PDA

View Full Version : Alabama weighs eliminating all marriage licenses




William Tell
05-01-2015, 07:33 AM
Alabama weighs eliminating all marriage licenses— gay or straighthttps://cmgajcpolitics.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/gay-marriage-alabama-jpeg.jpg?w=640&h=492

Alabama has been the state most willing to punch back against federal courts (http://www.myajc.com/news/news/state-regional-govt-politics/50-years-on-selma-sees-another-rights-battle/nkBzs/#a6e4b249.3495384.735718) on the question of same-sex marriage.


Ahead of a U.S. Supreme Court decision that could nationalize the practice, lawmakers there are looking at more of a bob-and-weave strategy.

From Brian Lyman at the Montgomery Advertiser (http://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/politics/southunionstreet/2015/04/29/marriage-licenses-abolished-bill/26591733/):

A Senate committee approved a bill Wednesday that would get rid of the license requirement for couples seeking to marry.



Although the bill does not explicitly address the issue, Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Range, the bill’s sponsor, told Senate Judiciary Committee members that the bill was a reaction to the standoff between a federal court and the Alabama Supreme Court over the legal status of same-sex marriage. Albritton described it as a way of “bringing order out of chaos.”

“It does not change standing law in Alabama, whatever the law may be,” Albritton said. “If the law should change in another couple of months or stand, the procedure is the same.”


One conservative school of thought is that government should get out of the marriage game altogether. We’ll see if this catches on.


http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2015/04/30/alabama-weighs-eliminating-all-marriage-licenses-gay-or-straight/

oyarde
05-01-2015, 08:19 AM
Eliminating licensing is good .

phill4paul
05-01-2015, 08:23 AM
Eliminating licensing is good .

Indeed.

CaptUSA
05-01-2015, 08:30 AM
Eliminating licensing is good .

End Licensing. Droit du seigneur will suffice. May the State reign supreme!

wizardwatson
05-01-2015, 08:37 AM
I'm against gay marriage like I'm against a lot of other WAY MORE IMPORTANT THINGS.

All of the sudden, because the dates are lining up, and the blood moons, and ISIS, and earthquakes, and realizations of the connections between gay marriage and pre-flood and sodom era, and all this stuff is starting to point to God coming back, everyone's getting a little freaked out.

"It's happening Cletus! We better get our shit together! The only way to beat the gays is to ditch marriage altogether! God will understand!"

God is laughing, LAUGHING!, at these pathetic last-ditch efforts to impress Him. And honestly, I'm laughing with him. Another example of people thinking that God can be pleased by the works of men. Ditching marriage is no different than constructing a golden calf. It is pathetic.

Any Christian worth his salt, should see this as a sign only. There isn't anything you can do to stop it. It is WAAAAAAAAY too late.

Consider this ONE statistic on Alabama compared to this ONE statistic on ISIS.

*****
https://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/sfaa/alabama.html

In Alabama, 81,700 of the 959,278 women of reproductive age became pregnant in 2011. 73% of these pregnancies resulted in live births and 12% in induced abortions.

[that's 9804 abortions IN JUST ALABAMA in 2011]

*****
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/10/07/isis-s-gruesome-muslim-death-toll.html

What did the UN find? ISIS had carried out attacks deliberately and systematically targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, with the intention of killing and wounding civilians. The UN concluded that in the first eight months of 2014, at least 9,347 civilians had been killed and at least 17,386 wounded. While all these deaths are not attributable to ISIS alone, ISIS is identified as the primary actor. (The report also documents what could be considered war crimes committed by the Iraqi military.)

[that's 9347 ISIS killings IN ALL OF THE MIDDLE EAST for 8 months in 2014]

This country is bathed in blood and sin. The only thing us Babylonians should be paying attention to at this point is waiting for the sign to head to the mountains like Jesus told us to watch for. Political maneuvering is only going to piss God off more. Especially when it's coming from false and corrupt churches who are likely at the top of God's shitlist.

Elias Graves
05-01-2015, 09:16 AM
I'm all for it. Marriage originated as a function of the church. Let it go back to its roots. The state really shouldn't have anything to do with a sacrament of the church. You've never needed a state license to be baptized or ordained as a minister. Why should they sanction other church functions?

donnay
05-01-2015, 09:31 AM
That is a good move!

fisharmor
05-01-2015, 09:36 AM
I'm conflicted... doing the correct thing for the wrong reason.....

luctor-et-emergo
05-01-2015, 09:40 AM
I'm conflicted... doing the correct thing for the wrong reason.....

When the constitution was first put into place it was done for a whole different reason than a lot of people these days look at it. It may not officially be a living document but people look at it that way. The same works for this, if they do the right thing, then that's a good thing. If 'we' eventually win the fight, 'we' get to write the history and 'we' get to decide what it means. It's a sign that things are moving 'our' way. Even though the people involved have different intentions it comes down to the fact that 'we' are right on the issues and these people are more or less forced into the right position.

Elias Graves
05-01-2015, 09:49 AM
I'm conflicted... doing the correct thing for the wrong reason.....

Sometimes you gotta take a win where you can get it.

ctiger2
05-01-2015, 10:25 AM
Smart move. Next move is to eliminate any tax consequences (benefits/detractions) relating to marriage.

CaptUSA
05-01-2015, 10:31 AM
I'm conflicted... doing the correct thing for the wrong reason.....

Beats doing the wrong thing for the right reason. You know, the way we do everything else.

wizardwatson
05-01-2015, 10:33 AM
Maybe Rand Paul can put forward a bill to put gay porn on Federal Reserve Notes.

If this is how we get things done in 'Murica, well, git 'er done!

Danke
05-01-2015, 10:37 AM
This move will be welcomed by siblings across Alabama.

Danke
05-01-2015, 10:57 AM
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?464465-Alabama-Divorced-Women-Retain-Property-Owned-Prior-to-Marriage&highlight=

Elias Graves
05-01-2015, 11:42 AM
This move will be welcomed by siblings across Alabama.

Lol. I'm headed to the church with my prize goat now!

Sola_Fide
05-01-2015, 11:50 AM
I'm for that.

Carlybee
05-01-2015, 12:14 PM
Fine by me. I really don't care who marries who as long as I don't have to foot the bill.

otherone
05-01-2015, 12:20 PM
Lol. I'm headed to the church with my prize goat now!


I'm for that.

File under "unfortunate sequitors"

Keith and stuff
05-01-2015, 04:04 PM
One conservative school of thought is that government should get out of the marriage game altogether. We’ll see if this catches on.

It isn't a conservative school of thought. It is slowly catching on, but not doing well. Liberty folks came up with the idea. Republicans in NH were the first legislators to talk about it. Then in OK. Nothing much happened in either state, except for some news coverage and minor debating. Now the idea has spread to AL, though perhaps with not so nice intentions. Still, that's good news. Whenever conservatives think about an issue like this, I'm hopefully that the Republican Party isn't as close-minded as most young people think it is.

roho76
05-01-2015, 04:21 PM
I hate that this is how the religious right is getting their way but I support the shit out of it. I feel kinda dirty. Ultimately, this is the right solution.

euphemia
05-01-2015, 04:30 PM
How on earth will they recoup the tax revenue they lose by doing this? That fee you pay at the registry office? It's a tax.

And will they trust people to file their taxes correctly? It's more expensive if you're married because you both own stuff.

William Tell
05-01-2015, 04:47 PM
It isn't a conservative school of thought. It is slowly catching on, but not doing well. Liberty folks came up with the idea. Republicans in NH were the first legislators to talk about it. Then in OK. Nothing much happened in either state, except for some news coverage and minor debating. Now the idea has spread to AL, though perhaps with not so nice intentions. Still, that's good news. Whenever conservatives thing about an issue like this, I'm hopefully that the Republican Party isn't as close-minded as most young people think it is.

It is a conservative school of thought now. Ron Paul was the first one I heard talk about it. Someone I know who is very socially conservative was saying we should get the government out of marriage. I'm not sure if he got that from Ron, but he's the one who popularized the position among conservatives. It might not be the most popular conservative view on marriage, but its definitely a growing one.

William Tell
05-01-2015, 04:50 PM
I'm conflicted... doing the correct thing for the wrong reason.....


I hate that this is how the religious right is getting their way but I support the shit out of it. I feel kinda dirty. Ultimately, this is the right solution.
Hee hee.:p Its funny, I've seen a lot of socially liberal libertarians on other sites angry about this. They want the left and center to change their position on marriage, not the conservatives.:D

DFF
05-01-2015, 05:22 PM
Eliminating licensing is good .

I support doing away with licences as well.

Henry Rogue
05-01-2015, 05:25 PM
Divorce attorneys will be pissed.

Henry Rogue
05-01-2015, 05:30 PM
It isn't a conservative school of thought. It is slowly catching on, but not doing well. Liberty folks came up with the idea. Republicans in NH were the first legislators to talk about it. Then in OK. Nothing much happened in either state, except for some news coverage and minor debating. Now the idea has spread to AL, though perhaps with not so nice intentions. Still, that's good news. Whenever conservatives thing about an issue like this, I'm hopefully that the Republican Party isn't as close-minded as most young people think it is.

The surest way to get people to accept an idea is to get them to think it was their own.

JohnGalt1225
05-01-2015, 06:01 PM
I applaud Alabama here.

Voluntarist
05-01-2015, 06:11 PM
xxxxx

mosquitobite
05-01-2015, 06:28 PM
No need for the government to be involved with permission.

But what about recording it? Unless they tackle the state sanctioned benefits at the same time, this doesn't solve much.

I say make people file their CONTRACT with the state and part of that contract should be the terms in the event of dissolution. Make people talk about these things while they are in LUV and then the divorce racket will really hate it! ;)

Voluntarist
05-01-2015, 06:32 PM
xxxxx

euphemia
05-01-2015, 07:28 PM
In an ideal world, marriage is an exclusive sexual relationship that defines property ownership, and legitimizes children. If that relationship should break up, the State has a vested interest to ensure a fair division of property and the determined custody of minor children.

Feeding the Abscess
05-01-2015, 07:35 PM
In an ideal world, marriage is an exclusive sexual relationship that defines property ownership, and legitimizes children. If that relationship should break up, the State has a vested interest to ensure a fair division of property and the determined custody of minor children.

Why should the State have a vested interest in that arrangement?

osan
05-01-2015, 08:55 PM
Bob and weave, my ass. It would be a strong upper-cut, leaving the feds on the mat, cold.

I hope they do it. What a complete wrench that would throw into the works. I'd pay to see that happen.

osan
05-01-2015, 08:56 PM
I'm conflicted... doing the correct thing for the wrong reason.....

Please elucidate. I see no issue here.

mosquitobite
05-01-2015, 09:15 PM
In an ideal world, marriage is an exclusive sexual relationship that defines property ownership, and legitimizes children. If that relationship should break up, the State has a vested interest to ensure a fair division of property and the determined custody of minor children.

IMO, if someone wants the state involved in dissolution, they should be required to file a CONTRACT: specify the terms, the agreement, and spell out the division of assets and custody arrangements in the event of dissolution.

If you force people to tackle these issues up front, half the racket that is divorce court would be eliminated.

The other option is to force religious marriages to go through their churches to get the divorce. ;)

Church marriage = church divorce
Contract/secular marriage would be recorded with the state and terms spelled out to be valid.

euphemia
05-02-2015, 05:37 AM
But not everyone who gets married in the church actually has a relationship with the church. Sometimes the people move away or drop out. The church is not an authority to many.

DevilsAdvocate
05-03-2015, 06:19 AM
Marriage contracts should be privatized. How assets are split in the event of a divorce, penalties for cheating, visitation rights...etc. All of this should drawn up in a private contract. Contracts can be individualized to the circumstances of each couple.

Certain contracts will probably become more mainstream and popular, and solidified as a brand. Such as Coke or Pepsi, a mainline standard contract everybody recognizes by name.

Some possible examples:

"The Alpha Male"
The man is expected to do all the work, and financially support the women and children. In return, the woman must treat him with respect, do the housework, spend lots of time with the kids, etc... The man entirely controls financial decisions. This union reinforces traditional family roles where the man, although dominant, has great burdens placed upon him.

"The Christian Standard"
The contract is recognized as a religious union, and is mediated by the church as a third party. The church holds a special court to decide who gets custody and how much child support is owed. Infidelity is punished most harshly and results in an immediate loss of custody.

"The White Knight"
The woman is entirely dominant in the marriage. She can leave whenever she wants, and take the kids and the house with her if he doesn't measure up to her satisfaction. In a divorce scenario, he will be entirely cast aside, forced to pay a large portion of his income with meager visitation rights if any. Meanwhile while the woman finds a new husband to act as a father figure for her children.


In my opinion, the state should still enforce a ban on bizzare unions. Such as marriages with 5 people, 7 people and a dolphin, 10 people and 2 horses, with any combination of male/female, gay, straight, bisexual...etc. These shouldn't be banned in general, only if they expect to raise kids in that scenario. It is my personal belief based on human evolution and biology that gay unions are extremely harmful to the psychology of children, almost as bad as single motherhood or single fatherhood. And I think they should be prevented from raising children through artificial insemination (adoption is fine).

CJLauderdale4
05-03-2015, 06:42 AM
And this makes me proud to be living in Alabama!!

The issue with marriage isn't about gay rights, gays wanting to visit loved ones in the hospital, or gays wanting to ride on their lovers health insurance...

It's about the government using an ecclesiastical institution as marriage to dictate all of those things! Insurance companies, hospitals, and the IRS should all be basing their policies on something else, NOT marriage. I can just as easily call an attorney and sign a "power of attorney" or other contractual document that allows anyone to claim me as dependent on their insurance or tax forms (i.e. disabled grandma, etc).

It's the fact that the Federal Government uses marriage to divide and control people.

In the end, WHO THE HELL IS THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL ME WHO I CAN MARRY!!

Look up the history of marriage licensing, and you'll be enlightened as to why it is even around (especially in the South).

georgiaboy
05-03-2015, 07:04 AM
Roll Tide!

Suzanimal
05-23-2015, 07:55 PM
Alabama Senate Passes Bill to Effectively Nullify All Sides on Marriage


MONTGOMERY, Ala. (May 23, 2015) – This week, the Alabama state Senate passed a bill that would end the practice of licensing marriages in the state, effectively nullifying both major sides of the contentious national debate over government-sanctioned marriage.

Introduced by Sen. Greg Albritton (R-Bay Minette), Senate Bill 377 (SB377) would end state issued marriage licenses, while providing marriage contracts as an alternative. It passed through the Alabama state Senate by a 22-3 margin on May 19.

“When you invite the state into those matters of personal or religious import, it creates difficulties,” Sen. Albritton said about his bill in April. “Go back long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. Early twentieth century, if you go back and look and try to find marriage licenses for your grandparents or great grandparents, you won’t find it. What you will find instead is where people have come in and recorded when a marriage has occurred.”

The bill would replace all references to marriages “licenses” in state law with “contracts.” The legislation would not invalidate any marriage licenses issued prior to the bill being passed.

The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record…

Effective July 1, 2015, any requirement to obtain a marriage license issued by the judge of probate is abolished and repealed.

PRACTICAL EFFECT

SB377 would accomplish two things.

First, it would render void the edicts of federal judges that have overturned state laws defining marriage. The founding generation never envisioned unelected judges issuing ex cathedra pronouncements regarding the definition of social institutions like marriage and the Constitution delegates the federal judiciary no authority to meddle in the issue. Marriage is a realm clearly left to the state and the people..

Second, the bill would get the state government out of defining marriage entirely as well, ending the squabble between factions that seek to harness the power of the state, thereby taking the burden off government officials who may be torn between what is legally required of them and their religious convictions.

The intent or motives behind this bill are a moot point. By removing the state from the equation, no one can force another to accept their marriage, nor can they force another to reject that person’s own beliefs regarding an institution older than government.

“Licenses are used as a way to stop people from doing things,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “My personal relationship should not be subject to government permission.”

HISTORICAL BACKDROP

As a 2007 New York Times op/ed points out, for centuries marriage was a private affair.

“For most of Western history, they didn’t, because marriage was a private contract between two families. The parents’ agreement to the match, not the approval of church or state, was what confirmed its validity. For 16 centuries, Christianity also defined the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s wishes. If two people claimed they had exchanged marital vows — even out alone by the haystack — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

In fact, the use of state marriage licenses for many years was a way of preventing people from entering into interracial marriages. Later, the NYT story recounts, the licenses became necessary in order to subsidize the welfare state.

“The Social Security Act provided survivors’ benefits with proof of marriage. Employers used marital status to determine whether they would provide health insurance or pension benefits to employees’ dependents. Courts and hospitals required a marriage license before granting couples the privilege of inheriting from each other or receiving medical information.”

Something that is rarely considered by those seeking to control the state’s definition of marriage is that a marriage license means a citizen requires the permission of their government before they can get married. A person cannot drive a vehicle, aside from limited circumstances, without a license. A person cannot practice law without a license, nor can they engage in medical care.

Put another way, marriage is not a right, or a religious institution, but a privilege the state grants us if we meet the conditions put upon us.

Consider this: In the same way a driver can lose their license if they break certain traffic laws, a man or woman, theoretically, could one day find their marriage license revoked for breaking certain “marriage” rules, whether it pertains to child rearing, or their religious and political convictions.

Christopher Wesley, an associated scholar at the Mises Institute, wrote that “marriage is most endangered when it rests in the coercive hands of the State.”
...

http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/05/alabama-senate-passes-bill-to-effectively-nullify-all-sides-on-marriage/

Sola_Fide
05-23-2015, 08:35 PM
In an ideal world, marriage is an exclusive sexual relationship that defines property ownership, and legitimizes children. If that relationship should break up, the State has a vested interest to ensure a fair division of property and the determined custody of minor children.

If the state had no vested interest in it, the divorce rate would plummet. Government is the reason that divorce is so common and the family unit is destroyed.

GunnyFreedom
05-23-2015, 09:04 PM
Wow, this sounds awfully familiar....

http://glenbradley.net/imghost/april2015/rpf/gbmaa.jpg

GunnyFreedom
05-23-2015, 09:05 PM
It isn't a conservative school of thought. It is slowly catching on, but not doing well. Liberty folks came up with the idea. Republicans in NH were the first legislators to talk about it. Then in OK. Nothing much happened in either state, except for some news coverage and minor debating. Now the idea has spread to AL, though perhaps with not so nice intentions. Still, that's good news. Whenever conservatives think about an issue like this, I'm hopefully that the Republican Party isn't as close-minded as most young people think it is.

What year was that?

Danke
05-23-2015, 09:06 PM
Wow, this sounds awfully familiar....

http://glenbradley.net/imghost/april2015/rpf/gbmaa.jpg

nvm good try Bradley.

GunnyFreedom
05-23-2015, 09:23 PM
We voted on this in September of 2011. The vote failed 43 to 71 (http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTranscript.pl?sSession=2011&sChamber=H&RCS=1293), I won nearly all the Democrats. The Republican Majority Leader told Republicans not to vote for it because he said I was "just trying to weaken the Marriage Amendment." :rolleyes:

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTranscript.pl?sSession=2011&sChamber=H&RCS=1293

Keith and stuff
05-23-2015, 10:46 PM
We voted on this in September of 2011. The vote failed 43 to 71 (http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTranscript.pl?sSession=2011&sChamber=H&RCS=1293), I won nearly all the Democrats. The Republican Majority Leader told Republicans not to vote for it because he said I was "just trying to weaken the Marriage Amendment." :rolleyes:

http://www.ncleg.net/gascripts/voteHistory/RollCallVoteTranscript.pl?sSession=2011&sChamber=H&RCS=1293

That's cool. I was unaware of this. Thank you!

Occam's Banana
05-24-2015, 03:16 AM
Second, the bill would get the state government out of defining marriage entirely as well, ending the squabble between factions that seek to harness the power of the state [...]

There is a huge swathe of so-called "problems" for which the ONLY "solution" is to eliminate the opportunity for squabbling "factions" to clobber one another over the head with the "power of the State." (The "evolution vs. creationism in public schools" thing is a notable example of this - in addition to the "gay marriage" issue.)

Getting the State "out of it" is the only way of defusing these "squabbles." Indeed, most (if not all) of these "squabbles" would never even have risen to the level of "problems" to begin with if it had not been for the intrusion of the State into them.

Voluntarist
05-24-2015, 07:17 AM
xxxxx

osan
05-24-2015, 07:49 AM
Getting the State "out of it" is the only way of defusing these "squabbles." Indeed, most (if not all) of these "squabbles" would never even have risen to the level of "problems" to begin with if it had not been for the intrusion of the State into them.


THIS^googol-plex


The "state" stinks up virtually everything it touches. This is what the "state" does.

Voluntarist
05-24-2015, 07:52 AM
xxxxx

GunnyFreedom
05-24-2015, 08:34 AM
And I dare say you probably got the democrat vote because THEY WERE trying to weaken the marriage amendment.

You clearly did not hear the floor argument of the Democratic Minority Leader during consideration.


Why was the "Marriage belongs to the dominion of God under the authority of the church" phrase necessary?

If you had been in NC during the debate on the Marriage Amendment, you would understand. This was text that would have been offered to the public at large for a referendum on a Constitutional Amendment. A full 72% of North Carolina citizens supported the Marriage Amendment on account of "that's how God wants it." Any justification for amending the question that did not include the rationale of godliness would never have picked up more than 28% of the popular vote.


Using a Judeo-Christian phrasing leaves open the possibility that the state could act as the arbiter of marriages not performed under the dominion of the Judeo-Christian God: under the dominion of Allah, for instance; or in Buddism where marriage is a completely secular affair rather than a religious sacrement.

Not even slightly true. The only legally operative phrase in the whole thing is "Licensure of marriage is prohibited in the State." Everything else is just justification for that position. You base law on legally operative statements, not the justification thereof.


The "dominion of God" phrasing simply gives the courts a toehold to step in under the premise that the law is based upon the establishment of one particular religion's marriage at the exclusion of other types of religious or secular marriage.

That's not how law works. There is only one statement in that amendment that has legal effect, and that statement is "Licensure of marriage is prohibited in the State."

Also, in the climate in which the amendment was offered, that was the ONLY path to passage, and I was not just trying to make a valiant statement, I was actually trying to pass it.

Created4
05-24-2015, 09:16 AM
Albritton's bill would require couples wanting to be married to enter into a properly executed contract witnessed by two adults. The contract would then be filed in the probate's office. Sen. Phil Williams, R-Rainbow City, asked why the bill included a fee increase.

Albritton responded saying the intent of raising the fee from $50 to $75 was to garner support. Source (http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/04/alabama_marriage_contract_bill.html).

So then the question is, what if a couple has a private contract but does NOT file with the State? Or, what is the motivation to file the contract with the State to begin with?

GunnyFreedom
05-24-2015, 09:26 AM
So then the question is, what if a couple has a private contract but does NOT file with the State? Or, what is the motivation to file the contract with the State to begin with?

When you propose to ban licensure, nearly the entire lawyer lobby comes out in force with one voice to scream about divorce, property, and custody. These people go literally apoplectic that the world will fall apart and the sun will cease to shine if things like the division of property, child custody, and child support are not addressed. There are enough 'slaves to the lawyer lobby' in any given legislature, that if you do not actually address those issues in some fashion, then such a measure will be impossible to pass. I would bet my bottom dollar that the bill sponsor included that measure specifically to mollify those complaints in the sincere hope that his bill would pass.

Created4
05-24-2015, 09:28 AM
So then the question is, what if a couple has a private contract but does NOT file with the State? Or, what is the motivation to file the contract with the State to begin with?

I realize that the answer to the second question is to collect "benefits" to being married, such as tax deductions. But if this bill passes, I don't see how the State could force people to file their contract with them. Legally I would think the contract is valid whether it is filed with the State or not. This could back-fire on them in terms of collecting revenue for filing fees....

Created4
05-24-2015, 09:44 AM
When you propose to ban licensure, nearly the entire lawyer lobby comes out in force with one voice to scream about divorce, property, and custody. These people go literally apoplectic that the world will fall apart and the sun will cease to shine if things like the division of property, child custody, and child support are not addressed. There are enough 'slaves to the lawyer lobby' in any given legislature, that if you do not actually address those issues in some fashion, then such a measure will be impossible to pass. I would bet my bottom dollar that the bill sponsor included that measure specifically to mollify those complaints in the sincere hope that his bill would pass.

Well it did pass the full Senate, and is now heading to the House. Still, if someone challenges the State's requirement to "file" the contract, and wins, the State is going to lose a lot of revenue, and possibly a lot of these family law professionals are going to be looking for work.

Maybe we should stop discussing this, until the bill is signed into law.... :)

Voluntarist
05-24-2015, 10:21 AM
xxxxx

Suzanimal
06-06-2015, 02:42 PM
Alabama Republicans Kill Bid To Scrap Marriage Licenses


An Alabama bill designed to outmaneuver a possible Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage by scrapping marriage licenses died quickly in the state House this week after sailing through the Senate.

The bill would do away with marriage licenses altogether, and instead require those “legally authorized to be married” to simply sign a legal contract witnessed by a clergy member, lawyer or notary public.

“My goal is to remove the state out of the lives of people,” the bill’s sponsor, Republican Sen. Greg Albritton, told the Decatur Daily. “No. 2 is to prevent the state from getting involved in long-term lawsuits that do no good.”

Conflicting federal and state rulings on same-sex marriage in Alabama have led some probate judges to issue same-sex marriage licenses, some to refuse, and some to stop issuing marriage licenses altogether.

...

Sen. Albritton’s bill would avoid the issue altogether by scrapping marriage licenses for everyone in the state. If the Supreme Court rules that states must issue same-sex marriage licenses, Alabama could avert the ruling by saying it doesn’t issue any licenses.

The bill cleared the Alabama Senate easily, but died this week in the House Judiciary Committee, despite a Republican supermajority in both the House and Senate.


“It didn’t make sense to me to make such a sweeping change about how we do marriage, just because of concern about some probate judges in a bit of a spot,” Republican Rep. Mike Ball, who voted against the bill in committee, told The Daily Caller News Foundation. “It had just gotten down from the Senate to the House, and there were way too many questions to act on something that significantly so quickly.”

Regarding same-sex marriage, he said it’s important for the state to recognize civil unions, although the state can’t truly regulate the religious institution of marriage.

“That spiritual union that people seem to believe in, man really doesn’t have any jurisdiction over that anyway, and that’s my religious belief,” he told TheDCNF. “But as a legislator, we’re talking about what’s the role of government. And traditionally, the role of government has been to recognize marriage, because the institution of marriage is something that’s healthy for society.”

“We need to see what the Supreme Court says,” he added. “Then we’ll know what the recognized law of the land is and then we’ll go from there.”

Ball and others were concerned about unintended consequences the bill might have, such as confusion about who can sign the contract and what implications that could have on marriage laws, such as those regarding age and incest.

...

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/06/alabama-republicans-kill-bid-to-scrap-marriage-licenses/#ixzz3cJhd5v5g

GunnyFreedom
06-07-2015, 04:54 AM
So basically, it was the typical psychotic political/governmental bait and switch. Tricking people into voting for something they really don't agree with because they're too stupid to realize it. That's the same type of political strategy that gave us:


Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.

How exactly, is that amendment anything but what it appears to be? Removing the authority over marriages from a corrupt government, placing it entirely out of reach of this universe, and banning the licensure of marriage?

ChristianAnarchist
06-07-2015, 06:28 AM
Roll Tide!

Hotty Totty!! I'm an Ole Miss fan but in this instance I'll have to 2nd that "Roll Tide"!

Tywysog Cymru
06-07-2015, 01:54 PM
I'm all for it, but I really don't want a Southern state to be the face of resistance to same-sex marriage.

Occam's Banana
06-07-2015, 02:31 PM
Alabama Republicans Kill Bid To Scrap Marriage Licenses

Are Statists gonna state?


“We need to see what the Supreme Court says,” [Alabama state Rep. Mike Ball] added. “Then we’ll know what the recognized law of the land is and then we’ll go from there.”

Yep. Statists gonna state.

P.S.: Fuck Mike Ball and the Supreme Court he wants to ride in on. For ages, "recognized" law was customary "old and good" law - and people didn't need nine black-robed demigods to tell them what it was. That didn't happen until people like Mike Ball and Supreme court "justices" got their paws on it and turned the law into something like the bastard offspring of M.C. Escher and Rube Goldberg ...

ChristianAnarchist
06-08-2015, 06:54 PM
Are Statists gonna state?



Yep. Statists gonna state.

P.S.: Fuck Mike Ball and the Supreme Court he wants to ride in on. For ages, "recognized" law was customary "old and good" law - and people didn't need nine black-robed demigods to tell them what it was. That didn't happen until people like Mike Ball and Supreme court "justices" got their paws on it and turned the law into something like the bastard offspring of M.C. Escher and Rube Goldberg ...

It's "Goons gonna goon..."

devil21
06-09-2015, 02:29 AM
I sure hope people are saving their genealogical histories in other forms since things like marriage license records maintain family lineage and name changes. Never forget that removing paper records allow for the disappearance and/or rewriting of history.

ChristianAnarchist
06-09-2015, 03:36 AM
I sure hope people are saving their genealogical histories in other forms since things like marriage license records maintain family lineage and name changes. Never forget that removing paper records allow for the disappearance and/or rewriting of history.

And never forget that removing paper records allows for more personal privacy. I remember as a boy that one could legally change one's name simply by declaring your name to be different. You could also start a new life in another state with that new name and not have to worry about some pesky "arrest records" from your youth back "home". I don't think too many people got away with murder that way (I'm sure there were some) but it did allow people to get a "second chance" to start their life over. Now due to the wonderful computerized records kept on everyone NO ONE gets a break. Sorry, I prefer the older ways. Big brother doesn't need power because it is ALWAYS abused...