Alabama Senate Approves Bill to Abolish Marriage Licensing

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: combinatorics

This doesn't stop marriage ceremonies.

It just states that they are no longer necessary.

yeah it takes the state out of it.......all thats needed to make it official is a Notary, a lawyer or a clergy

So this stops the blood tests and all that? Kinda always thought that whole blood test thingy was odd and kinda overreaching? I mean i never heard of anyone refused a marriage license over the test anyway? So why the hell would they even do that?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

It sounds like all they did was remove the required judge from the equation but marriages that are performed by licensed folks are still legally recognized in the state.

If that's the case, I think it's brilliant. If there are no sneaky details that I missed, I don't see why this isn't more common. Am I missing something here?

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Well, isn't Alabama acting like a petulant little child whose favourite toy was taken away.

Again whats bad about this decision again?

a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

yeah it takes the state out of it.......all thats needed to make it official is a Notary, a lawyer or a clergy

You forgot, who's religious values don't contradict the law.

What happens when they refuse?

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Well, isn't Alabama acting like a petulant little child whose favourite toy was taken away.

Why don't you like the idea?

It does solve a lot, anyone can marry anyone and the state can not interfere.

Isn't that what the "struggle" was all about?

a reply to: AboveBoard

From what it seems like yes its given the same weight.......the signed document by a hired lawyer, or a notary or clergy would carry the same implications of a marriage document in any other state.....

Seems like a win win to me

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: MonkeyFishFrog
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Well, isn't Alabama acting like a petulant little child whose favourite toy was taken away.

Why don't you like the idea?

It does solve a lot, anyone can marry anyone and the state can not interfere.

Isn't that what the "struggle" was all about?

::::cue dramatic music::::: maybe it wasnt!!!!! :;;;;DUN DUN DUN:::::

originally posted by: grandmakdw
This is a perfect solution!

The more we can get government out of our lives, the better.

I guess we can thank SCOTUS for encouraging states to remove themselves from at least one aspect of people's lives.

Anything to make government smaller and less intrusive in people's lives!

No kidding, it's such a simple solution that I've never heard of before.

LGBT: "Get out of our lives, fundies!"
-- Marriage equality happens.
Conservatives: "Get out of our lives, gay people!"
-- Alabama gets out of everybody's lives.
LGBT: "Um... alright."
Conservatives: "Huh... okay."

Maybe I'm missing something but I don't see a problem with this yet.

a reply to: proob4

Here is what I found on a quick google for that:

(For information on which states require them, see Chart: State Marriage License and Blood Test Requirements. Premarital blood tests check both partners for venereal disease or rubella (measles). The tests may also disclose the presence of genetic disorders such as sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease.

It was to ensure each party understood what they were getting into, and to know ahead of time if their children might have serious issues because of issues the parties may not even know they have. Since the state ends up paying for disability and medical care more often than not, it was about prevention.

a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

so you called your mate your husband, so do you consider yourself the wife?

originally posted by: combinatorics
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Next best thing is to ban any and every expression of religious ideas to stick it to the Satanic Temple or what have you in Alabama. Somehow I doubt the state has the cojones.

I thought marriage wasn't religious? Isn't the argument used to justify redefining it?

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

yeah it takes the state out of it.......all thats needed to make it official is a Notary, a lawyer or a clergy

You forgot, who's religious values don't contradict the law.

What happens when they refuse?

then go to a notary who doesnt care? Same thing that happens if a baker doesnt want to bake a damn cake, you go somewhere else.....

This again, shows me that its not the RIGHTS that people like you want, its not the same tax breaks.......

Its that you want to oppress anyone that doesnt agree with you........

Agenda is clear..........

This seems to solve many of those issues and its still not satisfactory , nono , we must FORCE people to conform

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: combinatorics
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Next best thing is to ban any and every expression of religious ideas to stick it to the Satanic Temple or what have you in Alabama. Somehow I doubt the state has the cojones.

I thought marriage wasn't religious? Isn't the argument used to justify redefining it?

exactly

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: proob4

Here is what I found on a quick google for that:

(For information on which states require them, see Chart: State Marriage License and Blood Test Requirements. Premarital blood tests check both partners for venereal disease or rubella (measles). The tests may also disclose the presence of genetic disorders such as sickle-cell anemia or Tay-Sachs disease.

It was to ensure each party understood what they were getting into, and to know ahead of time if their children might have serious issues because of issues the parties may not even know they have. Since the state ends up paying for disability and medical care more often than not, it was about prevention.

Thanks for the research. I guess that makes sense now.

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

yeah it takes the state out of it.......all thats needed to make it official is a Notary, a lawyer or a clergy

You forgot, who's religious values don't contradict the law.

What happens when they refuse?

The lawyer or notary aren't marrying anyone at all.

They are simply signing a contract between two people.

So for the lawyer or notary there should not be a conscience problem since they aren't performing the marriage, they are simply validating a contract.

Clergy will still be able to follow their religious conscience, at least for now, until SCOTUS decides against freedom of religion and twists it into freedom from religion.

originally posted by: eisegesis
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

yeah it takes the state out of it.......all thats needed to make it official is a Notary, a lawyer or a clergy

You forgot, who's religious values don't contradict the law.

What happens when they refuse?

Ah... I knew there was a catch. I don't see it likely that there's a place in America with absolutely nobody willing to perform any sort of wedding but I see your point.

Worst case scenario, get a friend ordained (it's practically free) and have them perform it.

originally posted by: ManBehindTheMask

originally posted by: combinatorics
Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. Next best thing is to ban any and every expression of religious ideas to stick it to the Satanic Temple or what have you in Alabama. Somehow I doubt the state has the cojones.

How does that make sense?

They fixed the problem with anyone feeling like their religious sensibilities were being violated, AND still allowing gay people to have what they want.......

How is this a bad thing?

The obvious answer is that it's a bad thing because it lets everyone have what they want.

Yes, we actually had a progressive friend we pitched the idea to of civil union for all and get married at your local religious institution if that's your flavor.

He actually replied, "But ... then everyone would get what they want ... No, it's not fair for gays to not be able to get married." And he meant it.

a reply to: Cuervo

m with you , i really hope there are no sneaky details because if this is what it seems to be, looks like it solves issues on both sides and everyone can stop (at least in alabama ) flinging mud at each other

a reply to: proob4

I dunno brother, I never had to have a blood test to get married here in Texas, not sure about other places

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: grandmakdw

But you wanted the Government to say that we can't have Equal rights.. so you want them when you want them, and when you don't "Bog Government"?

Getting married never required a Religious Ceremony, you could just go to City Hall or someplace and get the certificate and recognized etc.. so maybe i am confused but what does this change? or what does this mean for Both sexes who want to get married?

My wife and I were married by a Justice of the Peace. No religious ceremony there . $20 and a few minutes.