Saturday, December 18, 2004

A follow-up on this post: Here, from the Social Security Administration's own Web site, is U.S. government policy declaring that gay marriage in New Paltz and elsewhere makes all marriages that took place at the same time in those jurisdictions invalid for SSA's purposes -- and in New Paltz, invalid status applies to marriages that have taken place ever since. (Scroll down to section G.)

2. Marriage Documents Issued by Other Jurisdictions

Do not accept any marriage documents as evidence of identity issued by the following jurisdictions during the respective timeframes, as follows:

Sandoval County, New Mexico, on 02/20/04;

New Paltz, New York, on or after 02/27/04;

Multnomah County, Oregon, on 03/03/04 through 04/20/04;

Asbury Park, New Jersey, on 03/08/04 through 03/10/04....

Here's the result (from the New Paltz Times):

This past December 3, New Paltz newlywed Susie Kilpatrick took her New York State marriage license to the SSA office in Kingston as proof of her recent union with Jeremy Wilkening so that she could get her name officially changed on her Social Security card.

"I'm a bit traditional and wanted to take my husband's name," she said. "I thought the first place to start was with the Social Security Administration."

Kilpatrick was told by the clerk that the SSA would not accept marriage licenses from New Paltz. The young bride then demanded that he check with his supervisor, who concurred that the SSA had passed a policy in which no marriage documents issued in New Paltz could be accepted as valid proof of identity.

"The federal government will not recognize that I'm married," said Kilpatrick. "And the clerk there told me he has turned down several other women from New Paltz who wanted to take their husband's name. I was flabbergasted and in the end outraged. Clearly this is an issue of state's rights, and how dare the federal government deny me and attempt to take away my rights as a spouse?"

Here you go, Christian jihadis. Here are the "enemies of traditional marriage" you're punishing:

Remember, she's "a bit traditional and want[s] to take [her] husband's name." It's your president, God's president, who's stopping her.

Town supervisor Wilen said that he would like to get a list of all 123 people married from February 27 to date so that he can write them a letter informing them of the situation. "It is one of the most outrageous things I've heard," he said. "God forbid something happens to one of them and the other is not recognized as a legitimate spouse. Or when they go to file their income taxes or collect on the Social Security ten years down the road...."

(The same thing could be said, of course, about all the gay couples who were married in New Paltz and elsewhere, but I don't expect the jihadis to ever understand that.)

(Thanks to Dan and Elizabeth for the story.)

No comments: