Argument over same sex marriages solved in AL-Marriage license elimination bill passes

[Anti Federalist]

Alabama lawmakers pass bill to end marriage licenses

https://www.al.com/news/2019/05/alab...-licenses.html

Updated May 23, 2019; Posted May 23, 2019
By Mike Cason | mcason@al.com

The Alabama House of Representatives gave final passage today to a bill that would end the issuance of marriage licenses by probate judges and instead have them record documents that would serve as the official records of marriage.

The bill goes to Gov. Kay Ivey, who could sign it into law.

The legislation came in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015. In Alabama, some probate judges stopped issuing marriage licenses four years ago because they did not want to sign same-sex marriage licenses.

Under the bill that passed today, couples wanting to get married would submit to the probate judge a form that includes an affidavit saying they meet the legal requirements of marriage and the probate judge would record that as the official marriage document.

The House passed the bill, by Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Range, by a vote of 67-26. It had already passed the Senate.

Probate judges in some counties are still not issuing marriage licenses. The current law does not require them to issue licenses, but says they “may.”

Under Albritton’s bill, probate judges would be required to accept and record the official marriage documents.

“It allows everybody in the state now to go to their local courthouse, or wherever, to accomplish this without traveling somewhere else, which is the intent of the law,” Albritton said.

The bill also would end the requirement that a marriage be “solemnized” by a minister or another person qualified to do so. Albritton said he thought it was appropriate to separate that religious component of marriage from the state law.

Among those voting against the bill today was Rep. Neil Rafferty, D-Birmingham, who is gay and married his partner of 15 years in December.

“I feel like while in and of itself it is not prejudiced, I feel like it was born out of prejudice though," Rafferty said. "That’s just kind of my ultimate feelings, why I ultimately couldn’t support the bill, even though in and of itself it does create a system that treats everyone equal before the state.”

Rafferty said he believes the bill would allow probate judges who are not issuing marriage licenses because of their personal beliefs to skirt their responsibilities.

“I think it’s far less about good governance and more about protecting folks that don’t want to do their jobs," Rafferty said.

Rep. Wes Allen, R-Troy, was among those voting for the bill today. Allen is the former probate judge in Pike County and stopped issuing marriage licenses in 2015.

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, as do a lot of Alabamians,” Allen said. He noted that about 80 percent of Alabama voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a unique relationship between a man and a woman in 2006.

“The probate judge has to sign the marriage license,” Allen said. "And effectively, by your signature going on that marriage license, basically in my opinion, you’re endorsing it. Because it’s your signature, just like you’re signing a check, you’re endorsing it. And that was one of the objections that I had back in 2015."

Albritton’s bill had passed the Senate in previous years but never made it through the House. The senator, who is an attorney, said he’s been working on the issue since 2015.

“I’m trying to find a path that’s legal and has the least effect with the greatest amount of benefit," Albritton said. "And I think I found that.”

[Swordsmyth]

This is effectively surrender and it will cause all sorts of problems with deciding what marriages are legally recognized for various purposes.

The weirdos are going to try to register all sorts of "marriages".

And they will never be satisfied until the government forces everyone to accept any perverted "marriage", they are already signalling that:

Among those voting against the bill today was Rep. Neil Rafferty, D-Birmingham, who is gay and married his partner of 15 years in December.

“I feel like while in and of itself it is not prejudiced, I feel like it was born out of prejudice though," Rafferty said. "That’s just kind of my ultimate feelings, why I ultimately couldn’t support the bill, even though in and of itself it does create a system that treats everyone equal before the state.”

Rafferty said he believes the bill would allow probate judges who are not issuing marriage licenses because of their personal beliefs to skirt their responsibilities.

“I think it’s far less about good governance and more about protecting folks that don’t want to do their jobs," Rafferty said.

[Anti Federalist]

This is effectively surrender and it will cause all sorts of problems with deciding what marriages are legally recognized for various purposes.

The weirdos are going to try to register all sorts of "marriages".

And they will never be satisfied until the government forces everyone to accept any perverted "marriage", they are already signalling that:

A weirdosexual "married" to his co-masturbator isn't gonna gain much traction in Alabama.

But let 'em if they want.

I still maintain this is a good thing, as it gets state sanctioning out the bargain all together.

[PAF]

I oppose this as much as I do having a license.

It is none of the states business either way.

"and instead have them record documents that would serve as the official records of marriage"

“I’m trying to find a path that’s legal and has the least effect with the greatest amount of benefit," Albritton said. "And I think I found that.”

The rightful remedy is a private contract between consenting adults such as a prenup.

In divorce battles, custody matters, state makes decisions. To me that is nothing but Welfare.

Work it out PRIOR to getting married. Talk out the tough issues. If/when they decide to go through with a "private contract", it's a lot less hassle and nobody can take anybody for a ride, certainly not determined by strangers in court.

Nothing needs to be recorded as records of marriage. Keep the copy/copies in safety deposit box(es), with attorney(ies), or somewhere safe.

[Swordsmyth]

I oppose this as much as I do having a license.

It is none of the states business either way.




The rightful remedy is a private contract between consenting adults such as a prenup.

In divorce battles, custody matters, state makes decisions. To me that is nothing but Welfare.

Work it out PRIOR to getting married. Talk out the tough issues. If/when they decide to go through with a "private contract", it's a lot less hassle and nobody can take anybody for a ride, certainly not determined by strangers in court.

Nothing needs to be recorded as records of marriage. Keep the copy/copies in safety deposit box(es), with attorney(ies), or somewhere safe.

Most people are too irresponsible to work it out prior to getting married and there are many different legal issues that involve who is married and who is not.

You can't just wave your wand and have a "New Soviet Anarchist Man" to populate your society.

[PAF]

Most people are too irresponsible to work it out prior to getting married and there are many different legal issues that involve who is married and who is not.

You can't just wave your wand and have a "New Soviet Anarchist Man" to populate your society.

Yet they go to work everyday, feed children, build houses, manufacture planes trains and automobiles, make big giant rockets, program and build computer systems, design iphones and all of your luxury gadgets, sign notes at the bank for home loans and insurances, etc.

Yet you feel they can not write their own or decide on a pre-written contract?

Boy are YOU indoctrinated.

[Zippyjuan]

So it does not change any law on who can get married- only may effect the paperwork.

Under the bill that passed today, couples wanting to get married would submit to the probate judge a form that includes an affidavit saying they meet the legal requirements of marriage and the probate judge would record that as the official marriage document.

[Working Poor]

I think this is good.

[Swordsmyth]

Yet they go to work everyday, feed children, build houses, manufacture planes trains and automobiles, make big giant rockets, program and build computer systems, design iphones and all of your luxury gadgets, sign notes at the bank for home loans and insurances, etc.

Yet you feel they can not write their own or decide on a pre-written contract?

Boy are YOU indoctrinated.

People fail to do all sorts of things, even people who manage to be responsible other places in their lives.
And then there are the people who are totally irresponsible.
We have to have rules about how to deal with people who don't work it out prior to getting married or shacking up and having children even if we ignore all the other legal issues that involve who is married and who is not.

[PAF]

People fail to do all sorts of things, even people who manage to be responsible other places in their lives.
And then there are the people who are totally irresponsible.
We have to have rules about how to deal with people who don't work it out prior to getting married or shacking up and having children even if we ignore all the other legal issues that involve who is married and who is not.

Hmm. So if somebody [EVERYBODY] wants to enjoy fun in the sun or go on vacation, they are well apt to obtain "proper ID" such as a passport without a hiccup. For those that don't, they just don't go.

Same with a "private" marriage contract. Once they become accustomed to the idea, they get one. If they don't, it's on them. What do I care if somebody fails to do so? Why should I have to pay a judge in a court system to work that out for them?

Once accustomed, the majority of people would follow through just like they do a "drivers license" which technically they do not even need unless engaged in interstate commerce. For the slackers that do not, it is a far less number that we would have to deal with.

[Swordsmyth]

Hmm. So if somebody [EVERYBODY] wants to enjoy fun in the sun or go on vacation, they are well apt to obtain "proper ID" such as a passport without a hiccup. For those that don't, they just don't go.

Same with a "private" marriage contract. Once they become accustomed to the idea, they get one. If they don't, it's on them. What do I care if somebody fails to do so? Why should I have to pay a judge in a court system to work that out for them?

Once accustomed, the majority of people would follow through just like they do a "drivers license" which technically they do not even need unless engaged in interstate commerce. For the slackers that do not, it is a far less number that we would have to deal with.

You still have to have rules about how to deal with the irresponsible people.

People shouldn't have to buy car insurance, most people will anyway, some people won't and some of those people will drive recklessly and cause damages they can't pay for.
We have to have a system and rules to deal with the people who don't get insurance and cause damages and we have to have a system and rules to deal with people who produce children without signing a pre-nup that covers the issue of custody in the event of divorce/legal separation.
And there are many other issues like inheritance, medical control of people who are in a coma etc.

[PAF]

You still have to have rules about how to deal with the irresponsible people.

People shouldn't have to buy car insurance, most people will anyway, some people won't and some of those people will drive recklessly and cause damages they can't pay for.
We have to have a system and rules to deal with the people who don't get insurance and cause damages and we have to have a system and rules to deal with people who produce children without signing a pre-nup that covers the issue of custody in the event of divorce/legal separation.
And there are many other issues like inheritance, medical control of people who are in a coma etc.

Once a serious move to invoke private marriage contract rights comes to play, it would be easy to come up with solutions - solutions MUCH better than CPS and other revenue generating government agencies.

Swordsmyth, anything that I have EVER stated concerning Contract Rights you AVOID and DISMISS like the plague. Why is that? I believe that I know the answer but I would like you to answer.

[Swordsmyth]

Once a serious move to invoke private marriage contract rights comes to play, it would be easy to come up with solutions - solutions MUCH better than CPS and other revenue generating government agencies.

And those solutions would have to involve government ruling in civil cases on who was married and who was not.
Nobody is defending CPS etc. so don't try to change the subject.

Swordsmyth, anything that I have EVER stated concerning Contract Rights you AVOID and DISMISS like the plague. Why is that? I believe that I know the answer but I would like you to answer.

I have neither avoided nor dismissed them, I have pointed out that they do not solve all of the problems and that government must still be involved in recognizing who is married and who is not.

[PAF]

And those solutions would have to involve government ruling in civil cases on who was married and who was not.
Nobody is defending CPS etc. so don't try to change the subject.


I have neither avoided nor dismissed them, I have pointed out that they do not solve all of the problems and that government must still be involved in recognizing who is married and who is not.

Whoa!!!!! I was thinking more along the lines of a private mediator agreed upon by both parties. If they claimed not be able to afford one, just like the drivers license (or a few cases of beer, 15 jaunts to Starbucks, manicures, pedicures and Harley Davidsons) - all bets are off - until they "decide" that they could afford one. Which means they are both understanding of the stalemate and would actually want to have the mediator.

So, government, while I get to pay for other peoples irresponsibility, is the answer to most of your problems.

[Origanalist]

And those solutions would have to involve government ruling in civil cases on who was married and who was not.
Nobody is defending CPS etc. so don't try to change the subject.


I have neither avoided nor dismissed them, I have pointed out that they do not solve all of the problems and that government must still be involved in recognizing who is married and who is not.

Wow, I think you just jumped the shark there Fonzie.

[r3volution 3.0]

The solution is to remove government from marriage altogether.

Fundamentally, marriage is a symbolic relationship, to be handled by the church (or whatever private organization one wants to handle such things). It shouldn't have any legal implications. If people married (by some private organization) also want to hold joint property, for example, well they can go ahead and do that; that would be something separate from the marriage itself. Not only laws regarding joint property, but all of the laws based on marital status (tax rates, insurance regulations, etc) ought to be repealed. This would eliminate any legal inequality (and undermine the attempt to normalize homosexuality under the guise of fighting said legal inequality) while simultaneously preserving the cultural idea of marriage (or ideas, as there are many churches and other organizations with different ideas a bout marriage).

That said, I mostly just want this issue (along with who uses the bathroom, who can buy which cakes, and similar triviality) to go away.

If I never see another news cycle dominated by this nonsense, I'll be a happy fellow.

I almost don't care at this point what the outcome is; let's' just have a $#@!ing outcome...

[PierzStyx]

Most people are too irresponsible to work it out prior to getting married and there are many different legal issues that involve who is married and who is not.

You can't just wave your wand and have a "New Soviet Anarchist Man" to populate your society.

And yet somehow the English managed to do it for centuries before the state got involved in marriage, specifically in America in order to prevent blacks and whites form marrying.

Marriage has evolved over the centuries, but some basic features have remained constant. In ancient Rome, it was accomplished by consent of the parties to live together. No forms were required, and no ceremony was necessary. This early Roman model of marriage was displaced when the Catholic Church declared in 1563 that marriages were not valid unless contracted in the presence of a priest and two witnesses. In England, under the Anglican Church, marriage by consent and cohabitation was valid until the passage of Lord Hardwicke's Act in 1753. This act instituted certain requirements for marriage, including the performance of a religious ceremony observed by witnesses.

The American colonies rejected the requirement of a religious ceremony but retained the custom of a ceremony, religious or otherwise. The ancient Roman concept of marriage by agreement and cohabitation was adopted by early American courts as valid under the COMMON LAW.

https://law.jrank.org/pages/5447/Com...e-History.html

People declared themselves married and moved in together. They didn't need the state, local or national, to regulate their property or parental rights. The society and community in which they lived took care of that through social action and influence. The national government didn't assert the unconstitutional right to control marriage until the Reynolds decision in 1879.

But then again, I don't expect you to actually side with human liberty. If you did that the state couldn't violently impose your "ideal" society on everyone through violence and the deprivation of basic human liberty. The state has to control the "blood" in "blood and soil" otherwise people might *gasp* marry people of other races and from other countries without your permission.

[Swordsmyth]

And yet somehow the English managed to do it for centuries before the state got involved in marriage, specifically in America in order to prevent blacks and whites form marrying.



People declared themselves married and moved in together. They didn't need the state, local or national, to regulate their property or parental rights. The society and community in which they lived took care of that through social action and influence. The national government didn't assert the unconstitutional right to control marriage until the Reynolds decision in 1879.

But then again, I don't expect you to actually side with human liberty. If you did that the state couldn't violently impose your "ideal" society on everyone through violence and the deprivation of basic human liberty. The state has to control the "blood" in "blood and soil" otherwise people might *gasp* marry people of other races and from other countries without your permission.

They had a state recognized church that determined who was married and who was not, they also had rules arbitrated by the government governing "common law marriages" such as whether or not the man had publicly presented the woman as his wife.
They never recognized anything other than one man and one woman as a marriage and the government (or its officially recognized church) definitely got involved in deciding who was married or not when dealing with inheritances and other similar issues.

I have never supported legal restrictions on inter-racial or foreign marriages but you just accuse everyone of being a literal NAZI.