(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?

[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

[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.