Census won't count gay marriages in 2010

Finally - a solution to problems with the Federal budget deficit, trade deficit, education deficit, global warming, job outsourcing, immigration, Iraq, Afghanistan-Pakistan, terrorism, the middle-East, drug use, pension plan insolvency, dollar weakness, and rising health care and food costs!

A Congressional ammendment is called for here. This ten-year census will set the basis for the next ten years, too long to wait to acknowlege both the changes in two states and the shifts in others. Revision of data, scientific and otherwise, during the current Administration, is already an international joke. We still take seriously racial designations, for which there is no biological basis in DNA, but cannot account for legally binding designations in two states. While other states are still working on reciprocity implications, there will be no federal data to rely on. The mock turtle, which pulls its head in during election years, should become our national bird, replacing the valiant eagle on all federal seals. One of America's values is reality testing opinions and initiatives. We also favor making an accurate count , so that gaseous pronouncements can be deflated. Let's not take no for an answer.

If they counted us, then that would mean we exist. God forbid that should happen.

I agree Bruce, God forbid that should happen. In reality Bruce your union isn't marriage. Call it what you will but marriage is not a word to describe what ever kind of relationship your in

What is the Federal law? oh that's right, marriage is defined as one man and one woman. Not to be confused with anything polygamist in nature. Has nothing to do with morals or your existence, it is the law. Why would the Federal government want to acknowledge a couple of amoral rogue states? What should happen is there should be a space added for adult-union or something. I think I am a senior citizen, but certain individuals believe I need to be over 65 or something which is utter crap. I mean how can people be so malicious, hurtful, and discriminatory towards me. Wait, just because I do not fit the definition of the word I can not use it to describe myself? What is this world coming to? I want my discount!!! I'm suing

What is this nation coming to? Are we to question everything? Pretty soon if a person wants to call his/her pet a "baby", then sue to have fluffy recognized as such, they will eventually want fluffy in the same daycare as your child!!! What's next, inter-species marriage? I guarantee that someone will lobby the federal government to recognize beastiality as an "alternative" lifestyle, yearning one day to be joined in unholy martrimony with his/her cat, threatening to sue anyone who dares to say otherwise in public. America, we have to draw the line somewhere. The LGBT lobby says "who is to define a marriage"? On that same token, who is to define an adult versus a child? Should we then let minors into the bars, clubs, and strip joints? Cultural absolutism is bad but at least there is a standard whereas with relativism there is only an evermore slippery slope into the abyss of anarchy.

I like how Kevin even uses the expression "slippery slope" when "the slippery slope" argument is one of the most famous logical fallacies.

You have absolutely no evidence that if gay marriage were passed that this would result in legalized bestiality or child/adult marriages. Almost everyone (supporter of gay marriage or not) recognizes that a marriage would have to be between adults, because they are the only ones can give CONSENT. An animal doesn't give consent to be married, and a child would be too young to be able to make an informed decision on the matter. Until you can prove (and you'll never be able to) that passing gay marriage will set into motion a sequence of events that will result in legalized bestiality and child/adult marriages, your argument is void.

Also, even if we were considering gay marriage a moral issue, that wouldn't be relevant in this matter because from a legal standpoint, those CA and MA couples ARE married. Whether you think they should be or not is completely irrelevant, they have a legally recognized marriage and so to ignore them just doesn't make sense.

It all comes down to being able to give consent. This is why we consider interracial marriages, marriages between people of different religions, marriages between a 25 year old and a 55 year old to all be valid. They are all of age to be able to give informed consent, and so can gays.

That the census should create a special bracket for homosexual marriage is a given. More data is useful for businesses to make better fiscal decisions in the future. This is a business issues and considering California is the largest economic producer in the United States there is a great need for this data if Gay Marriage is legal long term in California. Note: the voters in California voted against legal gay marriage but the Supreme Court made gay marriage legal. Hence gay marriage may become non-recognized in California again after this November.

Additional values of adding homosexual marriage to data are: HIV infection rate information potential, state funded health care costs, employer health care costs, whether homosexual marriages even last, etc. The statistical data is far more valuable than the recognition factor. All of this information helps businesses figure the cost of doing business, and are important.

Personally I could care less if a man wants to marry his cat, vacuum cleaner, transvestite friend, or 18 yr. old girlfriend; same applies to women. The legal ramifications obviously are a mess and what is socially acceptable is of even greater question.

This is not an attack on the gay community but rather a issue these individuals still have in a partially conservative society. Thus far a majority of Americans find marriage between homosexuals socially unacceptable (like it or not). And these are Americans that appear to vote their mind to support their personal beliefs. Hence, why any government organization has a difficult time justifying the use of taxpayer monies to pay for "counting" homosexual marriages.

Rule by the majority of the people, and the majority thus far has spoken against any recognition of homosexual marriage. All the debate in the world won't change that 2 out of 50 states, technically 1 if you consider the voice of the PEOPLE in California, support gay marriage and the others do not. The homosexual lobby loses; sorry thats America and if you don't like it then go to socialist Canada or Europe.

Well, actually, according to the most recent polls (2008), gay marriage is actually supported in California by a slim majority, but even if this weren't the case, America's never been a true "majority of the people" nation from the very beginning. A majority of people living in the 1860s wanted to keep slavery, but the judiciary effectively abolished it. This all goes back to the Founding Fathers intent for the Constitution to institute a system of checks and balances. The people vote for the president and members of Congress; the president appoints judges of the federal court system and Congress approves it; the courts ensure that neither the President, Congress, nor the people themselves try to enact laws that aren't in line with the Constitution. Everything checks everything else. Therefore, even if the majority of the people TODAY wanted to pass a law that, say, disenfranchised people over the age of 70, they wouldn't be able to on a constitutional basis.

"Majority of the people" may be a pretty expression to casually toss around, but that's not how the American brand of democracy really works, so maybe it's not that we need to go to socialist Canada and more that you become more truly American by brushing up on your elementary American history.

JoanJean Don't sugar coat it,,, tell us what you really think. This society is taking steps toward ruin and disaster by allowing itself to be bullied by every little splinter group that comes along. Yes, gays are a tiny
part of the population but very loud and disgusting. They want the people in general to accept
and teach that being gay is normal. It is not normal, that is why gay people themselves refer to
each other as queer.

I thought marriage a Judo/Christian concept. I also thought that the concept of worshiping the creation rather that the Creator a state of fallen man. In the first place if God created them male and female there must have been a purpose. The gays have turned their backs on this purpose in order to love their own image. So why are they also wanting to gain legal marriage standing according to the law of God? Why don't they make up another union definition and stick with it. Why would they also want to be recognized by the law of God if they have turned their backs on His fundamental truths. Sounds like they want their cake and eat it too.