The Los Angeles Times reports that the U.S. Census Bureau, in their initial reports, vastly overestimated the number of same-sex households in the United States:
The 2010 census overestimated the number of households with same-sex married couples by more than 160%, the U.S. Census Bureau announced Tuesday.
The 2010 census first reported that there were 349,377 same-sex married-couple households and 552,620 same-sex unmarried-partner households across the country.
On Tuesday officials said they had revised the count to 131,729 same-sex married-couple[s] and 514,735 same-sex unmarried-partner households.
In other words, the actual number of same-sex households in America is tiny - only 0.773%.
Of course, these revised national numbers also change the landscape on the state level.
In Minnesota for instance, the StarTribune reports:
The original census data counted 4,325 same-sex couples who identified themselves as married and living together in Minnesota -- three times higher than the revised figure [~1,300]. The original census data also counted 13,718 same-sex couples living together in Minnesota, regardless of marital status, while the revised estimate is now only 10,207.
And in New Jersey, the Star-Ledger reports:
"...the U.S. Census Bureau said a statistical snafu inflated earlier totals, and there are actually fewer gay and lesbian couples living together in the Garden State than previously estimated.
The Census now says there were 16,875 same-sex couples living together in 2010, down from original estimate of 24,112 released two months ago. Notably, the new figures drop the number of married same-sex couples living together in New Jersey to 4,447 down from nearly 11,000."
Or, take a look at California, via the Sacramento Bee:
In California, the Census Bureau said, 0.726 percent of households are same-sex couples, markedly lower than the 2000 census figure for the state.
Again, less than one percent.
23 Comments
Using the ol' small = insignificant argument...twice today! That's when you know they're grasping at straws. American Indians are less than 1% of the population. Would you like to deny them marriage and its respective benefits as well?
I know how the argument goes, you folks tell me being gay is a choice, I say it's not, etc. So let's skip those steps and get to the part where I ask: why in the world would anyone choose to be in a discriminated minority if they were not born that way?
Using the ol' pseudo-marriage is a "right" argument.
It's not a "right," any more than "marrying" my sister is a right.
Live however you want. It's not marriage.
Why is the census taking statistics on the sex practices of Americans? This practice needs to be stopped, it has no purpose. The constitution required a count of the population, not an accounting of what they do in the bedroom.
"I know how the argument goes, you folks tell me being gay is a choice, I say it's not, etc."
I'll take it a step further: Being "gay" doesn't matter when it comes to determining eligibility in marriage. That's how we preserve equal treatment for all citizens.
If it's not a right Barb, you shouldn't be collecting any government sponsored benefit. That means tax benefits, immigration rights, etc. As long as the taxpayer dollar is spent to benefit married couples, it's a right.
Is anyone else starting to see a pattern here; why is it that the words "lie" and "inflate" seem to follow every poll related to marriage corruption supporters.
For marriage corruption supporters lying is a virtue.
As always the same old lies from the homosexuals. Always looking to deny any responsibility for how they behave, out comes the born that way lie.
@EvolveAlready
Single individuals can make the same argument that no government benefits should be extended to married couples that aren't extended to singles. They can just as easily argue that it is their right.
@Everyone else
Does anyone know why the Census Bureau made such an error? Whether the number is big or small, the number should be accurate.
EvolveAlready,there is a public interest in tax dollars supporting opposite-sex relationships,and in that benefit being reserved only for opposite-sex relationships.It's when same-sex couples are allowed the same benefits that the justification for the institution disappears.
In any event,roommates of the same sex are entitled to the benefit of the doubt from census takers unless they explicitly confess to complicity in a same-sex sexual relationship.
More blanket statements without merit or substance. You must be very warm Louis!
The merit and substance are there in abundance,for all the Crazy-Glue you squirt on your eyes whenever you look at them.
You do realize that was another generalized statement, right?
Please, Mr. Merit and Substance, explain the following: "when same-sex couples are allowed the same benefits that the justification for the institution disappears."
Gay marriage is legal in my home state. No hetero-couples saw their rights disappear in 2004 when this occurred. Hetero couples continued to get married because they saw plenty 'justification' to do such. Your thoughts?
"Gay marriage is legal in my home state."
No foolin'?! So, do you bring a note from your Dr. stating you're homosexual, when you apply for a gay marriage license, or do you have to prove you are involved in homosexual sexual behavior to get a "gay" marriage? And, can two "straight" people get a "gay" marriage, or are they barred from it on account of their sexual orientation?
And here I thought SSM was merely a sex-segregated public union, with no stipulation on sexual orientation. Who knew?
When SSM was legalized in your state, "brides" and "grooms" became extinct. Now, all y'all're just "partners."
It's all about how we "CHOOSE" to behave!
Of course, that means "CHOOSING" to give everyone who is NOT gay and IS religious a hard time!
Mostly, if you leave everyone else alone, they will leave you alone!
Notwithstanding the idiots who are out to be mean anyway!
DoE... do you really have to try that hard?
Love your comments, DoE.
This sort of deflates the balloon that same-sex marriage is such a huge threat to society. It elicits two observations:
1. Let same-sex marriage be legally recognized and you will get more accurate data. Definitions are currently mixed between the legal and personal interpretation, and confusion where a marriage is legally recognized in one jurisdiciton and not in the next.
2. This shows that it will not profoundly affect traditional marriage. When ssm receives nationwide legal protection and recognition in the US, it will become a non-issue as it did in Canada. Heterosexual marriage will not be affected and a whole lobbying industry that keeps the issue in your face as a national threat will die a natural death. Money will be redirected toward targets of national emergency: the economy and jobs.
Claude,marriage serves no useful purpose other than reserving certain protections EXCLUSIVELY to OPPOSITE-SEX relationships in recognition of there only being any public interest in promoting that kind of relationship.No one should marry anywhere that allows SSM (that includes my home state,for now).
For homosexuals, marriage means nothing but a bundle of benefits. However, marriage is the building block of society established by God. A man and woman form the home church. The family is where children learn to love and how to relate with others. In society, people relate with others how they learned at home. It's a horrid thought replacing the family with men who have sex with men or women with women. It is contrary to natural law, which should always take precedence over man's law. Furthermore, as marriage was established by God (and has been properly recognized for millenia), no government has any authority to redefine what marriage is.
The left must quit denying liberty for children. If you have kids or grandkids, procaim liberty at http://www.libertyforchildren.com
"American Indians are less than 1% of the population. Would you like to deny them marriage and its respective benefits as well ?"
Since when has anyone denied American Indians the right to get married ? What does being an American Indian have to do with SSM ?
Why in the world would anyone choose to be in a discriminated minority if they were not born that way?
1) Unrestrained lust.
2) Addiction after trying it like smoking. or some drugs.
3) Promiscuity can be very seductive and enticing. Stats prove this lifestyle is very promiscuous.
4) It has created a culture for itself that promotes itself as cool and adventurous despite the horrific health risks.
Nuff said!
We're not descended from the apes, but, it's rather apparent some within our society have only come so far . . . NO! We're NOT surrendering MARRIAGE to a band of degenerates - no matter how small the numbers!