(no subject)

[jay]

According to one mailing list I'm on...

Effective today, the Social Security Administration has sent
orders to their regional offices not to honor any marriage license
issued by the City and County of San Francisco after February 12,
continuing indefinitely. *Not* any /same-sex/ license, but rather
ANY license.

Unfortunately, I'm not surprised... this is probably un-Constitutional, but it could likewise drag out for awhile in court. And it gives Bush a way to economically damage SF by squelching all marriage licenses, while undoubtedly blaming the mayor.

Comments

[geekchick]

The closest thing I can find to confirmation of that is in a story on sfgate.com:

"Already Friday, the Social Security Administration said it won't accept any licenses from San Francisco as proof of marriage until the questions are resolved.

"Until the issue of the legal validity of the licenses issued by San Francisco is resolved, thousands of holders of same-sex marriage licenses will remain in a foam of legal limbo," Lockyer wrote."

That reads to me like a slightly unclear way of saying that the SSA won't accept licenses issued to same-sex couples as proof of marriage until the issues are sorted out. Do you have any other cites on this?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

If they aren't accepting *any* licenses from San Francisco as proof of marriage for the duration, that would seem to be consistent. Otherwise, all I have is a third-hand report... could be just a rumor. Or an insider trying to stay anonymous, conversely...

[geekchick]

*nod* In context though (which I mostly snipped), the article appeared to be referring to same-sex marriage licenses. The preceding paragraph is:
"Lockyer said the court's action is urgently needed because thousands of newly married gays might otherwise think they enjoy the same rights granted other married couples -- such as the right to receive the other spouse's property in the absence of a will."

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

Given about 7000 people thus far married in same-sex ceremonies, it's likely that pretty soon someone will pass away and their spouse will try to exercise those rights...

[purpletigron.livejournal.com]

I was afraid of this... well, I suppose they are at least being consistent if they are not only refusing to recognise the same-sex licenses, but all of them :-S

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

I think there's a certain punitive aspect, too... Bush is using whatever limited leverage the Federal government has over what is otherwise a state issue.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

In what way would this economically damage San Francisco? I thought married couples payed *less* tax than unmarried, so in some sense it could be economically beneficial. Or does San Francisco have major marriage tourism which might be affected?

Of course, this might provide an interesting way to get married to two people (one in San francisco and one outside) for the polys among us.

Meanwhile, a question occurs to me... What is the sexual status of transgendered people in the US? Are they deemed to remain their pre-op sex, which is the case in the UK >spit< or to be their new sex? How does this affect marriage post-op?

More and more this whole thing indicates that governments have no place in defining who is whose partner.

[vokzal.livejournal.com]

Trans people can in some states change the F or M on their birth certificate. They can't in other states.

They were looking like the original test-case for same-sex marriage stuffs for a while.

Certainly some transfolk got married in SF.

[brooksmoses]

More and more this whole thing indicates that governments have no place in defining who is whose partner.

I would disagree. I think it indicates that governments have no place in restricting/defining who can be whose partner, but I think that they do have a fairly notable place in recognizing such partnerships when they are established -- just as they do in recognizing any sort of contract between people, when the contract affects something that is within the government's purview.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

But marriage contracts are distinctly different from most other contracts.

IAMAL, but my understanding is that, given certain broad constraints, generic contracts between companies, people, etc. can include whatever terms the people concerned agree on, and that these contracts then stand fixed. They can only be modified by mutual agreement between the original partners, and the drawing up of some kind of modified contract.

A marriage contract, in contrast, is a fixed set of terms, with no negotiating allowed. Moreover, the government can, and does, mess with the terms of this contract whenever they feel like it, with implications far beyond the terms of the agreement into taxation, inheritance etc..

Why should a government have such unique intrusive powers over the most intimate arrangement two people can make? I'll agree that there is some value in the government recognising relationship contracts between people, but why should that be different from them recognizing business partnerships etc.?

[brian1789.livejournal.com]

It affects already-planned weddings in the city -- they'll have to move their weddings to another jurisdiction, or else have to wait until the same-sex license legal issues are resolved before their own licenses will be honored. So presumably many SF spring weddings will relocate, hurting local hotels and catering businesses.

[purplecthulhu.livejournal.com]

Is there any suggestion that there will be a long term problem with heterosexual marriages in SF during this period, however the same sex marriages play out? If so, why bother moving things?

OK - I don't actually believe in state-lisenced relationships, as is probably becoming clear, so I may be completely misunderstanding this whole thing.

[trinker.livejournal.com]

Until laws against bigamy are taken away, that's not going to fly for poly marriage. Each of the participants in a marriage, even a gender-blind marriage, is supposed to be unmarried to any other at the time of the joining.