August 3, 2009, - 3:28 pm

We’ve Lost: U.S. Census to Count Gay Marriages

By Debbie Schlussel

This is unfortunate news that hasn’t really been reported in the mainstream media and which–oddly–cannot even be found on the U.S. Census website.


On Friday, the U.S. Census Bureau and its parent, the U.S. Department of Commerce, announced that legally married gay couples (from California pre-Prop 8 and from other states in which it’s legal) will be counted as marriages in the 2010 U.S. Census.  But, strangely, you can only find out about this disturbing prospect in the gay media.

Although the federal government left the issue of who can marry to the states, this is a frightening turn, as it essentially transforms the issue into a federal one–very dangerous when liberal Democrats run the show in almost every branch.  Today, the U.S. Census Bureau, tomorrow, the IRS and lots of other federal agencies.  And, as you probably know, the Census isn’t just used to apportion Congressional districts.  It’s used for doling out lots of federal cash.

What’s that rustling sound? The fast revolutions of several Constitutional drafters spinning in their graves.  No doubt, the Founding Fathers never intended us to count men married to men and women married to women when they crafted, Article I, Section 2–the portion of the Constitution requiring that a national census be taken.

Exit Question:  Now that we’ve lowered the bar, when do we start counting menages-a-trois as marriages?  And will they count as two marriages or one-and-a-half?  Most of Hollywood need to know.


Meanwhile, the State of Wisconsin chose to allow gay couples to register with the state as “domestic partners,” giving them many legal protections previously afforded to married couples consisting of a man and a woman, including inheritance and medical leave rights.

And since this applies to domestic partners, Wisconsin has given people (including straight couples) no incentive to be married.  Wisconsin–and other states like it–are essentially the new Europe (minus the B.O. . . . but with a more dangerous B.O. in the White House).

Tags: , , , , , , ,

67 Responses

Debbie – If the arc of the moral universe is long and bending toward justice, then I look forward to watching as you bemoan many more losses.

As a resident of “America’s Dairyland”, I’m proud that my state is taking steps to ensure that people are treated with as much respect and dignity as possible. Having the right to visit a loved one in the hospital (especially when that loved on wants to see you) shouldn’t require headaches and mounds of paperwork.

Eric on August 9, 2009 at 3:31 am

People being treated equally and fairly? RIDICULOUS!!

Stop being so ignorant and treat people with respect.

Anonymous on April 7, 2010 at 2:17 am

You really need to spend some time out of your own culture and out of your own country, and get to know some of the people you talk about. You’re ignorant.

raggi on April 7, 2010 at 4:36 am

A strict reading of Article 1 Section 2 requires only an enumeration of persons. Married, Single, Gay, Straight, Male, Female, Black, White or Other: All not relevant for the primary purpose of the census (assigning representatives) or its secondary purpose (allocating funding).

Please get over yourself.

AC on April 7, 2010 at 9:20 am

Hey, just wanted to give you a heads up. It should be “Most of Hollywood needs to know”.

Guillermo Gonzalez on April 7, 2010 at 10:20 am

its really outstanding site , i read carefully i really enjoyed while i was reading the passage …

dallas injury lawyer on August 9, 2011 at 5:44 pm

Helpful info. Lucky me I found your website accidentally, and I am stunned why this coincidence did not came about earlier!

I bookmarked it.

petit boulot en ligne on May 20, 2014 at 9:36 pm

Wow. This article is old, but really one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read. Maybe they should just count one married gay couple as 3/5ths of a straight married couple. Then you might be happy.

Bob Smith on June 11, 2015 at 10:47 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field