here is the evidence.
    • malex, on 07/20/2008, -0/+8Wait... the reason you're not gay is because you don't want to offend other people? Am I reading you correctly?
  • dildoolielly, on 07/20/2008, -3/+5I don't believe in marriage for gay people, however I don't believe in marriage for straight people either.

    Marriage is a sham. Its basically a contract with the Gov't. Why would anyone want to involve the Gov't in their personal affairs?! Thats stooopid!

    In the debate over whether to legalize gay marriage, both sides are missing the point. Why should the government be in the business of decreeing who can and cannot be married? Proponents of gay marriage see it as a civil-rights issue. Opponents see it as another example of minority "rights" being imposed on the majority culture. But why should anyone have--or need to have--state sanction for a private relationship? As governments around the world contemplate the privatization of everything from electricity to Social Security, why not privatize that most personal and intimate of institutions, marriage?

    And people, don't get married unless you are absolutely religiously in love with your other. Like carry their sick aged body to the toilet and wipe their ass and be happy to do it kind of love.

    What I'm saying is that human beings are nasty weak treacherous creatures that are for the most part totally untrustworthy. Experience is my basis for this statement, both mine and others who I know or who have written reliable histories. If you can find another to be your companion who is not treacherous, a deceitful little actor or actress, a sly whore or a manipulative nag or a shrieking hag, or a alcoholic abusive *****, or a worthless womanizing prick then you are among the lucky few. Congratulations. I hope your luck continues to hold out.
    • thebigshane, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1People want to the gov't to get involved in their personal lives when they get money for it. Tax deductions > philosophical values and political beliefs ... apparently.
      • dildoolielly, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1The gov't should not be allowed to benefit people that fall under a certain ideology. Its called discrimination. And its unconstitutional no matter how long it has been going on. Built from Religious fever, nothing more.

        Also compare the sum of the tax benefit vs. the money you will need for divorce lawyers, alimony, dividing property, state-induced child support

        Add it all up and see if its worth it. I am sure you will.

      • thebigshane, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1The gov't can't benefit people that fall under an ideology?! Doesn't everybody fall under some ideology?
        I got married, I love her in the "Like carry their sick aged body to the toilet and wipe their ass and be happy to do it kind of love" as stated above. I am not going to turn down the tax deduction. And I don't have the power to change the tax law. Oh, and not everyone gets divorced.

        I'm not saying its a good thing, but I think you would agree that most people but take a couple hundred bucks from a social program even though they may believe in small government.
    • pagno, on 07/20/2008, -0/+2Because Churches have no power themselves, so they lobby the Govt. to step in and do it for them.
    • smemily, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0It's not the taxes.
      And it's not religious. It may be for some, but it's not religious by default.

      Marriage is being able to choose your own family relationships.
      The default, if you die or are incapacitated, is your parents/ siblings make medical decisions for you. They inherit your stuff. They have power of attorney over you. They decide to pull the plug or not.

      When you make a committed relationship to another person and want to define this as a familial relationship, that's where marriage comes in. In signing that $50 contract you confer power-of-attorney rights, you confer inheritance-without-taxes rights, you are able to have joint legal custody of children, you are recognized as "family" when buying insurance, etc.

      Many of those rights CANNOT be conferred otherwise. Period. The ones that can, must have a contract drafted by a lawyer, signed, notarized, and can still be challenged in court. Especially by the birth family if one party to the contract ends up deceased.

      Marriage gives us the ability to define our families as adults, to choose whom we trust with our life and our belongings. Marriage is inexpensive enough to be accessible to even the poorest in our country. Marriage confers legal rights that CANNOT be obtained by any other means.

      Remove civil marriage, and you ensure more inheritance taxes paid andno marriage-like contracts for the poor / uneducated (who can't draft their own contract, and can't afford a lawyer).
  • withears, on 07/20/2008, -6/+8Thank you census bureau for defending my marriage. If those gay people were allowed to be "married" then my marriage would be null and void.

    Now, is there something you can do about that war criminal in the White House?
  • mogebier, on 07/20/2008, -15/+1Who cares how many of them get married?? Gay people are less than 1% of the population anyway, so the statistic wouldn't be very big anyway.
    • geekchic, on 07/20/2008, -1/+13"Gay people are less than 1% of the population anyway"

      Really - care to explain that statistic which flies in the face of practically every study ever carried out?
      • mogebier, on 07/20/2008, -9/+1Show me a study with statistics. If they were a bigger part of the population, they would have a bigger presence in government and society. There are 11% Blacks and 12% Mexicans. If there were indeed 10% Gays like they claim, then they wouldn't have such a problem with integrating their views into society.
      • cg4et, on 07/20/2008, -0/+9mogebier,

        I am sure you have a study that you can cite to back up your 1% number. I am certain you aren't just pulling it out of your ass.
      • JigoroKano, on 07/20/2008, -0/+10Black people make up a quarter of all Alabamians and they still had the dogs and fire hoses on them during civil rights. That logic really doesn't fly.
    • flashback99, on 07/20/2008, -3/+2Read the ***** stats after ***** looking for them yourself. If you gave half a ***** you wouldnt whine like a baby when common knowledge easily available on the internet ***** your ***** 1% up.
      • mogebier, on 07/20/2008, -7/+1Lefties are so intolerant of other people's views, aren't you??
        I am not whining, jerk. I am just stating that if they were indeed as many as they claim, then they would have had Gay Marriage years ago.
      • yosempai, on 07/20/2008, -1/+6Us 'lefties' are just intolerant of intolerance.
    • immortalglory, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0It's sad when anyone categorically depicts either liberals or conservatives as some sort of homogeneous blob with the same traits down to their prejudices. When the truth is that intolerance is not bound by any political view. Anyone can be intolerant. But you knew that, I think. On your second argument even if gays made up around 7% of the population as one study proposes (namely "The prevalence of homosexual behavior in the United States, the United Kingdom and France: Results of national population-based samples") then that 7% would still have to convince nearly half the non-gay population that Gay Marriage should be a legitimate institution which given the prevalence of anti-gay sentiment would be exceedingly difficult.
  • GassyTurd, on 07/20/2008, -8/+2My personal hero, Mr. Goatse, isn't gay is he?
  • userperson, on 07/20/2008, -6/+1Yes, it's important to have the names and address along with who practice this, on file. That way if someone wants to cause these people trouble. *eye-roll @ gay people seeking W - love *
  • flashback99, on 07/20/2008, -2/+7Yet another example of religion ***** with reality to protect an illusion.
  • BushidoHacks, on 07/20/2008, -5/+1I am not at all in favor of gay mariage and I know their are people out there with similiar feelings. But despite our objections, this has not stopped peopled from going through with it anyway. As much as I do not favor it, it is the decision of gay couples. However, one thing that is far worse than gay marriage is inaccurate census statistics! Bad statistics are like doing accounting with two sets of books. Eventually, it is going to catch up with you in a negative way. Since it is so much easier to conduct a proper census than to convince a gay couple why they should not marry, the Census Bureau will have to record the marrages reguardless of the objections by the Census Bureau and individuals like myself who do not agree with the concept of gay marriage. More than likely, the CB doesn't want to alter their SQL tables to include Gay Marrages and Gay Divorces.
    • userperson, on 07/20/2008, -2/+1"Bad statistics are like doing accounting with two sets of books."
      WHATT! why do any marriages need to be accounted for on a census?
      Census originally was just to get the count of people for the right number of representatives, now it's important to get as much info as possible? Not that they aren't doing that everyday via every other means anyway?
      Creepy.
      • Spire3660, on 07/20/2008, -1/+2Its not an odd request to find out how many people fall into the 'married' demographic and is very useful information in tax disbursement, civil planning etc etc.
      • userperson, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1@Spire3660
        How often do you touch yourself?
        I need to know my the reasons tax disbursement, civil planning etc etc. /s
        Why do they need to know? What are they planning?

        This would all be well and good, but this isn't an optional survey at your local Denny's. You face possible consequences for not answering or not answering truthfully. I don't see why they need to know... never mind that tax returns, and all other forms of records they have access to.
  • rybiideeg, on 07/20/2008, -17/+0gay marriages is biblical

    and so does taking up the cross with jesus christ

    sodom and gomorha -- it is all gay and incest and oral plus clean ones

    and god send down fire from heaven to consume them

    where as jesus christ -- all he did was try to save some souls -- and he got hang

    but no broken legs

    hey but i think rahab husband is also boaz wasn't it?

    • lazerflesh, on 07/20/2008, -0/+5Read a ***** book- you_simple_fool.
  • michael43, on 07/20/2008, -2/+1It must be a slow day if that's all they have to bitch about. The less personal information they have about my family, the better I like it.
  • Fremen93, on 07/20/2008, -1/+2This is kind of like that fool from Iran who said there are no gay people in Iran. So it seems our census takers want to be able to say there are no gay marriages in the USA.
    • userperson, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1... and that will make it true. /s
      We should prevent them from saying it -- I'll gag them, you hold them down. /s
  • weside, on 07/20/2008, -4/+1Ah, just another one of the benefits of the Defense of Marriage Act! Snuff out the proliferation of this immorality and aberrant social behavior.
  • lazerflesh, on 07/20/2008, -1/+1Why don't we call them the "free states" and than see if other states would like to follow ?
  • Midtowner, on 07/20/2008, -0/+1It's federalism folks. States can have free marriage, but the states don't tell the feds what to do. I'd assume that if a Democrat is in office next year, some of these policies might change.

  • hcharger, on 07/21/2008, -2/+0 Its amazing how more stupid people are becoming in this day & age of permissiveness everything. God initiated the marriage act between a man and a woman...only. He does not approve of homosexuality and moralistic behavour, he refers it to detestable and obscene. Only man with his debauched way of thinking would ever consider homosexuality normalcy.
    When mankind finally crosses the line of divine laws and standards, only then will he learn that in Jehovah God`s new world order which will be implemented after Armageddon that immoral behavour which includes homosexuals will be gone from the face of the earth forever.
    • dshigure, on 07/21/2008, -0/+2Please stop scapegoating God and using him to excuse your personal prejudices, Mr. Troll. Some of us grown-ups still believe in him.
      • hcharger, on 07/22/2008, -2/+0 I just state my opinion on here and along comes someone to actually prove without a doub't how right my first sentence in my comment was.
    • smemily, on 07/21/2008, -0/+0Collectively the government should not care what your sky-buddy supposedly thinks.
  • ohpiddle, on 07/21/2008, -0/+1Wait a minute. I thought that gay's wanted to be treated like everyone else. Now they want their own by line in the census? Which is it? Do you want to be treated like everyone else or treated differently. I am so sick of the double standard.
  • flawedprefect, on 07/22/2008, -0/+1So if I were a Gay Jedi...
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.