2010 Census Won't Recognize Same-Sex Marriage Responses

Here's a thought. Rather than refuse to complete the senseless, I mean, Census, how about we intentionally skew the numbers? Report that we have 8 to 10 kids with 1 parent in the house for a gay couple, or some other ridiculous result. Census figures are statistics. If enough people provide invalid data, the results won't be valid. If they can't include us, we can make their tool useless. Oh, we have a useless tool already, it's called the president. In the meantime, I agree with Bryan, to work toward changing the laws rather than accepting the garbage they're using. “We are just showing the data published in a way that is consistent with the way every other agency publishes their data,” Martin O’Connell, chief of the Census Bureau’s Fertility and Family Statistics Branch. Perhaps Mr. O'Connell needs to recognize that "every other agency" is living in the past, and should makes efforts to be a leader, not another lemming.

Since it is in our best interest to be a part of the census for congressional districting, etc. I think an appropriate course of action would be to refuse to send in the initial mail-in form, as well as the follow-up mail-in form. This will trigger the census bureau to be required to contact us in person. This will create havoc for the federal government and clearly make a statement without losing our ability to at least be counted unfairly Also, keep in mind, the maximum fine for not completing the census at all is $100 - so those in red states/cities/counties, it may be best to just refuse altogether! LOL

Right, Rob & Clay! Since the last census, my wife and I became a two-mommie family when we legally adopted our two daughters (in Colorado under a new law in effect there just last year) and so we are waiting to see what the census bureau does with that. We've already had to correct many different local agencies (here in Indiana) who either act confused or want to argue with us that it just is not possible. We don't go anywhere without their new birth certificates and our adoption papers.

Fact is, this is a federal census and the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages as legal. Is that shameful? Of course it is. But it's also lawful as we speak. Will that change? Of course it will. And we should seize upon instances like this in order make it clear why it is so fundamental that legal unions are recognized.

Fact is, this is a federal census and the federal government does not recognize same-sex marriages as legal. Is that shameful? Of course it is. But it's also lawful as we speak. Will that change? Of course it will. And we should seize upon instances like this in order make it clear why it is so fundamental that legal unions are recognized.

During the last Census, census workers came to our house six--yes, that's what I said--six different times to "clarify" our responses on the census form. The "clarification" they wanted was regarding our relationship: two women sharing a household. We didn't know whether to be appalled or amused because it was so ridiculous. We were as clear as we possibly could be, short of spelling the word lesbian, and yet the workers just couldn't quite document it. Our tax dollars at work.

A couple of people have targeted Ms Minter without realizing the circular nature of their firing squad. Speaking of perspective and focus, let's keep it on the Census Bureau, which plans to ignore marriage and family data about citizens if they are gay. The law you say they should follow is, in fact, perfectly Orwellian. Wikipedia: The adjective Orwellian describes the situation, idea, or societal condition that George Orwell identified as being non-favourable to the welfare of a free-society. It connotes an attitude and a policy of control by propaganda, misinformation, denial of truth, and manipulation of the past, including the "unperson" — a person whose past existence is expunged from the public record and memory, practiced by modern repressive governments.

As an amateur genealogist who happens to be legally married (in MA) to a same-sex spouse, it breaks my heart to think that decades from now my grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and any other future researchers will look at the 2010 census entry and see us listed as single. "In accordance with law" or not, this insult (and gross inaccuracy, since marriage law resides at the state level) will remain in the census archives long after we're dead and gone - persisting even beyond the time when future generations look back at the same-sex marriage controversy and ask, "What was *that* about?" How horribly sad and unnecessary.

If the federal government leaves marriage up to the states, and then supports the the republican-passed DOM and then changes the census data, are they not being two-faced on the topic. (yeah, I hear your disgust and nasty comments just about now.) It sure looks like a nasty lawsuit in the making to me. What about people who are asexual (born without sex organs) or those born with some or all of both? Can they legally marry anywhere? Aren't they also human, deserving of a recognized relationship. There may not be many of them, but they do exist, and I have met some of each. How do they show up on the census? There are more than just "M" or "F" in this world.

...just one more way for us not to be counted. Those of you voting for EITHER McCain OR Obama beware: they BOTH support this.