Okay, next - San Francisco...
Posted on 12/19/2004 5:50:25 PM PST by Sub-Driver
Social Security Rejects Heterosexual Marriage Documents From Communities That Performed Gay Marriages The Associated Press
NEW PALTZ, N.Y. (AP) - The Social Security Administration is rejecting marriage documents issued for heterosexual couples in four communities that performed weddings for gay couples earlier this year.
The agency is rejecting all marriage certificates issued in New Paltz, N.Y., after Feb. 27, when the town's mayor began marrying gay couples, according to town officials.
Certificates issued during the brief periods when Asbury Park, N.J., Multnomah County, Ore., and Sandoval County, N.M., recognized gay marriages are also being rejected.
Susie Kilpatrick, 30, of New Paltz, said the local Social Security office told her that no marriage documents issued after Feb. 27 could be used to establish identity because of the gay marriages that took place there earlier this year. About 125 heterosexual couples have been married since then.
Kilpatrick said her marriage certificate was rejected when she went to get a new card earlier this month so she could take her husband's name.
"What concerns me is that the certificate is the only way to prove that we're married," she told The New York Times for Sunday editions. "If something happens to us, or some other couple from New Paltz, we can't prove we're married. We would not be able to draw benefits."
(Excerpt) Read more at ap.tbo.com ...
A turn of events I bet nobody foresaw.
Okay, next - San Francisco...
When a county throws its credibility out the window by breaking the law, what is social security supposed to do?
So they're not only poisoning our kids' minds and human bloodlines, they're tainting our paper trails (AGAIN), eh? History revision at work!
Sounds like SS is making a BIG pre-emptive move, equal opportunity style....sounds like something to watch closely.
Why are they accepting Mass & Vermont's queers-mocking-marriage certificate? Social Security is a federal matter, and the federal government is forbidden to recognize Queer Fantasies.
I like it. Do something stupid and get your credentials stripped. Sounds like accountability to me.
Looks like a good opportunity to sue the cities.
Wrong. I've been saying this from the get-go... that gay marriage would become a FEDERAL issue because one of the main reasons gay couples want to get married is so their spouse can have the social security benefits. From the gays I know, this is the primary reason they want to get married. It's all about money from the government.
I agree. If the state and federal governments simply quit recognizing marriage and left it to a couple's religious affiliation, The whole marriage/civil union contreversies would be dead.
To all of this forum's " Bush isn't conservative enough," crowd..... Merry Christmas!
Good point.
What will the AARP do with the 98% of the members who don't wan't their benefits reduced in order to federally fund the recreational sex of homosexuals?
If this time when democrats are salivating at protecting social security viability, their homosexual core group will make demands that will further weaken social security. This is going to be fun.
Of course this will also be used to challenge the federal law of DMA. This will revive more of the Federal Marriage Amendment.
We have a nice lunch, and in conversation my cousin's friend makes reference to "my husband". I guess my Midwestern jaw was on the table - so she took the time to explain that she was married to a gay male flight attendant for United, while she worked for the City of San Francisco. She got travel benefits as the spouse of a United employee, he got great health benefits as the spouse of a City employee. They met every 6 months or so to exchange paperwork, and that was it.
This was in 1980.
I bet the census records (particularly in San Francisco) are full of these sham marriages and the percentage of non-marriage "marriages" is probably in the low single digits. Definitely not an argument to allow gay marriage - just something to consider when someone argues for the sanctity of heterosexual marriage - i.e., sadly, it's been pretty polluted already.
To this forum's "Bush can do no wrong crowd. . .
You'll probably find that Bush knows nothing of this and it's a decision by some low level Democrat bureaucrat or holdover from Clinton and it is not to punish the folks who performed the illegal marriages between homosexuals, but rather an attempt to punish heterosexuals.
This is exactly why there needs to be a federal amendment.
I agree rintense. A large number of AIDS infected people, and people with HIV are on SSD (disability through the Social Security Laws) as well. Are there survivor benefits through Social Security?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.