Census won't count
married gays
The U.S. government will not count married gay couples in the 2010 census, the San Jose Mercury News reported July 12.
Instead, same-sex couples who accurately report that they are married will have their response tabulated by the Census Bureau as if they had checked 'unmarried partners.'
Same-sex marriage is legal in California and Massachusetts. In addition, New Yorkers who marry in those states or abroad are recognized as married in New York state.
The Mercury News said the Census Bureau's decision was based on the federal Defense of Marriage Act ( DOMA ) 'and other mandates.'
DOMA, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, states, in part: 'In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word 'marriage' means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word 'spouse' refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.'
Gary Gates of the Williams Institute, a think tank at the University of California Los Angeles law school, told the newspaper that the bureau's decision 'goes against everything the census stands for.'
'It's a systematic hiding not only of married gay couples, but gay couples as families, which I would argue is a fundamentally political decision,' Gates said.
Attempt to block Calif.
vote on marriage fails
The California Supreme Court denied a petition July 16 to remove from the November ballot the voter initiative to amend the state constitution to re-ban same-sex marriage.
Lawyers for Equality California, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, and the American Civil Liberties Union had argued that the proposed amendment, if passed, would actually amount to a 'revision' of the constitution.
While the California Constitution can be amended via a ballot initiative, it cannot be 'revised.' A revision of the document requires a proposal by the Legislature or by a constitutional convention, followed by popular ratification.
The groups also argued that the initiative should be stricken from the ballot because people who signed petitions to put it there were not given accurate information on the proposed amendment's impact.
Those petitions claimed the amendment would not change California law on marriage—which was true when the petitions were being circulated but is false now that same-sex marriage is legal.
The petitions also claimed the amendment would have no fiscal impact, but it will, because marrying gay couples from across the country brings money into California—both for counties and for businesses that cater to visitors.
While the court rejected removing the initiative from the ballot, it is possible the court would give renewed consideration to the groups' arguments should voters actually approve the amendment.
Polling suggests Californians do not support writing marriage discrimination into the state constitution, though that's no guarantee they won't do so in the privacy of the voting booth.
—Assistance: Bill Kelley
Read world news online at www.WindyCityMediaGroup.com .
