New Paltz is about a 2 hour drive south of me, and earlier this year was one hot spot in the gay marriage controversy. The mayor, Jason West, decided to issue marriage licenses to gay couples until Eliot Spitzer and the state government ordered him to stop. The fallout of this is that marriage licenses issued in New Paltz after February 27, 2004 are not being recognized by the Social Security Administration as valid - and that's ALL marriage licenses.
The full article is available at the New York Times here. Here is, to me, the first "money quote" of the article, from a heterosexual woman whose license was rejected:
"What concerns me is that the certificate is the only way to prove that we're married," she said. "If something happens to us - or some other couple from New Paltz - we can't prove we're married. We would not be able to draw benefits."
If I recall correctly, this was one of the arguments for allowing gay marriage - the legal rights and benefits that married couples automatically are entitled to. Note that there are no religious arguments here or cries of civilization crumbling in this woman's statement - just a concern about what the legal impact would be of something dreadful happening to her or her partner.
This was the other highlight of the article, a statement from a Unitarian pastor:
The Rev. Dawn Sangrey, a Unitarian minister who has used the affidavit system to marry more than 200 same-sex couples in New Paltz since February, said that the policy highlighted the rippling consequences of denying gay couples the right to marry. "We are all in this together, and this is so beautifully illustrated here," she said. "Who knows where this policy came from, but the fact that it's generalized illustrates that when you start taking away people's rights, it's a cascading tide."
Certainly someone somewhere will try to fix this problem at the Social Security Administration - but it will not be possible to do so without explicitly stating that gays are not entitled to any of the rights of married heterosexual couples. And that will simply continue the battle over gay marriage and gay rights. If anyone in the conservative Christian camp thought that Bush's re-election killed the issue, think again.
you miss the point. the mayor did not act responsibly. the AG for NYS said that the marriages were not legal. the new paltz mayor should have asked the AGs office for their opinion first.
the SS administration is doing just what it should. it is being a good steward of our $$$. if they give benefits where not deserved they have thrown away $$$.
Posted by: mike at December 24, 2004 09:02 PMWilliam,
Don't think that such things are not already on the agenda for the Christian conservatives. If you pay attention, you'll see that people like James Dobson and Donald Wildmon actually do believe that divorce is incompatible with Biblical law, and second marriages are not advocated because a first marriage cannot actually be undone in the eyes of God. But they're not putting that out on the forefront of their public agenda, because they'd quickly be branded as fringe lunatics for suggesting that divorce be outlawed and marriages be permanently, legally binding - after all, divorce, according to the Bible, is almost as old an institution as marriage itself. Compare that to gay marriage, which is something new, and that many people feel uneasy or afraid of. Condemning that and putting that on the public agenda doesn't seem so fringe or lunatic.
But don't be surprised if, given the sense that their agenda has become the mandate for the country, these fundamentalists start proposing such ideas as banning legal divorce. Maybe not today but it will come - watch.
Posted by: Mark Kittel at December 22, 2004 11:59 AMWhen it starts affecting everyone, it'll become an issue the people understand. I've suggested this before, but so fat no one wants to push it. If we're letting the Bible write our laws about marriage, Luke 16:18 makes second marriages illegal. Start a drive to have those marriages invalidated too.
Posted by: William Bollinger at December 22, 2004 11:28 AMMike,
Yes, you're correct that he broke the law. Technically, he believed that the NY Constitution did not explicitly bar gay couples from marriage. He may have willfully interpreted it that way - the government saw differently.
The point is not the he did the right thing (that's a matter of opinion) but whether or not the Social Security administration is doing the right thing. It's also fascinating that a straight couple is dealing with the same legal fears that gay couples do. As I pointed out, no one was worried that their union wouldn't be recognized by God (seemed that wasn't all that important) or by a church, or that the marriage was invalid because of this, but they were concerned about the legal ramifications of not having such a legal document recognized in the event one partner was injured or killed. That's been a longstanding argument of gay couples for why they need to have their unions legally recognized as well.
Also, I would like to note here that in the 1960's, blacks did not win the struggle for civil rights by obediently following the law and following the orders of law officials. They were often non-violent and civilly disobedient, yes, but they did violate laws and they did willfully decline to follow the orders of police officers. Sometimes, breaking the law is necessary in order to achieve justice. Justice and Law are not the same thing nor does one lead to the other.
Posted by: Mark Kittel at December 22, 2004 09:33 AMThe mayor of new paltz broke the law when he approved those certificates and officiated over the weddings. you may not agree with the law but it was the mayor that cause the problem for the SS administration. hes a young kid though so can be excused, i suppose, for not thinking too far ahead of his actions.
the article also says that this is a temporary situation and will be resolved.
Yes, but the dates are different, and it depends on what form you got. If the form says "Applicant 1" and "Applicant 2" then it is invalid, but if it says "husband" and "wife" or "groom" and "bride" then it is legit. So already, they've gone for implicit discrimination in making their decision on which ones are valid and which ones aren't.
Posted by: Mark Kittel at December 21, 2004 12:52 PMDoes this mean the SSA is doing the same thing to San Francisco residents?
Posted by: EG at December 21, 2004 12:15 PM