Doesn't Bush instruction to the SS violate article IV

Great Debates
1

I put this in great debates because lets face it, the Gay Marraige issue always devolve into a debate anyway. I have a two part question.

First doesn’t the order to the Social Security not to record licences from San Francisco for name changes to Social Security cards violate the Full Faith Clause? Also since this order effects all marriages issued in the county of SF (SF is a city and county), not just gay marriages, isn’t this puttng an unfair additional burden on anyone who gets married in SF?

2

Is there actually any evidence that Bush ordered this?

The gay marriages in CA are not recognized by the state, so the feds don’t have to recognize them. I don’t understand the point of not recognizing any SF marriages certificates. Is there some legit reason that the SS administration can’t tell the difference? BTW, heterosexuals who were married in SF can still change their names with the SS administration-- they just have to show some other form of ID (like a Driver’s License) rather than an SF marriage certificate. Link.

3

Here’s a helpful link for anyone else who hasn’t been playing along:
Social Security Says ‘No’ to SF Marriage Licenses

4

It just occured to me why the SS administration is not accepting the marriage certificates from SF. They don’t have a clear way of knowing if the person who is petitioning to change his/her name has a “gay marriage” certificate or a “standard marriage” certificate. All they see is the names, and they’d have to guess if one name is male and the other is female.

SNL has a new “Pat” skit in the works as we speak… :slight_smile:

Supposedly the folks at SF city hall are altering the certificates for gays to say “applicate 1…applicate 2” instead of “bride…groom”. But I can understand why the bureaucrats wouldn’t want to count on this being done all the time. They really have no way of knowing.

5

and that would be “applicant”, not “applicate”. preview… preview… preview…

6

I wondered the same thing, I can’t find a cite for it, but that’s how the talking heads on TV have been saying it. Every print medium I’ve seen has been along the lines of the one Squink.

I also wondered the same thing, according to news reports I’ve heard hetero-couples get the old unchanged form.

7

Ok, one mystery solved. Two forms the old and “same sex” (you must have MS Word or acrobat to view the forms).

8

No. The full faith and credit clause applies to the states, not the federal government.

Here’s the text: “Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.”

9

Oh and BTW, this is not a FF&C issue, which deals with interactions between states, not between a state and the feds.

But who would’ve thunk that it would be the Social Security administration that would answer the oft asked question: How will gay marriage affect the marriages of straight people? :slight_smile:

10

Not really. Like I said above, how is anyone supposed to know if the the folks in SF don’t slip up and give the unaltered form to some gays by accident? We’re talking paperwork, here.

11

Technically the Full Faith and Credit clause only applies to states recognising the public acts of other states. It doesn’t say anything about the government.

More importantly, the state of California does not (yet) recognise the SF marriages, meaning the other states don’t have to either.