Withers: 2010 Census will count gay couples

Remember a few months back when it was announced that gay couples, even married ones, were going to be listed as “unmarried partners” in the 2010 Census? Well you can put away the harangue you had all prepared for the census taker. Hitched gay couples will have their relationships counted.
The Commerce Department reversed a policy with a legal opinion that argued the Defense of Marriage Act does not mean the Census cannot release raw data on gay pairs. Aside from the fairness of it all, this is a boon for research purposes. While talking about LGBT life is rather easy (heck, they even let me do it), it would be nice if there was just a base of raw data especially when it comes to marriage. Sure many folk have done yeoman work when it comes to gay crunching numbers, but the more information we have the better it is for the cause.
Aside from the stats, this move is typical of the Obama not enough people paid attention to during the campaign. It is undramatic, lacks sex appeal, and makes people yawn. But that is how the president operates. If he makes any moves on the gay rights agenda (and the jury is still out on that), anything he does will be below the fold. Small, yet significant moves, that reverberate beyond the news cycle. He’s not going to tackle the topic head on. We can debate if that’s the best strategy, and if it is any different from people who came before him; however, he is who he is.



You know, Withers, most legislation, laws, legal interpretations, etc. are not “sexy” and drama is a matter of affectation. I can’t tell you how emotional I was over the potential passage of the Matthew Shepard Act. Is it “sexy” legislation? Ha! That idea would make me laugh if it weren’t so patently sick! The wording of the bill itself makes ME yawn, and I’m actually interested in it! Makes me wonder what a “dramatic, sexy, exciting” move by the Obama Admin might look like… because beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
What will it take to make you people happy? Being counted isn’t enough, or maybe it’s some measure akin to counting Jews pre-Third Reich, right? Give me a freaking break! Every time President Obama or some other member/agency of the government makes an effort at extending a hand, it seems to me that all the gay “community” can do is slap that hand and say, “No! Not good enough! Take it away and make it again, but make it BETTER this time!” This isn’t a practical or reasoned approach to obtaining legal equality. You don’t gain anything by refusing what is being offered. In a battle for legal equality, no matter what group we happen to be discussing, every little bit counts. The key is to not stop with the little bits. And last I checked, NO ONE in national or local GLBT movements is saying that we should *settle* for ANY “little bits.”
Additionally, what benefit does labeling oneself as G, L, B, or T have for any of us? I might be G and T, but that’s hardly the extent of my personhood. My G or T status does not ultimately change the fact that I require food, water, shelter, clothing, and community. In wanting to be acknowledged for who and what we are, we are also demanding to be segregated, we are segregating ourselves from the rest of society by vehemently insisting upon being either Us or The Other. The choices are more than merely being exemplified or being vilified. I’ve been vilified long enough for my GLBT status, and I’ve no interest in being exemplified for it. Why? Because I’m a human being above and beyond my sexual preference or gender identity, and *that* is what I take pride in. What about the rest of the GLBT “community?” What humanity is there in this group? I think there are questions every self-identified GLBT person needs to ask themselves: Am I looking to be treated as a GLBT rep or as a human being? What influence does my GLBT status have on my life and decision-making process?
If we want to normalize trans or homosexuality, we need to stop elevating our status above that of the “other.” We need to drop our Pride-with-a-capital-P rhetoric because it implies that we view ourselves as superior to non-GLBT persons. We need to engage in national discussions and debates, and we must be willing to compromise; compromise takes two sides and as much as we all hate to admit this, we will NEVER have legal equality in America without the assistance and allegiance of non-GLBT people. As much as we must take our equality, it must also be given to us. So let us behave as though we deserve such acknowledgment. Let us thank the Obama Administration for its attempts at outreach and state our intent to keep fighting for more. Let us be grateful and persistent at the same time. Anything less will ensure that inequality remains a legal mandate in this country.
Gee Whiz. You mean now I can be counted and located AND persecuted for who I love. Thanks Obama. F-ing Keep it.
We are still filling out the forms in RED ink. It will be nice to counted some how. I can’t wait for the data to be compiled.
Thank you for using the word “yeoman”
Ahh.. Thanks for the clarification James. I like your blog too
Is it possible to pick other and write in gay?
nothing is going to happen with this President or DADT unless he is in his second term. Sorry
Facebook user, it’s already been widely reported that most of the setup was done under W’s administration and it’s too late to change forms. I agree we should have an option to select single and Gay, Lesbian or Bisexual, but given what they started out with, this is a huge accomplishment. Based on this data, we can get a more accurate count of our community.
Oh Yeah! Cause if you are single, that makes you straight. This is BS. And everybody should be pissed. No other minority would be treated like this.
Twisted,
You will be counted as an unmarried couple.
Only the “hitched” gay couples will be included? I would like to know their definition of “hitched” and how they exclude certain couples. My partner and I have lived together for 16 years and are registered as Domestic Partners. What category do we fall under? We can’t legally marry in California, therefore we are not a member of the population?