Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsFriday, June 19, 2009
Politics / Homo Thrown Another Bone
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Jun 19, 2009 at 8:20 AM
In March, I posted about a report from the U.S. Census bureau that same-sex couples would be required to present themselves as "unmarried partners" on 2010 Census forms. U.S. Census spokeswoman Cynthia Endo said at the time, using damaging language as further insult: "This is all about the numbers. This is not about lifestyle or anything else."In a shift, it appears the Obama administration is now looking for a way to have same-sex couples counted.
"Two bones in one week," says JoeMyGod, "maybe all this pressure is working?"
1
Dan, in all honesty I applaud your restraint. I say you should keep on the heat, but it's always good to recognize progress when it happens. Small victories.
3
So, here's a question. When they count my marriage in the census, will it be listed as "Same-Sex Couple, Married: 1," or will it be listed in a broader category, like "Child Rapists, Incestuous Couples, and 'Married' Gays: 1," to better match the administration's new policy?
5
Actually, I think this is a bigger "bone" than the bullshit benefits packaged offered earlier this week.
6
@5: I agree. If there was an actual legitimate count of every gay couple in the country then the government would be forced to understand what our numbers are... and mean.
7
Actually it may be a huge gain: one of the reasons Canada's courts ruled in favor of gay marriage was the fact that non married straight couples had rights similiar to married straight couples. (See tax law et al) So any ruling that treats the LGBT community as fully equal MAY (I'm not a lawyer) influence the rights climate in America in the same way. Let us hope so.... I hae to go to work so don't have time to look up my reference on canada - but if anyone wants it, I will b e able to provide it at the end of the day. Have a great day!
8
The question then becomes if married couples can only claim their rightful marital status if they are in a state that recognizes marriage equality.
A case in point: Dan and Terry are married. Washington state does not recognize "marriage" but grants "everything except marriage" rights. How would they be counted?
Logic would indicate that they should be counted as what they are - a married couple with one child.
For the census to do otherwise would be not only disingenuous but would force people to give inaccurate data that would invalidate the results for certain categories (i.e. under-reporting of households, families, etc.).
A case in point: Dan and Terry are married. Washington state does not recognize "marriage" but grants "everything except marriage" rights. How would they be counted?
Logic would indicate that they should be counted as what they are - a married couple with one child.
For the census to do otherwise would be not only disingenuous but would force people to give inaccurate data that would invalidate the results for certain categories (i.e. under-reporting of households, families, etc.).
9
Hurray for small victories! Mountains crumble by the wind that erodes them, and the water that trickles in and then expands and contracts. The mountain of bigotry isn't any different, it's crumbling.
10
Now every incremental gain that Obama makes for us will be considered throwing us a bone because the bloggers are ZOMG so scary!
riiiiiiiiiight.
riiiiiiiiiight.
14
This is easier than repealing DOMA and DADT. That's why they are doing it. Are we seriously going to be suckered by this?
15
@14 Nope, that's why it's called being thrown a bone.
We'll keep fighting until we are equal members of the society to which we belong.
protestforhumanrights.com
We'll keep fighting until we are equal members of the society to which we belong.
protestforhumanrights.com
16
At this point, the homos are make more noise than the fundies. As long as we keep making noise, we will see incremental shifts in a positive direction. While utterly disappointed by the DOJ brief in support of DOMA, I can understand that Obama is likely waiting until healthcare is dealt with. While I don't like being a political pawn, I realize that is exactly what I am. The Obama administration will learn that I'm not a pawn that will go down easily.
17
I don't know what to think about all this. On one hand, if enough bones get thrown our way eventually we'll get the whole animal. And as anyone who's taken a anatomy course can tell you, the last few bits of a skeleton come together a lot quicker than the first few (is this analogy getting ridiculous enough yet?). On the other hand ... they're "looking for a way", not committing to anything. Bones that don't mean much don't mean much.
18
Here is my question Dan: did you think it would happen in one fell swoop? Or, small victories along the way?
I remember once, long ago, you told someone who came out to their parents to give them one year grace period of being kind of accepting but kind of not. If after one year they are still unable to accept you unconditionally at family functions, treat your partner as your partner, etc then you have a right to cut them out of your life. A year of transition is fair you said.
Well, that is my approach with Obama on gay issues (I'm pleased with his progress on others, frankly). I will allow him ONE YEAR then reassess whether he has been a friend to gay voters or not. I suspect it will be a year of small victories dolled out one by one, not a big grand "Obama says Gay is OK!" headlines. I know fighters for gay rights would love a big, turn-on-the-water-works moment of catharsis, but I really don't think there will be that one grand moment. It will be little victories, snowballling. Partial repeal of DOMA, then a little more, then a little more.
If Jan. 20th 2010 rolls around and all we got was this census counting move and the State Department limited SSP rights then I can fairly say "he betrayed us". However, I am giving him that one year before I say he treats gay people with indifference or animus.
I remember once, long ago, you told someone who came out to their parents to give them one year grace period of being kind of accepting but kind of not. If after one year they are still unable to accept you unconditionally at family functions, treat your partner as your partner, etc then you have a right to cut them out of your life. A year of transition is fair you said.
Well, that is my approach with Obama on gay issues (I'm pleased with his progress on others, frankly). I will allow him ONE YEAR then reassess whether he has been a friend to gay voters or not. I suspect it will be a year of small victories dolled out one by one, not a big grand "Obama says Gay is OK!" headlines. I know fighters for gay rights would love a big, turn-on-the-water-works moment of catharsis, but I really don't think there will be that one grand moment. It will be little victories, snowballling. Partial repeal of DOMA, then a little more, then a little more.
If Jan. 20th 2010 rolls around and all we got was this census counting move and the State Department limited SSP rights then I can fairly say "he betrayed us". However, I am giving him that one year before I say he treats gay people with indifference or animus.
19
This kind of creeps me out, actually. My government doesn't want to give me full civil rights, but it DOES want to know what kind of relationship I'm in? Oh yes, let's keep tabs on all the gays! Maybe we'll even get a headcount proving that queers are an insignificant portion of the American population, so we don't have to bother pandering to them anymore!
20
@18, the comparison isn't apt. He's not our papa, he's our president. And during the long runup to the election, Obama curried our votes by saying he ALREADY had our backs, and promised us he'd be our "fierce advocate" from the get-go.
21
#20: I'm not saying don't pressure him or cut off pink $$$ or let him know we're pissed. The Stonewall boycott is a great idea. I just am willing to see what progress is made in ONE YEAR before I call him a "betrayer" or a "liar" or "indifferent" or "he doesn't give a shit".
I'm still waiting for that health care too, afterall.
I'm still waiting for that health care too, afterall.
22
@20 I think yr expecting too much. Despite what any politician promises me, experience shows you always get less than what you wanted. Always. Each and every single time. So I'm not disappointed when I don't get everything I want from a politician. To be a politician is to practice eternal compromise. To talk about being "betrayed" makes me think you're 18 and 19 and voting for the first time and don't know what the big world is like. Of course this isn't true in Dan's case, as he's not 18 or 19, but w/him it's all about the headlines and the "buzz." I think most of what he says is just to be provocative; I have no idea what his real beliefs are. He just likes to keep his name/face in public so he'll say whatever it takes. And it's more interesting to be an angry queer than a conciliatory one.
I think Obama's doing a fine job. I love the consumer protection bills he's pushed thru. I'm prepared to be disappointed on health care. I'm sure he'd like to get us a great program, but it's not going to happen because there are too many nogoodniks in the country that would lose money that way, so they'll snow the average guy to work against their best interests. But that's life in America. Not a very nice country.
I think Obama's doing a fine job. I love the consumer protection bills he's pushed thru. I'm prepared to be disappointed on health care. I'm sure he'd like to get us a great program, but it's not going to happen because there are too many nogoodniks in the country that would lose money that way, so they'll snow the average guy to work against their best interests. But that's life in America. Not a very nice country.
23
If you're counted at all then you're part of every federal and state grant. It's the counting - the category - that matters.
Just think of when Hispanics were first added years ago - then later Asians, Native American/Pacific Islander, and so on. At first Hispanics were assumed to all be White.
The counting is the first part - usually takes 10 years before the new category isn't offensive to the group(s) being counted, actually.
Just think of when Hispanics were first added years ago - then later Asians, Native American/Pacific Islander, and so on. At first Hispanics were assumed to all be White.
The counting is the first part - usually takes 10 years before the new category isn't offensive to the group(s) being counted, actually.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Pill The Homos! by Dan Savage
-
Dear Huffington Post... by Dan Savage
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
Because Guns Make Us Safer by Goldy
-
The Rick Santorum Rally in Tacoma Probably Could Have Gone Better by Paul Constant
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Because Guns Make Us More Safer by Goldy
-
Gay Kids Are Still Killing Themselves by Dan Savage
-
Gregoire: "This is signed!" by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (24) RSS