Posted on 12/20/2004 12:55:18 AM PST by JohnHuang2
NEW PALTZ, N.Y. (AP) -- The Social Security Administration is rejecting marriage documents issued for all couples in communities that performed homosexual "weddings" earlier this year.
The agency is rejecting all marriage certificates issued in New Paltz, N.Y.; Asbury Park, N.J.; Multnomah County, Ore.; and Sandoval County, N.M., during the brief periods when those localities illegally granted marriage licenses to homosexual couples.
Susie Kilpatrick, 30, of New Paltz, said the local Social Security office told her that no marriage documents from the town could be used to establish identity if they were issued after Feb. 27, when New Paltz's mayor began "marrying" homosexual couples. About 125 male-female couples have been married since then in the town.
Mrs. 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 yesterday's 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."
The Social Security Administration did not respond to requests for comment from the New York paper. A call from the Associated Press for comment yesterday was not immediately returned.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
I feel sorry for them too.
In my state, you have to get your marriage license from the town/city where you'll be getting married. So say the city leaders go off their rocker and start condoning this same sex marriage thing - the heterosexual couples who would be getting married there still have no choice but to get their marriage license there. That could potentially lead to problems such as those mentioned in the article.
While it's important to stop local politicians from taking marriage laws into their own hands, the feds should not be making legally-married heterosexual couples suffer by not recognizing their marriages.
Your federal gov't at work.
"It somehow doesn't seem fair if their marriages don't count for Social Security Disability purposes because their elected officials illegally thought it was okay for a man and a man to elope."
lol..somehow?
That would just apply more pressure. This strategy is brilliant if I do say so myself.
The homsexual marriages in Mass are not recognized under federal law for ss benefits. I know for a fact they are unacepted for immigration visas.
I think the article is just spining, it should have read hetersexual.
As for civil unions, they are meaningless on the federal level. as it should be.
I wonder how many of the straight couples in these communities supported homosexual marriage. My guess, quite a few.
This smacks of a set up for a test case in the courts.
We need to know who the SS players are and who made this decision.
Aughhh. What else can I say?
Equating this filth to human rights is a sick joke it is they who are the bigots, not you.
Doesn't the Bible speak of a time when wrong would be considered right and right considered wrong?
Maybe it is the Christian in me, maybe the libertarian in me, but I have to ask:
Why does one need a license from the government to get married in the first place?
The real "answer" to dealing with homosexual marriages is to get the govt out of it. The Federal Marriage Amendment is an abomination of the Constitution and the Amendment process. Leave the issue to Churches and the private sector such as insurance companies and banks. Two people can already draw up contracts to share almost anything regardless of their marital status anyways.
Marriage is between two people and God. If you don't believe in God, it's between two people. Marriage is not a function of the government. Keep them out of the picture.
Why does one need a license from the government to get married in the first place?
I agree in principle, but all the legal stuff is there to deal with the legal ramifications of marriage. i.e. abuse, divorce, support, estate, insurance benefits. That kind of stuff. That's why it's such a 'hot button' issue with the sodomites.
...That, and the fact that they want to force their social agenda onto an unwilling society.
aaarrrrggghhh! there goes breakfast - dang you stockpirate!!
I find it morally reprehensible that government has any "licensing" function of marriage.
I agree with you. All I'm saying is that marriage has taken on a legal aspect in our society. I don't like it, but there it is.
Also, one of their main arguments is that with a civil union, you can't force an insurance companies to extend benefits to a so called 'spouse'.(as it should be. Why should we all pay higher premiums for that.)
"A soldier in Iraq was just convicted of murder after shooting an young Iraqi soldier that he had just had sex with."
aaarrrrggghhh! there goes breakfast - dang you stockpirate!!
Charge him with sodomy(which is against the military code of justice) and see how quickly the ACLU scum get involved.
Don't ask, don't tell......Don't blame the messenger.
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.