teriaki

Rant:

The Social Security Adminsitration as of today (2/27) is no longer accepting ANY (same sex or man/woman) marriage certificates issued in San Francisco as proof to change your name.

They say they'll accept other forms of proof that you want to change your name.....

They're saying that because it's tied up in the courts, that's the policy they have to take currently. So, essentially they're saying that all marriages in San Francisco are in limbo until a judge decides the legality....what other items can you use to prove you need your name changed? Judges orders, yes, but that's expensive.

Am I the only person that thinks this is absurd?

(and does this belong in Tilted Politics?)

__________________
Cute, but useless.

sexymama

What ever happened to seperation of church and state? The only roll the state should play in marriage, is changing the name legally if so desired.

__________________
If you can go deeply into lovemaking, the ego disappears. That is the beauty of lovemaking, that it is another source of a glimpse of god

It's not about being perfect; it's about developing some skill at managing imperfection.

cj2112

The law in California specifically forbids same sex marriages. Therefore any documents claiming that these are legally binding marriages are currently fraudulent, and it would be irresponsible of the Social Security Administration to knowingly accept fraudulent documents.

teriaki

cj2112,

the problem is they're not just suspending the licenses of gay couples- they're suspending ALL of them. So, even hetero couples that tied the knot here in the city can't get their names changed....that's the absurd part.

While I have my own opinions about gay marriage, I'll let the courts muck about with that.

__________________
Cute, but useless.

Cynthetiq

having been married by a notary public, and not religious proctor, then if only CHURCHES make marriages, then where would I have gone?

I definitely didn't want to get married in a church and my wife who is jewish didn't want ANY kind of religious symbolism in our wedding.

__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.

teriaki

Cynthetiq-

Did she change her last name to yours?

__________________
Cute, but useless.

Cynthetiq

she's opted to keep her last name for the time being, she did not realize that when she was signing the marriage certificate, it was a simple check box to get the ball rolling.

She still would have had to submit to the SSI and other groups in order to get her name changed.

If we have children she will take my name for ease of schooling since the children will carry my last name.

IMHO there has been only little issue with us having different last names, which we've navigated quite easily from hospital issues (staying with your spouse vs. girl/boyfriend not allowed) to travel related issues (different names on hotel rooms can be challenging for different arrival times)

onetime2

Could their refusal to accept the licenses be related to the fact that they can't know for sure by the names on the licenses whether the "marriage" was hetero or not? If the issue is that they can't or won't accept a homosexual union, I can understand the reality that they just wouldn't have the manpower to investigate every application to determine the sex of the couple. Of course, if the sex of each is in the document, this has no bearing.

__________________
Strive to be more curious than ignorant.

cj2112

forgive me, i must've missed that in your original post, and yes that part is absurd.

Zander

Obviously people are forgetting the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

Cynthetiq

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


I don't see how they are denying equal protection of laws.