![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
tniassaint.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsAhhhh 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?
funniest thing ive heard all day
Date: 6/4/10 22:34 (UTC)http://www.intelius.com/ (http://www.intelius.com/)
^ What is that? lol
(no subject)
Date: 6/4/10 22:38 (UTC)Your information and point of view is only obsolete by 5-10 years or so...
(no subject)
Date: 6/4/10 22:38 (UTC)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.
(no subject)
Date: 6/4/10 22:46 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 6/4/10 22:53 (UTC)Ok, I should try to give you a serious reply that is worth something.
Date: 6/4/10 23:05 (UTC)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?
(no subject)
Date: 6/4/10 23:07 (UTC)Re: Ok, I should try to give you a serious reply that is worth something.
Date: 6/4/10 23:51 (UTC)Underground marriage
Date: 6/4/10 23:55 (UTC)Re: Ok, I should try to give you a serious reply that is worth something.
Date: 7/4/10 00:21 (UTC)I think said surveillance was in effect prior to Bush 2. Maybe, as early as the 1980's or 1990's. The Patriot Act made it worse, yes. But, this is the first time (http://www.boingboing.net/2010/03/31/nsas-domestic-spying.html) it has been acknowledged and a verdict has been reached.
Re: Underground marriage
Date: 7/4/10 00:24 (UTC)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?
(no subject)
Date: 7/4/10 00:53 (UTC)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.
Re: Underground marriage
Date: 7/4/10 00:56 (UTC)Re: Underground marriage
Date: 7/4/10 01:49 (UTC)Re: Ok, I should try to give you a serious reply that is worth something.
Date: 7/4/10 01:54 (UTC)Re: Underground marriage
Date: 7/4/10 01:58 (UTC)Re: Underground marriage
Date: 7/4/10 02:00 (UTC)Re: Underground marriage
Date: 7/4/10 02:04 (UTC)By Bruce Crumley/Paris Thursday, Jan. 24, 2008 Read more: http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1706514,00.html#ixzz0kNMcVjAC)
that in fact the Current French Government has not completely accepted homosexuality.
Re: Underground marriage
Date: 7/4/10 02:44 (UTC)Re: Underground marriage
Date: 7/4/10 02:56 (UTC)Currently single homosexuals in France can adopt, while gay couples cannot.
In other news, France has recently become the first country to declare transsexualism is not a mental illness (http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/03/02/Transgender_Victory_in_France/)
Re: funniest thing ive heard all day
Date: 7/4/10 04:31 (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 7/4/10 04:36 (UTC)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)
Date: 7/4/10 04:37 (UTC)If you don't like it - move on.
Re: Ok, I should try to give you a serious reply that is worth something.
Date: 7/4/10 04:45 (UTC)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.
Re: Underground marriage
Date: 7/4/10 04:50 (UTC)