Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register

State Dept. Denies Gay’s Nuptial Name Change

hair-wynn.jpg
Massachusetts may recognize gay marriage, but that means absolutely nothing to the State Department:

As an AIDS counselor, Jason Hair-Wynn wants to bring his expertise to Africa, a continent that has been ravaged by the disease.

But when the Attleboro resident recently applied for a new passport so he could go to Africa, he learned the U.S. State Department would not recognize his new hyphenated name because he is a gay man married to another man.

He said the State Department said it was prohibited from recognizing his new name by the Defense of Marriage Act.

“We are unable to comply with your request for a name change based on the documentation you sent because of the Defense of Marriage Act …,” the letter states.

The missive goes on to remind Hair-Wynn that federal agencies define marriage as between “one man and one woman”. God, isn’t federalism wonderful?

By:           Andrew Belonksy
On:           Mar 21, 2008
Tagged: , , , , ,
  • 15 Comments
    • Shaun Tom
      Shaun Tom

      This is absolutely outrageous. Change needs to occur, and it needs to occur now.

      Mar 21, 2008 at 9:56 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • CitizenGeek
      CitizenGeek

      This is outrageous! The Defense of Marriage Act is the doing of the Clintons … and yet gay rights organizations can’t support Hillary quick enough? It’s disgraceful …

      Mar 21, 2008 at 10:07 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jesse
      Jesse

      DOMA is completely unconstitutional. We can thank Bill Clinton for signing that lovely gem.

      Hillary Clinton does not support a full repeal of DOMA….Barack Obama does.

      Gobama! 2008

      Mar 21, 2008 at 10:40 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Vinman
      Vinman

      This is incredible! I cannot believe this has not come up before. Yes, and a Big Thanks for NOTHING to the Clintons!

      Mar 21, 2008 at 10:41 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • key
      key

      One step forward and two steps back.

      Mar 21, 2008 at 10:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike

      Well, I’m glad to see what I was going to comment here has already been said. I do not understand the gay community’s blind support of the Clinton’s. Obama ’08.

      Mar 21, 2008 at 10:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike
      Mike [Different person #1 using similar name]

      I totally agree. I feel like the Clinton campaign has managed to con gays in a way I don’t understand.

      Mar 21, 2008 at 11:13 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blackiemiko
      blackiemiko

      Yes, this is something the Clintons created and Hillary will not change this. Obama wants to repeal this.

      Mar 21, 2008 at 11:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alan down in Florida
      Alan down in Florida

      Isn’t all that is necessary a legal name change? If he wanted to change his name to Jason Grilledcheesesandwich doesn’t the US government have to recognize it if the state approves it – whatever the reason?

      Mar 21, 2008 at 11:46 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ajax
      ajax

      While this injustice makes my heart aches for Mr. Hair-Wynn and his loving husband, I must confess, a part of me is glad to see these injustices. Mr. Hair-Wynn, you may have no desire to be an activist, but this injustice brings light to the most basic and fundamental of issues. When a law takes our names away from us, how can that law be constitutional? I hope the mainstream press picks this up. No one can paint this as a religisous issue. This is why marriage is important.

      Mar 21, 2008 at 12:06 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Michael Bedwell
      Michael Bedwell

      Those who agree with Jesse, et al., are free to, of course. But we interrupt the latest Obama Circle Jerk for a few facts.

      Nearly A YEAR after stating it on her Website; SEVEN MONTHS after the LOGO forum; and after numerous interviews in between, there is no excuse for anyone claiming that Sen. Clinton does not have the EXACT SAME position as Obama on repealing the section of DOMA regarding federal statutes and agencies that the couple above, among others married in Massachusetts, have run into.

      As for the meaningless nonsense about his supporting “full repeal” of DOMA, hears the full truth. Obama’s functional position [which he avoids talking about and his campaign and gay shills repeatedly misrepresent] is also the same as Sen. Clinton—that, even without DOMA, respect for the tradition of “states’ rights” should be followed.

      And, further, Obama, Inc., stopped sending out his Constitutional law advisor Lawrence Tribe to talk to reporters after he revealed that fact last August AND more embarrassing still for the candidate whose allegedly superiority on the issue Tribe said in regard to interaction between states [not the federal implicatons], “Same-sex couples ARE NEITHER BETTER NOR WORSE OFF WITH DOMA REPEALED.”

      So much for another fake political shell game by Obama.

      Mar 21, 2008 at 2:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • inspiration
      inspiration

      All Mr Hair-Wynn needs to do, I think, is have a legal change of surname. Just hire a lawyer, petition a court to have your surname changed, and bingo..

      Mar 22, 2008 at 1:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Trey07
      Trey07

      Well, it’s not really that easy…there are actually federal laws in place that prevent someone from changing their name but so many times over a period of time. It’s intended as a protection against fraud…so that John Doe can’t bilk you out of thousands of dollars, and then simply change names to Tom Brown and live “happily ever after” – or only until Tom Brown then changes his name again to Dick Winston, only to then change it to Harry Smith, three months later – and so on.

      So if ht’e already had one legal name change to the hyphenated name because of his state granted marriage license – it seems like a real quandry…and perhaps fodder for a federal lawsuit?

      Mar 22, 2008 at 2:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • jlina
      jlina

      Actually, Federalism is wonderful. Were it not for Federalism, he wouldn’t have been able to get married in the first place.

      Mar 24, 2008 at 6:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jaroslaw
      Jaroslaw

      Jlina – please explain yourself. Marriage has been a state issue until DOMA.

      And I have said a number of places, the Clintons are not my heroes, but unless I’m mistaken, DOMA was the only thing that kept the rabid Republicans from going full tilt with a Constitutional Amendment which would be MUCH harder to undo than DOMA. And Massachusetts marriage would be impossible. So I think we need to thank Bill Clinton, as much I might prefer to do otherwise.

      Mar 24, 2008 at 8:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Please log in to add your comment

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.



  • QUEERTY DAILY

     


    POPULAR ON QUEERTY


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.