![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
tniassaint.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpolitics2010-04-06 05:40 pm
More pointless things for people to complain about
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.
Why should government even have any official recognition of the marital status of a couple?
no subject
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.
no subject
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?
no subject
You can understand it to be the contract - I will not say you're wrong. I say that the traditional associations with the term are inappropriately applied to governmental process and rules, and are applied in an unfair and biased manner - and that this specific sort of contract implies far more and in fact carries far more legal and personal baggage than the contracts involving the various "Civil Unions" represent.
Support of Marriage and marital definition is not anything that should be in the hands of government. It is personal and individual and I do not support the governmental intrusion - but out of legal necessity I have had to register mine. I would not be unmarried, but it is between my spouse and myself (and kids for that matter) not any state or federal agency.
no subject
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.
no subject
2 Agreed
3 Well, it could be managed; but with difficulty. My point would be that such wrangling shouldn't be necessary. If I, as a straight person, can make (and even break) such legal bindings with the simplicity that the current status quo allows, so should you.
4 (I added one) The title of marriage has no place in the legal world. People who will not accept you will never do so just because of the legal pronouncement. Those who will don't care about the legal side. It really should be just about how you two see each other and the contractual crap should be left in the governmental and legal worlds.
no subject
Re: #3. Actually the simple fact that #2 is true means there's no way, EVEN with all the contracts in the world, that we could get all the same benefits. There's NO way for me to be on my wife's health insurance where I live, and actually, that was a HUGE difficulty for us for a year.
Re: #4. Agreed. Leave "marriage" to whatever religion (or non-religion) you want, but if people want legal status as a family unit, they'd have to get a civil union certificate or something. I'm pretty sure they do it that way in several countries. I think it's an excellent idea. I mean, for that matter, I'm married in my religion - I'm a Unitarian Universalist. My church considers me married. So... if "marriage" is religious, as so many anti-gay-marriage people claim, how would they argue against that? That only some religions count? I wonder how that debate would turn out. But seriously, I'm not out to change anyone else's religious beliefs... I'm just trying to live my own life and take care of my family, just like anyone else.
no subject
I am aware of the way it is. I just think it is illogical, unfair, and smacks of many of the controlling influences that we need have removed from the system of law and regulation.
no subject
2. Companies don't want to hassle with that if they don't have to.
3. No, standard =/= traditional, even though traditional can lead to a standard. Most of the time people want to make a financial arrangement between two people where they are joining assets, it's because of a marriage, and thus the legal marriage system fits and makes it all easy.
no subject