More pointless things for people to complain about

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

Ahhhh the census.

All the rancor surrounding it are simply amusing and astounding. There is nothing wrong with census taking. There is nothing wrong with the questions being asked. As for the craziness regarding the encouragement that the US Census Bureau is giving to gay and lesbian couples to indicate that they are married; who really cares? Truth is that this information is not available to the public. The public moral fiber is not threatened in anyway and the data has little effect society’s acceptance or lace of acceptance of such issues. Truth is that the people that don’t support gay marriage still won’t support it just because the gay couple next door privately checked a box on a private form that will be counted and handled far from the public eye (at least for 72 years).

Maybe there will be some statistical release that indicates that the number of gay couples living in a self proclaimed state of matrimony is a larger percentage of the population than we had previously - again, so what? If you are a parent, parent your children as you see fit. These folk, the ones going off on this subject, these people will simply never accept same sex couples.

As for the government, if they want to gather marital status for statistical purposes and the determination of proper representation, I could care less. Issues like this will hardly matter to the purpose of the census. Most of the data is used for simple unrelated statics and demographics. It’s also Constitutionally required. Anyone claiming to be a Constitutionalist has to support the taking of the census.

As for accusations of people being “liars” if they are half of a same sex couple and they indicate they are “married” on the census; oh please! It is not as if this lends any credibility or credence to the status. Government has not place, no place at all, in defining the interpersonal relations of anyone. Marital questions and all marital supports, recognition and etc should be removed from government. Count the people in the residence. The selection of “married” on some form is only validating to the person checking it -  and I am certain they can validate this in their deeds without some form.

So what? Why should anyone give a crap about a gay couple checking married on a form that will not effect any sort of real change as a result of the mark?

Why should government even have any official recognition of the marital status of a couple?

Comments

funniest thing ive heard all day

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

This information isn't available to the public?



http://www.intelius.com/ (http://www.intelius.com/)

^ What is that? lol

Re: funniest thing ive heard all day

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

The answers that individuals give on the forms is not generally and typically available to the public.. not that it matters all that much to me. Additionally, the raw data that makes up the Census is "closed" for 72 years. Private companies and processed data from the Census is available from many sources. If I wanted to see how the Williams up the street answered their forms - that information is not going to be available.

Re: funniest thing ive heard all day

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

The info is already available. The census is redundant, if you think about it.

Re: funniest thing ive heard all day

[penguin42.livejournal.com]

Er, people search systems like that don't get their information from the Census

Re: funniest thing ive heard all day

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

If they got their information from the Census, how could they have the information before the census was completed?

Time machine?

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Oh! And, if the above wasn't transparent to you, the information is available(see link I posted). And, has been available for years now.

Your information and point of view is only obsolete by 5-10 years or so...

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

Why should government even have any official recognition of the marital status of a couple?

1. taxes
2. medical benefits
3. standard procedures for marital-stlye contracts
etc.

Note that it's not official recognition of anything. Government approved "marriage" is only similar to marriage by name and some overlap of function.

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

1 Nope - it shouldn't. They should treat them as two individuals and tax them as individuals. The tax status is specifically one of the things I have a problem with.

2 Medical benefits... again no... any such beneficial status can and should be contractually established.

3 The key term being "standard" as in traditional - Just because it has been that way it doesn't need to stay that way. Contracts can be determined without the definition of marriage as a requirement.

etc.

[torpidai.livejournal.com]

The tax status is specifically one of the things I have a problem with.


You need your congressmans phone #?

Contracts can be determined without the definition of marriage as a requirement.

The Marriage was/is the contract if I understood him/her correctly.

Does your education system rely on your taxes?

[mijan.livejournal.com]

1. If the tax laws treated all individuals identically, whether they were married or not, I'd have no problem with it. However, as long as heterosexual married couples get tax perks, it strikes me as disgustingly unfair and ethically wrong for a legally secular nation to deny those benefits to gay couples.

2. I'm not allowed to be on my wife's health insurance policy. She's not allowed to be on mine. Why? Because our state doesn't recognize same-sex marriage. We could establish any contract we'd like, and write a mile-high stack of paperwork giving her my power-of-attorney, next-of-kin, sole beneficiary, or whatever... but they still won't let us have one family health insurance plan.

3. Unfortunately, there are no contracts, piles of paperwork, that would ever give my wife and me the LEGAL benefits of a married couple.

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Not read due to your disregard for standard text.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Big deal. If you don't want to read something, the easiest thing is to find excuses not to read it.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

Don't care due to your lack of content.

If you don't like it - move on.

Ok, I should try to give you a serious reply that is worth something.

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

Part of the issue with the census stems from a lack of trust in the government to properly utilize and safegyard the information. Its very easy to get a hold of someone's tax history, their social security number, their criminal record, address and other such information which should probably be confidential to protect against identity theft, fraud, stalking and other such issues.

Yet, the government does none of those things. It neither passes laws nor legislation to prevent corporations and information sharing services from giving out peoples private information for a fee. Nor does it appear to adhere to any protocols which are designed to protect peoples privacy to help ensure they do not become victims of identity theft, etc.

Therefore, it has shown itself to be untrustworthy and unreliable if not completely incompetent in terms of having or protecting such information. An example of information protection would be having the option of delisting your name, number & address from the phone book. Where's the modern implementation of this type of privacy protecction? It simply doesn't exist, and, people, generally respond accordingly.

The second issue stems from what a judge has recently ruled is illegal monitoring and electronic surveillance of US citizens done by government intelligence agencies, recently. It used to be that to get a wiretap they had to get a warrant and a certain amount of documentation had to be done.

Now, there are no such restrictions. Surveillance agencies are wired directly into ISP's and phone networks and can monitor and gather information without being regulated or monitored to ensure they do not abuse their power / authority.

And, the third issue stems from the census being a sign of the government taking steps to crack down in terms of taxes and other related areas. Almost as if US citizens were to blame for economic woes, job woes and issues relating to government monetary insolvency. Is that cool? Not really. Yet, here you are defending the government for its history of reacting both irresponsibly and inappropriately.

Why is that?

Re: Ok, I should try to give you a serious reply that is worth something.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Those recent changes in surveillance techniques sound like something that Obama would implement. No self-respecting Republican administration would be so crass as to stick their nose in anyone's private telecommunications.

Re: Ok, I should try to give you a serious reply that is worth something.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

And this, is before the feds declare all the people of New York criminals (and they do later with Los Angeles) and turn them into walled city-prisons.

Re: Ok, I should try to give you a serious reply that is worth something.

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

People act irresponsibly all the time. Why should we expect government made of the people to be different. No I don't think it is acceptable, but it is par.

As for defending the government, no. I defend that it is a requirement to conduct the census, and I have seen the forms, and read them, and answered them. There is nothing objectionable in them. If anything I am not defending the government's place in defining relationships.

I actually don't disagree with much of your response, but don't see how it is relevant... except the last part... a crackdown on taxes and etc...? Not sure where you're going there. I just do not see this as factual or related. Not trying to be annoying, could you explain this better and maybe provide examples - I do not see this at all.

Underground marriage

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

I haven't followed any of the chatter on the gay marriage census issue, so this is sort of new territory for me. It sparks an interesting idea, though. It's fascinating that religious bigots are so afraid of having underground marriages see the light of day in federal statistics. On the other hand, it does conform with the abject fear of the truth that we see in that segment of society.

Re: Underground marriage

[root-fu.livejournal.com]

It sparks another interesting idea.

The gay marriage angle--which may or may not, even exist, is an attempt to co-opt a legitimate issue and turn it into a gay rights battle which will inevitably favor the census.

Coincidence?

Re: Underground marriage

[a4honor.livejournal.com]

Ok, I'll skip the argument and ask you for another example. One single example of a country that has existed in the same form of government and culture 50 years after the official recognition, or major acceptance(60% or more) of homosexuality.

Re: Underground marriage

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

I have always pondered the same. I am married with kids. I have no fear that the sudden statistical appearance of gay couples in my community would make my kids "turn gay". In fact if that is who they turn out to be it's really not a problem - except in some states... any parent that would have a problem with that has little love for their children and deserve any rejection that comes from their reaction (IMHO).

[a4honor.livejournal.com]

I really have to ask, what relevance does any of this have. The government has taken the census for years. What ever they are going to do, they will do regardless of the census numbers.

My conservative associates, let us not be overtaken wit issues of unimportance. Your information is for sale to the highest bidder, or rather to any buyer, SSN and all.

[tniassaint.livejournal.com]

Ahhhhh and I agree with you there. To be fair I was simply making noise.

Truth is that the information from the census is more often used for gerrymandering - no matter the results both sides will find reason to call foul eventually.