Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Conservatives Blast Census Bureau for Counting Gay Couples (counted as married).
Christian Post ^ | 04/07/2010 | Nathan Black

Posted on 04/07/2010 12:06:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

The U.S. Census Bureau has boosted its efforts of reaching out to the LGBT community, assuring gays and transgender people that they can be "true" to who they are when filling out census forms.

Same-sex couples will, for the first time, be counted as married even if their relationships are not recognized in their state.

Moreover, transgender people have been encouraged to complete the forms according to their "true gender," as Mara Keisling of the Center for Transgender Equality stated. They, however, will not directly be counted as transgender.

"Be yourself and be counted," Keisling, a transgender-identified woman, said in a promotional video.

On Monday, the Census Bureau released new videos encouraging same-sex couples and transgender people to participate in the 2010 census.

Gay rights groups have hailed the bureau's move as historic, as it signals recognition of gay and lesbian marriages.

"We pushed hard to make it possible for married same-sex couples to be counted in the 2010 census," reads a statement by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force.

The organization launched a "Queer the Census" campaign demanding even more recognition in the next U.S. census, complete with a question that asks if one is lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender.

Conservative groups, meanwhile, say the bureau is ignoring federal and state laws by allowing same-sex couples to list themselves as married regardless of whether their relationships are legal.

"The law should count for something when the Census Bureau counts America's population, but apparently it doesn't on President Obama's watch," said Family Research Council President Tony Perkins. "The President's Commerce Department is actively encouraging people to ignore U.S. marriage law and invent new definitions for their relationships."

Perkins noted that the federal Defense of Marriage Act forbids the government from recognizing same-sex marriages.

"When it comes to advancing the extreme homosexual agenda, this White House has no limits, not even the facts," he lamented.

Gary Randall, president of Faith and Freedom Network, believes homosexual numbers will be inflated by the "you decide what you are" policy.

"This policy shift is another attempt to confuse the discussion about marriage by creating a problem of sorts, then providing a solution that advances the homosexual agenda of redefining marriage," he stated.

The Census Bureau has begun mailing second forms to approximately 40 million housing units to increase America's participation. Households have until mid-April to mail back their forms. Census data are used to apportion congressional seats to states, to distribute more than $400 billion in federal funds to tribal, state and local governments each year and to make decisions about what community services to provide.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; News/Current Events; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: celebrateperversity; census; gay; homosexual; homosexualagenda; marriage; politicalcorrectness; samesexmarriage

1 posted on 04/07/2010 12:06:07 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

lol.

Married, right.


2 posted on 04/07/2010 12:08:05 PM PDT by GeronL (There is only a "Happily ever after" for you if you're the one writing your own script)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

I could be wrong, but I think they meant to say they would be counted as marred.


3 posted on 04/07/2010 12:14:01 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Be still & kneel before the all knowing/seeing Omnipotent One, Il Douche' Jr. blessings be upon him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I wonder how many homosexuals will want to answer a question asking if they are lesbian or homosexual;? Is it realy any of the Governments business.?

Will they ask straights have sex in the missionary, doggy style or anally or orally?..None of their business.


4 posted on 04/07/2010 12:14:04 PM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Seems to me if I don't like my age, if I "feel" like I was meant to just be another age, I should be able to put down my "true" age.

If they claim that would be false reporting, then I would claim this gender/marriage thing is false reporting as well.

5 posted on 04/07/2010 12:15:22 PM PDT by C210N (A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take everything you have)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
"The U.S. Census Bureau has boosted its efforts of reaching out to the LGBT community, assuring gays and transgender people that they can be "true" to who they are when filling out census forms."

I am so sick and tired of half our time and so many MILLIONS of dollars wasted on a bunch of people who just want to have sex different than 95% of us...now it's gay, lesbian, BI-SEXUAL and TRANSVESTITES...and they write about it like it's completely NORMAL...cripes, what is next, the GERMAN SHEPARD FORNICATORS? The GSF's have rights too, ya know!

6 posted on 04/07/2010 12:18:12 PM PDT by jessduntno ( If someone calls me racist, I reply "you are just saying that because I'm white!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

I don’t care how many gay couples think of themselves as married or not...but if there were a question are you gay/lesbian (in a relationship or not) how many would truthfully answer it. I am kind of interested in the numbers. Gay activists claim 10% of the population is gay. I say that is rather high. More like 5-6% possibly. But then, gay activists actually believe everybody could be potentially gay.


7 posted on 04/07/2010 12:18:49 PM PDT by brooklyn dave (this is a NO-BAMA zone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

lol


8 posted on 04/07/2010 12:18:56 PM PDT by GeronL (There is only a "Happily ever after" for you if you're the one writing your own script)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

Certain people have been making love to sheep for ages-—I don’t hear them screaming for recognition.


9 posted on 04/07/2010 12:19:54 PM PDT by brooklyn dave (this is a NO-BAMA zone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The Census alswo makes no provision on the form for indicating if one is a citizen, nor does it instruct non-citizens to NOT fill out the form.

Anything they can do to misrepresent the numbers...

10 posted on 04/07/2010 12:20:42 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

And if in 2020 with a saner administration this isn’t assumed any more, we will have a glitch in the data for no reason. I dare Bummer to quote the consolidated “marriage” figures to us and claim this is the number of “married couples” as of April 1, 2010.


11 posted on 04/07/2010 12:22:46 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave

“Certain people have been making love to sheep for ages-—I don’t hear them screaming for recognition.”

They tried bleating, but it got them nowhere so they stopped, and went back to feeling sheepish...


12 posted on 04/07/2010 12:22:48 PM PDT by jessduntno ( If someone calls me racist, I reply "you are just saying that because I'm white!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

Without determining citizenship it seems rather an odd way to apportion benefits that are only supposed to go citizens.


13 posted on 04/07/2010 12:22:55 PM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: jessduntno

you crazy-—but funny! LOL


14 posted on 04/07/2010 12:24:49 PM PDT by brooklyn dave (this is a NO-BAMA zone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe

So another words, the whole think is fraudulent.


15 posted on 04/07/2010 12:25:33 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (Be still & kneel before the all knowing/seeing Omnipotent One, Il Douche' Jr. blessings be upon him.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave

The 10% is the old well-refuted Kinsey (research by perverts upon a perversion-prone prison population) figure. The number of dedicated or prevalently homo people in the USA is more widely believed to be around the 2% mark.


16 posted on 04/07/2010 12:25:37 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (I am in America but not of America (per bible: am in the world but not of it))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: brooklyn dave
how many would truthfully answer it.

Homos make up about 1% of our population.

At my Oh-so-PC workplace, where 1200 people are employed, they have "Networking" groups for all the horribly disaffected people. They have an AA group, Asian group, Latino group, Women's group and a GLBT group. Guess how many belong to the GLBT group? SEVEN. Seven out of 1200. (but we're told there are "lots" of "secret" members) Funny, a list of their names never seems to get published.

17 posted on 04/07/2010 12:28:22 PM PDT by subterfuge (BUILD MORE NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS NOW!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

one real one fake voter


18 posted on 04/07/2010 12:32:13 PM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I know I’m in the minority here and that’s ok. But I’m fine with people calling themselves married even if the government doesn’t recognize it. I believe in small, limited government and people can do what they will so long as it doesn’t infringe on my freedom to do the same. I understand the alternative points of view, but I respectfully disagree.


19 posted on 04/07/2010 12:33:25 PM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

To make it between gay couples who are much less likely to treat it as a sacred institution or a lifetime commitment..........

This government has to change somehow,someday and someway.


20 posted on 04/07/2010 12:35:23 PM PDT by Del Rapier
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: C210N

I feel like I’m 20 people. Who is the census to tell me I’m wrong. In fact, my split personalities tell me I’m a million people and so we deserve our own Congressman.

The obvious choice for that would be my personality called Sleazy, the embezzling lawyer.

But it’s not a slam dunk, one of my other personalities is challenging Sleazy in the primary, the reverend Jesse Moneybags. I think he’s going to inject race into the election.

It should be a spirited race, I’ll let you know how it turns out.


21 posted on 04/07/2010 12:36:46 PM PDT by AmishDude (It doesn't matter whom you vote for, it matters who takes office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Del Rapier

I’d like to see the government just get out of the business of defining marriage all together. The entire concept of “civil marriage” is itself an abomination to God if you want to look at it from a religious perspective. Why does the government have to recognize marriage? It didn’t use to. It shouldn’t once again.


22 posted on 04/07/2010 12:37:00 PM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: AmishDude

The census should concern itself with a headcount and that’s it anyway.


23 posted on 04/07/2010 12:39:19 PM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne; 9YearLurker
Of course it is a fraud. If the people counted are not required to be Citizens, what else could the apportionment of Congressional Representation, grants and other funding be?

This is no oversight, imho.

The ONLY reason it would not matter whether or not the respondents are citizens would be the administration's intent to proclaim amnesty and 'shake-and-bake' the illegals into citizenship status.

The whole raceapalooza (a possible 20 responses on the form for race or variety of hispanicity) will probably help gerrymander districts as well.

24 posted on 04/07/2010 12:39:47 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

A. B. and D.


25 posted on 04/07/2010 12:47:21 PM PDT by Minn (Here is a realistic picture of the prophet: ----> ([: {()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

Libertarians who conflict with social conservatives are a real uncomfortable fit here.


26 posted on 04/07/2010 12:51:07 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

“I believe in small, limited government and people can do what they will so long as it doesn’t infringe on my freedom to do the same.”

But it does...and will do so more...military effectiveness, for one...tax skewed for another...not to mention the damage in the society to the kids we will start to see emerging...it is a FACT and can be easily researched, that kids in a married, two parent male-female headed household do much better. It isn’t an opinion. It is a fact. Since you live here, your life is...and will be more and more so...affected. I understand your points and on the surface they are kind and generous...but reality will be something quite different for us all in the future.


27 posted on 04/07/2010 12:52:55 PM PDT by jessduntno ( If someone calls me racist, I reply "you are just saying that because I'm white!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck

Well I have read only a bit on the Kinsey study-—didn’t know that their study group were prisoners.


28 posted on 04/07/2010 1:07:18 PM PDT by brooklyn dave (this is a NO-BAMA zone)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Why not also encourage heterosexual couples who shack up together more than 6 months to also box in “married”?


29 posted on 04/07/2010 1:17:04 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (VP Biden on Obamacare's passage: "This is a big f-ing deal". grumpygresh: "Repeal the f-ing deal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Of course it is a fraud. If the people counted are not required to be Citizens, what else could the apportionment of Congressional Representation, grants and other funding be?

The goal is to count them now and give them citizenship long before 2010.

30 posted on 04/07/2010 1:17:49 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (VP Biden on Obamacare's passage: "This is a big f-ing deal". grumpygresh: "Repeal the f-ing deal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
Of course it is a fraud. If the people counted are not required to be Citizens, what else could the apportionment of Congressional Representation, grants and other funding be?

The goal is to count them now and give them citizenship long before 2020.

The future is so confusing.

31 posted on 04/07/2010 1:18:11 PM PDT by a fool in paradise (VP Biden on Obamacare's passage: "This is a big f-ing deal". grumpygresh: "Repeal the f-ing deal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: a fool in paradise
The future is so confusing.

Ya think ? With our screwed up definition of marriage and our even more screwed up immigration laws, which allows someone married to an American Citizen to jump the queue and apply for American Citizenship, it would be simple matter of "marrying" your same-sex American friend (regardless of whether or not you're gay) to be able to stay in the USA permanently.

Expect a lot of fake gay foreigners to start marrying Americans for this purpose.
32 posted on 04/07/2010 1:21:05 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: daniel885

“I’d like to see the government just get out of the business of defining marriage all together.”

I’ve expressed this view on FR before, as well. Prepare to get flamed by people who don’t understand that the inevitable result of government intrusion in this essentially religious area is a definition of (civil)marriage that most social and religious conservatives will find abhorrent.


33 posted on 04/07/2010 1:21:07 PM PDT by riverdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: riverdawg

I don’t even really think it’s a “libertarian” idea. It’s old-conservatism in the mold of Barry Goldwater. If we, as a movement, pick and choose when government intervention is okay then we’ve given up on the moral argument of freedom. If we argue that the “effect on society” is justification enough for government to decide what is and what is not okay to do, then we will one day have our rights infringed on on the same basis. Indeed, liberals today are arguing the same thing when it comes to health care. They can limit our freedoms because the overall effect on society will be a good one.


34 posted on 04/07/2010 1:37:16 PM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

What is a “transgender-identified woman”? A man who thinks she’s a woman, or a woman who thinks he’s a man?


35 posted on 04/07/2010 1:57:47 PM PDT by Arthur McGowan (In Edward Kennedy's America, federal funding of brothels is a right, not a privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arthur McGowan

A man who thinks of himself/herself as a woman.


36 posted on 04/07/2010 2:04:45 PM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I work at the census bureau in a local census office (as a clerk), and I am friends with one of the bosses of the office, well he got a “memo” which would confirm this as true! Isn’t the Obama adminstration sick: ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THIS VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW (Doma)!! Sickening..


37 posted on 04/07/2010 3:07:06 PM PDT by JSDude1 (www.wethepeopleindiana.org (Tea Party Member-Proud), www.travishankins.com (R- IN 09 2010!))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

This is just more perverted homosexual bs. I am watching a program right now on Islam. It is a program where the religion of peace is ranting why they do not like any political cartoons saying bad things about the religion of peace. Pretty much the same thing with perverted homosexuals. Both of these groups want any speech speaking out against them stopped. So they have to backdoor it with crap like this. Count us perverted homosexuals as married even if we are not.


38 posted on 04/07/2010 7:35:31 PM PDT by DMG2FUN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Same-sex couples will, for the first time, be counted as married even if their relationships are not recognized in their state.

Not only states' laws, but federal law as well. There has never been an administration which showed so much contempt for the rule of law, flouting not only established legal foundations, but societal values as well. Evil has no more accurate than Øbama and the modern Democrats.

39 posted on 04/08/2010 5:09:16 AM PDT by fwdude (It is not the liberals who will destroy this country, but the "moderates.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel885
...I’m fine with people calling themselves married even if the government doesn’t recognize it. I believe in small, limited government and people can do what they will so long as it doesn’t infringe on my freedom to do the same.

In many cases, "freedom" is a zero sum game - this point has been strenuously contended by both those on the right AND left. Christians, minding their own business, have been dragged into perverts' lust to be recognized, and in many cases, have lost in court.

I don't know if you have been on this site very long, but if you have missed the implications of even tacit approval of, or even indifference to, homosexuality in any degree, you are either willfully blind or a covert activist yourself.

If you have the stomach for it, I invite you to visit MassResistance's site for a view into the hell of homosexual proliferation in a society.

40 posted on 04/08/2010 5:22:39 AM PDT by fwdude (It is not the liberals who will destroy this country, but the "moderates.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Whether two people are considered married does not affect the enumeration one bit.


41 posted on 04/08/2010 5:33:34 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: daniel885
Why does the government have to recognize marriage? It didn’t use to.

Of course it does; it always has - for obvious reasons. Because marriage has always been around, governments have had to recognize it for the purpose of staying OUT of it - freedom from testimony against your SPOUSE, inheritance issues, child rearing rights, common property rights, etc.

I honestly don't understand this ridiculous argument.

42 posted on 04/08/2010 5:34:55 AM PDT by fwdude (It is not the liberals who will destroy this country, but the "moderates.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
Whether two people are considered married does not affect the enumeration one bit.

Only, it's no longer just and "enumeration" but a political tool.

43 posted on 04/08/2010 5:36:06 AM PDT by fwdude (It is not the liberals who will destroy this country, but the "moderates.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Smokin' Joe
nor does it instruct non-citizens to NOT fill out the form.

Nor should it. The census counts persons, not citizens.

44 posted on 04/08/2010 5:39:35 AM PDT by Sandy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

You’re just wrong on your history. Marriage wasn’t recognized by the State in common-law countries until 1753 with Lord Hardwicke’s Marriage Act in most of the UK. Before then there was no government recognition of marriage whatsoever. Marriage was recognized by the Church. In 1863 in the UK the requirement of a religious ceremony was removed creating civil marriage. Each state in the US has various laws but civil marriage generally came about in the 1800’s.


45 posted on 04/08/2010 8:06:24 AM PDT by daniel885
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Sandy
The census counts persons, not citizens.

If the census data is used for the allocation of members of the House of Representatives based on population, this means districts with a disproportionate number of illegal immigrants and other aliens would be disproportionately represented in the Congress (especially considering numbers anywhere from 12 to 40 million of illegals).

Whenther you consider that fewer Citizens would warrant a Representative in those districts so enumerated, or that it would take more citizens in districts without that number of aliens present, the effect is the same: some are more represented than others.

Similarly, the allocation of tax dollars based upon populations which are composed of people who are not citizens and who may well not pay any taxes at all is unfair to those districts which are primarily composed of Citizens who pay taxes.

46 posted on 04/08/2010 10:00:38 PM PDT by Smokin' Joe (How often God must weep at humans' folly. Stand fast. God knows what He is doing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson