(no subject)
Feb. 27th, 2004 05:13 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jayAccording 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.
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.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-28 06:44 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2004-02-29 10:27 am (UTC)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.?