Census 2010
[Guest post by DRJ]
The Census forms are scheduled to arrive today. Did you get yours? It’s a 10-question form, although about 2.5% will get the much longer American Community Survey. However, even the short form has caused “sharply increased” privacy concerns.
Oops. That was in 2000. There are still privacy concerns in 2010. Some things never change.
Then again, maybe some things do change. The GLBT community is protesting because the Census doesn’t ask enough questions:
“They’re here. By their own description, they’re queer. And a gay advocacy group wants the U.S. Census Bureau to ask them about it.
The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force has launched “Queer the Census,” attempting to petition the census to start counting members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender communities.
The task force is distributing hot pink “It’s Time To Count Everyone” stickers that can be affixed to the census form return envelope. Respondents can check a box on the sticker to identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender or a straight ally.”
The organization is concerned gays won’t get funding if they aren’t counted. A Census Bureau representative responded that Congress writes the Census questions, but the 2010 census allows same-sex couples who report themselves as legally married to be counted as married.
— DRJ
My husband and I had a dispute about this.
We’re not legally married, but we consider ourselves married as a result of the binding commitments we have made to each other, and the state’s recognition (or lack thereof) has no power to determine whether we are married or not.
So how do we describe ourselves on the census form?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/16/2010 @ 3:08 pmHow about: “2”.
Pons Asinorum (1f16cc) — 3/16/2010 @ 3:24 pmwhen you get to question #9, go all the way to the bottom, check “some other race” then fill in the boxes with “American”.
that’s if you answer it at all…..
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/16/2010 @ 3:24 pmredc1c4, the census is one of the activities which the federal government is specifically commanded to carry out. why should one avoid answering it?
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/16/2010 @ 3:26 pmAs I understand it, depending upon your State of residence, by cohabiting for 7 years or more, certain States deem you legally married …
Beyond that, for legal exactitude, consult your local legal eagles …
Which reminds me … if the Census form asks me to put down my race, is it legla for me to mark Other and specify “human” ?
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 3/16/2010 @ 3:28 pmaphrael, I think redc is talking about not answering question #9, not the entire form. It’s none of the government’s business what race anyone is.
Some chump (050674) — 3/16/2010 @ 3:29 pmAlasdair: I don’t believe there is a state in the union which would create a common-law marriage including my husband and me.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/16/2010 @ 3:32 pmNo idea aphrael. I don’t understand why it’s their business in the first place. Question 1 (and maybe question 2) should be the end. On a related note, there is also a call for a boycott by Hispanic/Latino leaders because they believe the census as constructed discriminates against illegal aliens.
I’ll be waiting for my follow-up telephone calls and house visits. I’m not motivated enough to find out who issues or collects the fine for (firmly, but politely) declining to answer anything beyond how many people reside in the home. Since it hasn’t happened in over 40 years, they may not know themselves. 😉
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/16/2010 @ 3:33 pmThat’s more of a state of mind. Clay Aiken could key my car tomorrow and I could be forced to rethink some key social policy issues.
Techie (43d092) — 3/16/2010 @ 3:34 pmBecause asking anything beyond the purpose of enumeration exceeds that command. Yes, that information is valuable and can be used for good purpose. It shouldn’t be mandatory… and the potential for misuse should not be ignored.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/16/2010 @ 3:41 pmI received my Census form today. My grandparents came from Mexico but I was born here and I’m an American, dammit! So I’m going to skip the Hispanical part and mark down American in the Other section. In the 2000 Census, I marked down “Human” but they have never contacted me about that. 😉
Mr. Matamoros (970ca5) — 3/16/2010 @ 3:44 pmaphrael #7 – and why might that be ?
If you are in a State which recognises common-law marriage, then you are likely to qualify …
If you are in a State which recognises common-law marriage and which also recognises same-sex marriage, then after the appropriate amount of time, even if you are your husband’s husband, I suspect that gets you so recognised *by* that State …
I seem to remember a case where a polygamist (with multiple UN- State-married brides (yet religiously-married)) was prosecuted for illegal polygamy based upon having become common-law married with more than one wife …
(Personally, I still cannot imagine wanting to have more than one mother-in-law, but that’s me …)
Alasdair (e7cb73) — 3/16/2010 @ 3:52 pmAlasdair – are there any states which both recognize same-sex marriage and common-law marriage?
I’m not aware of any cases of same-sex common-law marriages.
prosecuted for illegal polygamy based upon having become common-law married with more than one wife
That’s ridiculous.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 3/16/2010 @ 4:10 pmI resent them asking my name and age. They have my address and number of people in household. What does name and age/birthday have to do with anything?
I also checked other and wrote American.
PatAz (9d1bb3) — 3/16/2010 @ 4:19 pm“2” was the sum total of my response.
Gazzer (84384e) — 3/16/2010 @ 4:39 pm“2” was all I wrote.
gazzer (84384e) — 3/16/2010 @ 4:41 pmTwice, apparently.
gazzer (84384e) — 3/16/2010 @ 4:42 pmReceived and Returned!
No Phone #…American!
Can’t wait for the SEIU/ACORN pukes to show up.
AD - RtR/OS! (02b3ae) — 3/16/2010 @ 4:46 pmAs much as I want to be fully supportive of the gay and lesbian community, activist groups like the ones DRJ mentions are totally exasperating to me. Maybe the form ought to include the following questions:
11. Do you consider yourself gay?
__ Yes, in the full-on Liberace mode.
__ Yes, but more like a macho Rock Hudson style.
__ Yes, but I am totally in the closet.
__ No, but I am so open-minded that I deeply regret that I am not.
__ No, but as Seinfeld says, “not that there’s anything wrong with that.”
__ No, but I am totally cool with gays. Ian McKellen was awesome in Lord of the Rings.
__ No, and how dare you ask me!
__ I’m over 100 years old and I assume you are asking me if I am happy.
Seriously though, I wish we could go back to the days when a person’s sexual preference was none of our business.
JVW (fd30ab) — 3/16/2010 @ 5:07 pm==certain States deem you==
Ha! Alasdair, My family had a riot this evening at dinner sarcastically using the lovely word “deem” in as many crazy ways as possible.
elissa (f50543) — 3/16/2010 @ 5:07 pmI was annoyed that “Hmong” was a race, and German-Irish was not. Since I cannot believe that this data is used to divvy up tax money, I can only conclude they need it for
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/16/2010 @ 5:14 pmgerrymanderingredistricting.I answered question #1, sealed it up and put it in the mailbox. They got all of the information they need…
Steve (5a147a) — 3/16/2010 @ 5:16 pmOther-American. Done.
My neighbors are doing the same, including those who are ethnic minorities.
Ed from SFV (7f3244) — 3/16/2010 @ 5:28 pmten years ago i got the long questionaire version. i tried to play along, not make waves, but by the time i was about 30% in, i was so offended by their questions, I stopped. I returned it with a note that says that the constitution gives them the right to count us. Counting arguably includes obtaining enough information to be sure that the Joe Smith of Tuscon is not the same Joe Smith of Vienna, Virginia. So, name, age, race, SS# if they ask (they didn’t), other identifying features, okay. But they cannot plausibly ask about my salary, about whether i am handicapped, about whether i am gay, etc. and claim it is for counting. no, then they are just trying to snoop, and my letter politely told them that i would not answer these questions as is my right. And no one said “boo” to me.
I would say the short version i got today is probably constitutional and certainly not so painful that i can’t answer it. It was like name, age, race and not much more. Fair enough. I wouldn’t think of withholding that information.
But if you get the longer form you may or may not choose to follow my lead. I can’t guarantee that they won’t come after you, and i can’t guarantee that a court will side with you. i just know how i felt, and i can read the f—ing constitution. You might or might not agree.
A.W. (f97997) — 3/16/2010 @ 5:46 pmThe US Government lies to us all the time. They used the US census, to locate and place into detention Japanese-Americans and report on Italians, Germans during the Second World War. This time workers are hired to collect GPS readings for every house in this nation, giving pinpoint precision that will certainly simplify the process of locating any individual or group that could be identified as a threat to “national security” in our future. A 1976 Senate Report indicated that 26,000 Americans were slated for internment by the FBI in the event of a national emergency at the height of the Cold War. Today the Census could possibly be used to check on the whereabouts of Muslims and Middle Easterners? The U.S. Government’s Terrorist Watch-list has exceeded one million, the GPS data acquired could be instrumental in organizing such a accomplishment. It could be that this 2010 Decennial Census that in reality, to seek out illegal aliens occupying American soil and deport them home?
Brittanicus (e708cf) — 3/16/2010 @ 5:57 pmI think it’s funny that the form states on the back: “If you need help completing this form, call…” It’s all personal information each individual would know about themselves – how hard can that be?
Dana (1e5ad4) — 3/16/2010 @ 6:04 pmAny operation in the future of the nature that you describe has to have a respectful regard for the advice of Col. Samuel Trautman:
Don’t forget an ample supply of body-bags!
AD - RtR/OS! (02b3ae) — 3/16/2010 @ 6:04 pmBrittanicus, thanks for providing all those links for your assertions, and thanks for using bold font to soothe my eyes as I read your comment.
JVW (fd30ab) — 3/16/2010 @ 6:05 pmaphrael:
Why? I’ve seen people hold themselves out as married and then have problems with bigamy down the road, and apparently it happens enough that a Texas attorney addresses the topic at his website.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/16/2010 @ 6:07 pmFor all of us struggling with the invasiveness, and quite understandably not fully trusting how the information on the census form will be used, there is one thing to keep in mind. Much of the genealogical research that has been done by individuals and families in order to trace their ancestry is based on old census data going back well over a hundred years. Maybe some day way in the future someone related to you will see what you have entered about yourself or your living arrangements in the census of 2010, and have a eureka moment. Believe me, I am not shilling for the census but I have used century old census data myself many times for historical research and am so glad it was available. Often it is the jumping off point for even more targeted research once a person’s location is established in a specific decade.
elissa (f50543) — 3/16/2010 @ 6:13 pm“when you get to question #9, go all the way to the bottom, check “some other race” then fill in the boxes with “American”.”
How about question 8? And what about people not born in America?
imdw (017d51) — 3/16/2010 @ 6:39 pmHow is being a Straight Ally related to federal funding for gays.
And why should the federal government have to fund gays or a race or sex (on that basis at all)? This stuff is very strange.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 3/16/2010 @ 7:35 pmwhat about #8? did you read the fine print, oh brilliant one, or did you just deem it read?
as for the other question, if you’re living here, you should consider yourself an American.
if you don’t consider yourself an American, you should give serious thought to packing your scheisse up and moving someplace else.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/16/2010 @ 7:39 pmRemember, it’s not just Obama who wields the power of the executive. It’s every lackey he has, who is happy to exploit database systems to violate a critic’s rights. And it’s every future leader.
My race is American. And I think of every one of my neighbors, including those not born here, Americans. It’s not complicated. I don’t need a hyphen so some democrat can tell me what they are going to offer ‘my kind’.
Dustin (b54cdc) — 3/16/2010 @ 7:41 pm“what about #8? did you read the fine print, oh brilliant one, or did you just deem it read?”
I’m just wondering if there are any clever right wing post-racialisms for that one.
“as for the other question, if you’re living here, you should consider yourself an American. ”
That’s kind of odd.
imdw (017d51) — 3/16/2010 @ 7:42 pmI have applied and been accepted to be an enumerator this year.
viktor (55441e) — 3/16/2010 @ 7:45 pmI’ve got some very far left friends (they consider the Green Party a little too conservative) who are answering question #9 with either “human” or “American”. Obviously, this isn’t a right wing response.
Some chump (050674) — 3/16/2010 @ 7:53 pmHubby put decline to answer in many of the spots. I put other race: American in for me and kids.
Many of the “race” choices/suggestions were ethnicity/nationality NOT race. So I put my nationality.
kimsch (2ce939) — 3/16/2010 @ 8:43 pmColorado’s common law marriage law is pretty counter-intuitive – there is no time minimum. Hold yourself out as married, and *bingo*, you are married.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/16/2010 @ 9:01 pmaphrael #13 – while *I* agree that the concept shoudl be ridiculous, a person named Tom Green found out otherwise …
From here …
“Like most such statutes, Utah’s common-law marriage statute allows for the solemnization as marriages of relationships that have not passed through the typical marriage process under the laws of the state. The prosecutors realized that, based on the unique, ongoing, and ultimately marriage-like relationships that Tom Green continued to enjoy with each of his wives, it would therefore be possible to establish that a
Alasdair (205079) — 3/16/2010 @ 9:25 pmstate of legal marriage had continued to exist under the terms of the common-law marriage statute—Nevada divorce decrees notwithstanding.
If such a marriage could be established and solemnized with one of the wives, it would then be possible to obtain a conviction for bigamy based on Tom Green’s relationships with the other four wives.27 In this manner, the fact that Green and his wives had obtained legal divorces would ultimately prove irrelevant—as long as the state could establish that first common-law marriage.”
This may have been the link Alasdair was referencing. There wasn’t one in the html for some reason.
Stashiu3 (44da70) — 3/16/2010 @ 9:36 pmIn ’90 I did most of the filling out of the form for my parents and for myself in 2000 and again now.
How is it that 3 times I’ve had the long form? I think it’s over 20 pages, I haven’t checked this years, but it weighs about a quart pound, so It’s likely the long form again.
Are the percentages rigged? Or do they just look for goobers who are willing to complete the long form and send it to the same people over and over again.
I would like to write “2 people”
I think that fits my constitutional requirement.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Douglas (2c3ce5) — 3/16/2010 @ 9:42 pmaphrael #13 (bis)
OK – same-sex marriage and common-law marriage …
Funny you should ask …
It seems that there are two States, so far, which recognise both … with, of course, at least one little twist, in each (to satisfy the SoHoTG) …
Iowa – “The three elements of a common-law marriage are: (1) the present intent and agreement to be married; (2) continuous cohabitation; and (3) public declaration that the parties are husband and wife.” – so, as long as you or your husband are willing to be the “wife”, you can be legally same-sex common-law married in Iowa, it would seem …
New Hampshire – waaaaaay more perverse … “”Persons cohabiting and acknowledging each other as husband and wife, and generally reputed to be such, for the period of 3 years,” are recognized by the state as being legally married after one spouse dies. Thus, the state posthumously recognizes common-law marriages ensuring that a surviving spouse inherits without any difficulty.” – since New Hampshire recognised same-sex marriage from June3, 2009, on – this implies that, if you and your other half reside in New Hamoshire for at least 3 years after June 3, 209, the surviving spouse will be recognised as same-sex common-law husband …
And, in Washington, DC, while it’s not a State per se, common-law marriage is defined as “A common-law marriage exists if the two persons are legally free to marry, if it is the intent of the two persons to establish a marriage, and if the two are known to the community as husband and wife.” – and same-sex marriage has been legal there since December, 2009 … again (SoHoTG, of course), one of you would have to be willing to be known as the “wife” …
(SoHoTG – Sense of Humour of The Gods)
Ain’t The Law wunnerful ?
Alasdair (205079) — 3/16/2010 @ 9:42 pmand random thing, “aphrael” I think is a reference to the ellenium and the tamuli cycles by David Eddings. She is the eternal child goddess.
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
Douglas (2c3ce5) — 3/16/2010 @ 9:44 pmStashiu3 #41 – Kudos ! That is exactly the one ! Thank you for catching and fixing that !
Alasdair (205079) — 3/16/2010 @ 9:49 pmi’ll type this slowly, so you have a chance to get it this time: read the fine print on #8, then get back to us on it.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/16/2010 @ 10:07 pmThere’s no fine print. There’s the question. There’s stuff in bold. You mean the stuff in italics?
[note: fished from spam filter. –Stashiu]
imdw (f6a9f8) — 3/17/2010 @ 4:11 amDouglas: aphrael is not a reference to the Elenium, at least not a conscious one. It was the name that I was using in a D&D game when I was asked to come up with a name for my unix shell account nineteen years ago, and it’s the name i’ve used online ever since.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 3/17/2010 @ 6:13 amDRJ: it’s different for me if the rules require that you hold yourself out to be married.
That is to say, the stereotype (and I know nothing of family law, so all I had before this conversation was the stereotype) of common-law-marriage is that you can be common-law-married just by living together for long enough. In which case you could end up being prosecuted just for having several long-term housemates of the opposite sex …. which is the kind of personal decision which I think the state just shouldn’t be involved in.
So: I have no problem with bigamy laws which prohibit you from getting into multiple state-recognized marriages, and I have no problem with the state not recognizing polygamy, but I don’t think the state should be prosecuting people for living a de facto polygamous lifestyle.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 3/17/2010 @ 6:17 amAlasdair: neat!
I’m still unconvinced the states would recognize common law same sex marriages until someone sued them over the disparate treatment. But maybe I’m wrong.
aphrael (9e8ccd) — 3/17/2010 @ 6:18 am[…] Has Already Wasted Millions, Invades Americans’ Privacy (video) Patterico’s Pontifications: Census 2010 Gateway Pundit: Unreal. Joe Biden Travels to Michigan to Defend Stimulus (Where Unemployment is […]
NY’s Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand: Census Is for Illegal Aliens to Get Americans’ Taxpayer Money, So Be Counted! « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/17/2010 @ 7:58 am