U.S. Census Bureau won't count same-sex marriages (even where legal)

[Newsjock]

Source: San Jose Mercury News

Tens of thousands of same-sex couples are expected to marry legally in California by 2010, if a constitutional ban on gay marriage doesn't pass at the polls in November.

But no matter what the voters decide, the official government count of the number of married same-sex couples in California is not in doubt. It will be zero.

The U.S. Census Bureau, reacting to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and other mandates, plans to edit the 2010 census responses of same-sex couples who marry legally in California, Massachusetts or any other state. They will be reported as "unmarried partners," rather than married spouses, in census tabulations - a policy that will likely draw the ire of gay rights groups.

... "To have the federal government disappear your marriage I'm sure will be painful and upsetting," said Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights. "It really is something out of Orwell. It's shameful."

Read more: http://origin.mercurynews.com/ci_9860727?nclick_check=1

[marmar]

1. That's ridiculous.....If it's a legally-recognized marriage, how can they disregard it?

I sense an ACLU lawsuit......

[Danmel]

2. Since when has following the law been an obstacle to this crew?

eom

[The Croquist]

38. Since it will be a different crew in 2010

Obama will be president.

[Danmel]

39. From your mouth, as they say

Hopeflly there will be time to make sure a REAL census is taken, not a gerrymandered one.

[Joe Bacon]

9. Doesn't the "Defense of Marriage" act make them do this?

I think there's something in DOMA that forbids any Federal agency from recognizing a same sex couple.

[jody]

11. I believe you are correct re DOMA. See 1 USC 7 below

ON EDIT ADD:
1 USC 7 says:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word “marriage” means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word “spouse” refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

33. If it has such language, I see a constitutional challenge to DOMA in the near future. -nt

[Zuiderelle]

40. You are right, the language itself is so OBVIOUSLY unconstitutional, I'm surprised it hasn't been

challenged and thrown out already.

[Tesha]

41. Our side has been too busy stockpiling dry powder. (NT)

[harmonicon]

17. federal vs. state

I know quite a big about this, because I have a good friend who's a US citizen, but his boyfriend is French. They would love to get married, but even if they were married in a US state, the boyfriend still couldn't immigrate to the US, because immigration is a federal thing, and the marriage wouldn't be recognized for those purposes. It's total crap. I'm glad that some states are coming on line about marriage, but I think there needs to be more awareness about how these marriages aren't really as official as other marriages. I didn't realize that there was a distinction until my friend told me.

[Siyahamba]

31. I'm in a very similar situation myself.

And it is very surprising how few people know about the separation of federal and state marriage benefits.

[harmonicon]

32. I'm sorry to hear that

I would imagine that by the numbers it's a small thing, but those numbers are real people like you and my friends. People need to hear these stories I think, because otherwise folks - including gay folks - in places like CA and MA may become complacent about the issue.

[Cooley Hurd]

3. I believe that will change before the 2010 census...

...as long as McCain loses in November.

The purpose of the census is to create a statistical profile of ALL US citizens - to omit ANY group makes that statistical profile skewed and, ultimately, useless.

DOMA needs to be repealed within the first few months of the Obama administration!

[Robb]

4. RTFA:

A census technical note that explains the bureau's rationale on counting same-sex partners for the 2000 census notes that the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act "instructs all federal agencies only to recognize opposite-sex marriages for the purposes of enacting any agency programs."

O'Connell said the Census Bureau has been unable to find any federal agency that collects data on same-sex married couples. Changing the policy before the 2010 census also would be a huge and difficult logistical issue.

This is a national data set. It's not designed to count married same-sex couples, it's not mandated to count married same-sex couples, and it's not funded to count married same-sex couples. :shrug:

[Newsjock]

6. Too bad

a huge and difficult logistical issue

Same-sex marriages were not legal in any state in 2000. Now they are. The "logistical issue" is a smokescreen, especially since it's not like they just discovered this yesterday. They have years to plan, if they choose.

Denying the existence of married same-sex couples in our nation's official data is, as the spokeswoman for the National Center for Lesbian Rights says, "Orwellian."

This has nothing whatsoever to do with "enacting" any program. This is recording, for posterity, the raw data of our nation. If some people's twisted idea of Jeebus means they don't like the data, that's their problem.

[Robb]

13. Well, we can't have it both ways

The Census Bureau is a federal deal. Nationally we couldn't get same sex marriage, so individual states went for it, and made it a state's rights issue.

Cash-strapped state planners use national Census data in ways it was never intended anyhow; budget and districting policy decisions should be made on a state level by information the state gathers, and for those purposes -- using state demographers.

It may feel like the U.S. Census data are being collected for posterity, but there are specific uses intended for national-level sampling -- and local-level sampling. Mixing the two results in crap; population estimates are a great example, if you want accuracy on a county level, for example, you go with the state's numbers.

If State A wants data on same sex marriages it allows, it needs to collect it. Because that information is of little use on the national level, given the absence of national policy decisions that can be made from it.

Politics and "what's right" aside, this is little different from the states that allow moose hunting being concerned the national Census doesn't include moose hunter data. And I don't mean to trivialize the issue, but there it is.

Is it right? No. But that's the deal.

[bean fidhleir]

14. "doesn't include moose hunter data"

Does the Census include other hunter data? If they do, do they *exclude* moose-hunter data?

If not, your analogy is off.

[Robb]

18. "Occupation"

Actually, it turns out to be a great analogy. Alligator and mountain lion hunters have their own occupation codes. Everyone else goes under "game" or "nonspecific."

Why? Federal-level legislative decisions are made on alligator and lion hunting that are mandated to be determined from census results.

[bean fidhleir]

22. Unless moose are an endangered species, then they're not in the same category as

gators and lions, so there's no reason to enumerate them separately and the analogy is lousy.

[Robb]

24. You've rather walked off and left the point behind

Unless there is a federal program that, by law, makes policy decisions based on same sex marriages, there's zero point to the Census counting them.

Or, put another way, until there is a federal program that, by law, makes policy decisions based on same sex marriages, there's zero point to the Census counting them.

Don't mistake what the Census is for.

[bean fidhleir]

25. I don't think so. If the feds count marriages -which they do-

and break them out by "race" -which they do, even though there are no special programs that focus on the intersection of race and marriage- then there's no reason apart from inappropriate prejudice to not count valid same-sex marriages.

The major role of the Census is only to *count*.

[Robb]

26. Not true

Several federal welfare programs are required by law to learn about the race of families involved, ostensibly to assist in crafting policy. Privacy remains, but the collection of those numbers was mandated by Congress years ago.

Now, that said, it stands to reason it would be of similar interest to know what percentage of those families have same sex parents. However, until that is part of a mandate at the federal level, and is required to craft policy, the Census will not count them.

I liken it to if the feds passed a law saying all cars must be painted yellow, and a federal car-painting agency painted all the cars yellow. Making a big deal out of the painters painting as directed isn't sensible. As part of a discussion of the ramifications of the decision to paint all cars yellow, it's illuminating, but if it's the mandate of that agency to do it, you can't exactly blame them.

[DCKit]

7. No doubt it would cost a Brazillion $$$$ to add a single question to the census.

Democrats... spend, spend, spend. Have we no shame? :sarcasm:

[Occulus]

16. Not even a question

just an additional checkbox.

There is no GOOD reason for this. None.

[babylonsister]

5. What a joke; so disregard any numbers coming out of this, because

they're all flawed. What's the point of even taking a census? Ridiculous.

[cyclezealot]

8. Heck . No Census bureau figure stands over your shoulder?

Would not anyone know the difference, should you mark the form the way you legally see it. Should a person have a marriage license in Calif, say?

[awoke_in_2003]

10. States' Rights

used to be something the republican party made a bunch of noise about. Guess some states' rights don't matter now, as long as you disagree with it.

[renaissanceguy]

12. Yup, they only like the states that

share their own ideology. Everyone else is out of touch with the mainstream. :Sarcasm:


http://www.cafepress.com/liberalissues.54472365

[LiveLiberally]

15. This is another example of the glacial pace...

of removing the legal, cultural and economic barriers to equality based on sexual orientation. It IS happening -- but as usual the government will be the last to recognize it.

Caveat: Global warming may invalidate this metaphor. (Glaciers are moving a lot faster than social change nowadays... ;( )

[benld74]

19. But the IRS will STILL take your tax money! so cheer up

[LiberalFighter]

20. The Census Director is a Presidential appointment

Kincannon will be gone after 2008.

[LiberalFighter]

21. How will the Census stop same sex couples from identifying themselves as married in the Census?

One could either designate person 1 as being married to person 2.

Or one could use the "Other relative -- Print exact relationship"
www.census.gov/dmd/www/pdf/d61a.pdf

All Republicans in Texas should identify themselves as being deceased on the form.

[Ms. Toad]

27. You can mark it as you see fit .

Since I am legally married, I will mark mine married. My form, however, will be modified by the Census Bureau to domestic partner.

I worked the 2000 Census - that is the instruction we were given when someone of the same gender as person 1 marked "spouse" to person 1 as the relationship.

Although DOMA does prevent federal recognition of marriages - so they can't count it as a federally recognized marriage. There is nothing in DOMA that would prevent them from gathering accurate information, however. They can count whatever they want - all they would need is an extra box that indicates "legally married, but not recognized under federal law" or "same gender marriage" or something similar.

[pleah]

23. How can the sensus bureau legally get away with this

when these couples are legally married?

[Ms. Toad]

29. Marriage has always been a state issue.

but the Federal government treatment of same gender marriages under DOMA is in sharp contrast to how it treats marriage in general.

Common law marriages are a good example. Ohio, until sometime in the early 90s, recognized common law marriages. All you had to do was to live together, be eligible to legally marry, hold yourselves out as married, and be perceived by others as married. Once you met those criteria, you were married whether or not you went through any civil or religious ceremony, obtained a marraige license, or anything else.

For tax purposes, anyone in Ohio who established a common law marriage prior to the cutoff date was legally entitled to mark "married" on their tax return.

Similarly, any couple who entered into a common law marriage during that same time frame in a state that did not recognize common law marriages would not have been entitled to claim married status on their Federal tax forms - even though those same actions in Ohio would have qualified them for recognition by the federal government.

Absent DOMA, the government would have been required to treat California, Massachusetts, and Canadian same gender marriages as marriages for all Federal purposes - now that DOMA is in place, they are forbidden from doing so - at least until it is repealed or a constitutional challenge knocks it down.

It doesn't change the legal relationship - which is, at core, a bargain between the state that married the couple and the couple. It just means that the Feds are not permitted to recognize the legal relationship.

Cross border/cross government level recognition of marriages is something we have all grown so accustomed to that we forget that each individual marriage really only grants rights and privileges in the state where it is created - and that it took many years of individual court cases to work it out so that marriages in one state or country were recognized in other states or countries for purposes of settling estate, child custody, bigamy, and other matters.

[pleah]

36. Thank you. n/t

[Robeson]

28. The American Taliban strikes again.

[Zhade]

30. Fucking ASSHOLES.

NT!

[Proud Liberal Dem]

34. Because if you don't count it, it doesn't exist of course!

:sarcasm:

[Zuiderelle]

35. So they will spend extra money to EDIT / CHANGE the responses of same-sex couples.

The U.S. Census Bureau, reacting to the federal Defense of Marriage Act and other mandates, plans to edit the 2010 census responses of same-sex couples who marry legally in California, Massachusetts or any other state. They will be reported as "unmarried partners," rather than married spouses, in census tabulations - a policy that will likely draw the ire of gay rights groups.

Wonderful. Now, that's a really good use of our tax money. Spending extra time, money and resources to CHANGE the responses. Recognizing the marriages would be simpler and cheaper, and fair.

[XemaSab]

37. And then the right wing will get all freaked out about the number of

"unmarried partners." :eyes:

[dysfunctional press]

42. always remember- it was bill clinton who proudly signed the defense of marriage act into law.

we haven't had a democrat in the white house since jimmy carter left.