hetereosexual marriage nullified because homosexual marriage could take place in town

from Poughkeepsie Journal

Marriage papers rejected
New Paltz nuptials since Feb. targeted
By Gabriel J. Wasserman

Darryl Bautista/Journal
Jeremy Wilkening and Susie Kilpatrick Wilkening were married Nov. 20 by minister Bill Schnitzer in New Paltz. They were denied a Social Security card name change under a policy against accepting New Paltz marriage documents as identification.
NEW PALTZ -- She only wanted a Social Security card, one with her husband's last name.
So newlywed Susie Kilpatrick Wilkening went to the Social Security office in Kingston Dec. 3, carrying what she thought was adequate proof of her identity.

She went home in disbelief, which soon led to tears, then anger: The federal government refused to honor her marriage certificate because it was issued in New Paltz.

''It is outrageous,'' she said this week. ''They have made the happiest time of our life into a mockery. ... My marriage has been hijacked by the federal government.''

In a bizarre twist of the legal controversy surrounding same-sex nuptials in New Paltz, marriage certificates issued by the town since Feb. 27 are useless for a Social Security name change. That applies to state-approved, heterosexual unions, too.

''Until the legal issues are resolved, local Social Security offices nationwide will not accept as evidence of identity any marriage documents issued in... New Paltz, N.Y., on or after Feb. 27, 2004,'' agency spokesman John Shallman said.

Policy decried

U.S. Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-Hurley, called the policy ''unconstitutional'' Friday. He's sending a letter to Social Security Commissioner Jo Anne B. Barnhart, urging her to ''immediately rescind this policy,'' the congressman said.

''We will respond after we get the letter,'' Barnhart spokesman Mark Hinkle said.

Feb. 27 is the date New Paltz village Mayor Jason West performed two dozen same-sex weddings outside village hall. Hundreds of same-sex marriages have been performed in the village since, officiated by members of the clergy and village trustees.

A state judge Thursday permanently banned any village official from certifying same-sex marriages. West already had been permanently banned from doing do.

Social Security is ''now penalizing straight couples... for living in a community that wants everyone [to have the right] to be married,'' West said Friday. 'My lawyers are aware of it.''

New York, a state that trains town and city clerks to certify marriages and spot fraud, recognizes neither same-sex marriage nor any marital documents issued by a village. The courts have yet to legitimize homosexual marriage other than for Massachusetts.

Social Security's ''blanket policy'' for any New Paltz marriage, Shallman said, ''makes for a more efficient conduct of business'' among the field agents who scrutinize documents to make sure they're legal.

''One can't always be 100 percent certain regarding gender,'' the agency spokesman said. ''It's not always obvious.''

Hinchey said the policy arbitrarily makes it difficult for his constituents to ''comply with other requirements'' like federal tax laws.

''It's way over the top,'' he said. ''It's a violation of the constitution I'm sure. ... These are people who have been legally married under appropriate, existing laws.''

Hinchey supports the concept of civil unions as defined by states.

West signed village certificates for same-sex weddings after Town Clerk Marian Cappillino declined to issue the longer, state-approved forms. The New York state Health Department requires a female ''bride'' and male ''groom.''

Cappillino signed the paperwork for the Wilkening union as she does for more than 100 other traditional marriages each year.

''Following the rules,'' Cappillino said upon learning of the federal policy Friday. ''Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

''I have not heard from Social Security,'' she said. ''If they want to contact me, I think it would be a great idea.''

Shallman said Social Security created the policy out of respect for state law. But field offices, he said, cannot be expected to distinguish legal New Paltz weddings from illegal ones.

''We don't differentiate,'' he said. ''It's the fairest way to do it. ... We don't discriminate.''

The policy has been in effect since March 8, Shallman said. Since then, the Kingston office has been processing approximately one New Paltz newlywed name change a month without controversy, he said.

Policies identical to the one for New Paltz were briefly in effect for four other communities where gay marriage has been a high-profile issue: San Francisco, Sandoval County, N.M., Multnomah County, Ore., and Asbury Park, N.J.

Only New Paltz marriages are still refused name changes.

''Why?'' asked Episcopal minister Bill Schnitzer, who Nov. 20, married Susie Kilpatrick Wilkening and her husband, Jeremy Wilkening. ''Do they think there's some fraud involved?''

''I wonder what's really impelling this... policy,'' Schnitzer said.

Shallman said it ''was created at SSA. It comes from our policy office. Beyond that it'd probably be inappropriate to speculate.''

Origin of policy not revealed

President Bush opposes same-sex marriage. Asked if the White House told Social Security to take a stand, Shallman said, ''We don't have to discuss where our policy comes from.''

The commissioner could not be reached Friday at the Social Security Administration headquarters in Washington.

Some provisions of the marriage document policy have been posted on a Social Security Administration Web site. But a link is not readily apparent on other parts of the Web site. Susie Kilpatrick Wilkening said she was not aware of the policy until a reporter called it to her attention this week.

Applicants for name change can, Shallman said, bring an alternate form of identification, such as a state driver's license. Some health insurance cards and employee I.D. cards also are accepted.

Only one form of I.D. is required to document the new name, along with one form of I.D. showing the old name, Shallman said.

''We will still effect the name change,'' he said. ''For identification purposes, Social Security accepts only legal documents. To change the name on a Social Security record, we require legal proof of identification under both the old and the new name.''

Refusing to recognize New Paltz marriage certificates, Schnitzer and Hinchey agreed, discriminates against a community that produces completely legal marriages.

All New Paltz Episcopal marriages follow state law, as does the town clerk, Schnitzer asserted.

''I went through very carefully to make sure that those forms are in order,'' the minister said of the Wilkening documents. ''Everything is in order. ... I am very scrupulous about marriages.''

Wilkening said the policy is more than a bureaucratic bungle.

''I am frightened of the legal ramifications,'' she said, arguing the policy makes it harder to obtain a variety of marital benefits.

Same-sex couples married in New Paltz have also lamented absent -- or harder to obtain -- benefits.

''We have to spend a lot of money'' on lawyers and other consultants to ensure rights to inheritance, health-care proxies and other benefits, Jeanne Vitale said. She lives in New Paltz with her partner, Amy Tripi, and their 3-month-old daughter.

Vitale and Tripi have sued, thus far unsuccessfully, for New York state marriage rights.

She can still change her name fairly easily. All it generally requires is a petition to a court. That is a really lame guideline for the SSA to have, however.


OEC

that just proves how far the government will go to do what it wants against the will of the people but yeah getting a name change is really easy

to play devils advocate here, I'd say that the reason bush was elected for a second term has a great deal to do with Massachusetts marrying gays. The people have spoken and the will of the majority is that gays and lesbians cannot become husband and wife. Personally, I think statewide sponsorship of marriage which is a religious ceremony should be abolished completetly... No tax breaks for those who settle on someone. It's a pipe dream, I know, but it's mine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Imnotherethisisnthappenin

to play devils advocate here, I'd say that the reason bush was elected for a second term has a great deal to do with Massachusetts marrying gays. The people have spoken and the will of the majority is that gays and lesbians cannot become husband and wife. Personally, I think statewide sponsorship of marriage which is a religious ceremony should be abolished completetly... No tax breaks for those who settle on someone. It's a pipe dream, I know, but it's mine.

---

Speaking personally, I think Bush's win has little to do with what is happeneing in Mass., and more to do with the fact that there is no papertrail back from the computerised voting machines in various States which, despite Democratic majority, swung suddenly to Republican.

That's not my dream, but my nightmare.

Of course there's nothing a good ole conspiracy theory can't explain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nightingale

Speaking personally, I think Bush's win has little to do with what is happeneing in Mass., and more to do with the fact that there is no papertrail back from the computerised voting machines in various States which, despite Democratic majority, swung suddenly to Republican.

That's not my dream, but my nightmare.

---

Bush won the election fairly, imo. It had nothing to do with Massachusetts.


OEC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OneEyedCat

Bush won the election fairly, imo. It had nothing to do with Massachusetts

---

I wouldn't like to comment on whether it was a fair win or not, the lack of a papertrail worries me immensely. However, as I said, his win had nothing to do with what is happening in Mass. now. As I recall, there is a federal law which prevents village marriages being accepted, and this is now being enforced - for all the wrong reasons, naturally.

Bush won through a variety of mistakes by the democratic party. One I thought should have been corrected was Kerry's insane answer of "go to my website" everytime someone wanted a clear answer on his plans as president. Here you are on national TV and you're telling me to go to your website to read about your ideas? If you can't discuss them yourself you really think I'm gonna waste my time on your website?

As far as a lack of papertrail...the voter system was screwed up then and it's screwed up now...with or without a paper trail.

Gay Marriege was not the hot issue many wanted it to be...both sides ignored it including the liberal left...their main supporters pushed too hard into middle american ideals...they may seem closeminded and unfair...but given the issue at hand the gay community went in the direction that was the hardest. You're not gonna get conservative middle america to see gay relationships as anything other than something sexual...they think gay they think gay sex...not love. They could try to change that image or focus on the legal benefits of marriege...makes far more sense.

Also religious marriges are not fully endorsed or supported by the state...when you get married you still have to get a marriege license and what not. So any religious based marriege that does not go the state law method runs the danger of not being recognized. Kinda like Howard Hughes and his fake marriges to nail morman chicks. So this is not a church and state issue...

Gay marriege will NEVER pass or be accepted so long as it's made a Republican vs. Democrat issue...both sides and their supporters don't get that...at all. They put their party and it's views before anything else...including their country that they serve at times. Many republicans have gay family members and their is even a gay republican pundit...so conservatives are not 100% agaisnt homosexuality...but with the issue often used by democrats to say how "liberal and fair they are" and conservatives to show how "traditional and moral" they are...it's jsut that...an issue to USE not discuss or make change with.

IMO, the whole goverment sucks ass in general and most politicians are crooks. I don't understand why they just can't let people alone and let them do their own thing, no matter what it is, as long as it doesn't harm anyone else.