It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Alabama Senate Approves Bill to Abolish Marriage Licensing

page: 7
29
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: NavyDoc


I've always been of the opinion that the state should get out of marriage altogether and only get involved where civil contract law is concerned.

Want to share your fiances and life and property with someone else and give them life and death decision making over you and allow them access to your medical situation? Write out a contract. A 5 minute ceremony shouldn't cut it.


Now that would be logical, and also if that happened courts, lawyers, and gold diggers would profit from marriages.



They already do.

If every "marriage" required a prenuptial contract, the unexpected awfulness at the end would be abated and perhaps people would give it a lot more thought in the beginning.


I rarely ever agree with you, but I agree with this. It may not reduce divorces (doesn't seem to with celebrities), but it sure makes things go smoother during a divorce, if everything is agreed upon at the very beginning.


It make sense to me. One could even have, say a 10 year limit on it with option to renew. Make all marriage a matter of civil law and do away with all of this other nonsense.




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

Why is Alabama pursuing this course of action AFTER the gay marriage ruling and not before? There sounds like something else going on behind the scenes here.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 09:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes
What I really want to know is, why is everyone who was against gay marriage altogether 3 days ago suddenly OK with this solution? And why did the Supreme Court's decision need any modification at all?

I'm feeling this "ah ha!" moment coming on, and I hope it isn't true. Did gay marriage opponents think all along that homosexuals wanted to force themselves into hostile churches to get married? Is that what they're going to pretend this has all been about?


Actually, yes, it is what it has been about. And that is what we think the agenda is.
If that is seriously what you or anyone claims, you're either not being honest, or you're not terribly clever. There's just no way that the religious and the gays have been arguing two separate points for the last several decades and calling it one debate.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 10:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: NavyDoc

I've always been of the opinion that the state should get out of marriage altogether and only get involved where civil contract law is concerned.

Want to share your fiances and life and property with someone else and give them life and death decision making over you and allow them access to your medical situation? Write out a contract. A 5 minute ceremony shouldn't cut it.


Now that would be logical, and also if that happened courts, lawyers, and gold diggers would profit from marriages.



They already do.

If every "marriage" required a prenuptial contract, the unexpected awfulness at the end would be abated and perhaps people would give it a lot more thought in the beginning.



lol typo on my part Yes they sure do profit.

Not sure about the thought though many people seemingly jump right back into marriage, without ever realizing the entire legal process.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

Klingons dont have nude weddings you silly bunny thats betazoids how cultrally insensitive of you

edit on 29-6-2015 by crazyewok because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: beezzer
I'd be curious to see if anyone doesn't like this.

And their reasons why.


Hmmm....Here is the law...
alisondb.legislature.state.al.us...


(b) A contract to be married shall contain the
following minimum information:
(1) The names of the parties.
(2) A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married.

...

Effective July 1, 2015, the only requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein.”


So FIRST...this is STILL Very much a government contract...actually with more fees than before.

The key question is who is “legally authorized to be married”?

The State of Alabama would continue to specify this (and has, pursuant to a state constitutional amendment limiting marriage to one man, one woman).

By making it a contract vs. court issued marriage license, they can continue to deny gay folks the right to enter that contract as being not "legally authorized to be married" under the state constitution.



Alabama Amendment 774
(g) A union replicating marriage of or between persons of the same sex in the State of Alabama or in any other jurisdiction shall be considered and treated in all respects as having no legal force or effect in this state and shall not be recognized by this state as a marriage or other union replicating marriage.

en.wikipedia.org...

So SB377 succeeds in removing the federal government from Marriage while supplanting it with State government and continues to deny gay people the right to enter into that contract as per the State Constitution.





edit on 29-6-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 12:51 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5



So SB377 succeeds in removing the federal government from Marriage while supplanting it with State government and continues to deny gay people the right to enter into that contract as per the State Constitution.




Yes, by George I think you've got it! (thanks)

edit on 6/29/2015 by angeldoll because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Indigo5



So SB377 succeeds in removing the federal government from Marriage while supplanting it with State government and continues to deny gay people the right to enter into that contract as per the State Constitution.




Yes, by George I think you've got it! (thanks)


No wonder the opponents of gay marriage are tripping over themselves to support this then. It basically denies same sex marriage while appearing not to. Very shady.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Megatronus

What opponents to 'gay marriage'? All I've seen here are those who support equality in one's liberty of contract; and staunchly support getting government out of the marriage 'license' [privelidge] business for everyone.

... If this proves not to serve those ends, as appears to be shown in some capacity, it is a travesty, and should be called the spade it is.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Yes. See my post above.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Good catch! I thought there was something a bit more insidious going on here. I found it quite hard to believe that the Republicans were FINALLY going to pursue a smaller government stance coincidently after they lost to the Supreme Court ruling.

This is just a good example of what Republican states do to abortion rights. Obfuscate and make it as hard as possible to practice your right as a minority.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:44 PM
link   
Except that the SCOTUS has more or less legally authorized for gays to be married with the ruling. It just means that they have to find someone to marry them since the clerks won't be doing it.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 03:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Megatronus

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: Indigo5



So SB377 succeeds in removing the federal government from Marriage while supplanting it with State government and continues to deny gay people the right to enter into that contract as per the State Constitution.




Yes, by George I think you've got it! (thanks)


No wonder the opponents of gay marriage are tripping over themselves to support this then. It basically denies same sex marriage while appearing not to. Very shady.


No it doesn't AngelDoll made the whole thing up.
Look at my replies to her, and her replies to me.
She made it up just to get people to think what you just said.
Sorry, she had an agenda and made up stuff to support it,
and then claimed she had given proof, when she had not,
and then got upset when asked for proof of her assertion.

You try asking her for proof,
she will claim she already posted it in the thread,
then look through the thread,
you won't find it.

Maybe you can get her to finally give proof of
her assertion.

She simply told me to call the Gov. office in AL,
she refused to supply even the smallest shred
of proof of her assertion that the bill
stops gay marriage.
It does not.


edit on 4Mon, 29 Jun 2015 16:00:09 -0500pm62906pmk291 by grandmakdw because: addition



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: angeldoll
a reply to: beezzer


If the bill passes, Alabama would be the first state to not require a marriage license from the state.

Attorney Jake Watson explained to WHNT 19 News that the bill, “really does away with the traditional sense of a marriage certificate and what we’ve been dealing with in Alabama as far as marriage certificates for more than a hundred years, I believe.”

“A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married, that’s going to be the catch. What is legally authorized to be married? Under the State of Alabama Law, that would not include same-sex marriage,” he said.

This all precedes a Supreme Court ruling that is to come later this month.

Copyright 2015 The Libertarian Republic


Read more: thelibertarianrepublic.com...
Follow us: @TheLibRepublic on Twitter



There you go Grandmakdw, that is the proof you have been asking for (even after it was posted), it was on page 3 ( at least on my droid turbo it was page three).

But I disagree that this new bill would stop same-sex marriages because the SCOTUS decreed that same-sex marriages are legal.
edit on 29-6-2015 by TheSemiSkeptic because: Quote didn't show up.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=19510781]

She simply told me to call the Gov. office in AL,
she refused to supply even the smallest shred
of proof of her assertion that the bill
stops gay marriage.
It does not.



I provided full links to the actual bill requiring that the parties entering into the contract be "legally authorized to be married" as well as a link to the Alabama State Constitution explicitly saying that same-sex marriages were not authorized....and any contract that "replicates marriage".

If you still don't get it...see here..

This does not open up marriage for same-sex couples. According to the legislation
Read more at freedomoutpost.com...

or here

Attorney Jake Watson explained to WHNT 19 News:
“A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married, that’s going to be the catch. What is legally authorized to be married? Under the State of Alabama Law, that would not include same-sex marriage,” he said.
www.dallasvoice.com...

or here

Alabama finds new way to ban gay marriage
Since Alabama law does not permit same-sex marriages, gay couples couldn't file a contract saying they are legally allowed to marry.
www.dailykos.com...

or here

hotair.com...

Let me know if you need more ...



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: [post=19510896]TheSemiSkeptic

But I disagree that this new bill would stop same-sex marriages because the SCOTUS decreed that same-sex marriages are legal.


No...Technically the SCOTUS said it was illegal for state courts to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. If Alabama makes it a contract and doesn't issue marriage licenses...and makes part of the qualifications for entering into that contract a requirement that the two parties be "legally authorized to marry" whilst the Alabama constitution says they are not. THAT means they can deny gay (contractual unions meant to imitate marriage absent a marriage license)

The court only ruled on the issuance of marriage licenses.

NOW...Of course this tactic will get legally challenged and Alabama will eventually lose this nonsense in court as well, but not until they have spent a ton of money fighting it in court..which is fine as long as the legal fees for this nanny-nanny-boo-boo BS and the damages that will be awarded come out of the paychecks of the idiot state legislators who thought this up vs. Alabama taxpayers pockets.
edit on 29-6-2015 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 04:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: beezzer

Klingons dont have nude weddings you silly bunny thats betazoids how cultrally insensitive of you



Deena Troy!!! And just because every thread deserves an off-topic break to the tension..

7 Bizarre Facts About Deanna Troi's Cleavage
www.thegeektwins.com...



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: [post=19510896]TheSemiSkeptic

But I disagree that this new bill would stop same-sex marriages because the SCOTUS decreed that same-sex marriages are legal.


No...Technically the SCOTUS said it was illegal for state courts to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples. If Alabama makes it a contract and doesn't issue marriage licenses...and makes part of the qualifications for entering into that contract a requirement that the two parties be "legally authorized to marry" whilst the Alabama constitution says they are not. THAT means they can deny gay (contractual unions meant to imitate marriage absent a marriage license)


That's denying a marriage 'contract' to same-sex couples. Yes, it's an obvious subversion of the Court's clear intent and will be litigated once again, and every Federal court up the chain would rule against Alabama (i.e. saying that if they don't give marriage licenses then they can't ban same-sex marriage contracts either).



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: IslandOfMisfitToys

Wise words. The truth is no individual human being should be taxed simply because she or he is alive and working somewhere on planet Earth. What an obscenity!

Tax the corporations. Tax the lobbyists. Tax the business associations. Tax the PACs. Tax foreigners who stash their ill-gotten gains in US banks. Tax the black budgets of the governments! But leave real people alone.

Living in the USA for ten years opened my eyes wide to things I never imagined. To paraphrase a statement from a book sacred to some: 'Those who tax the worker in the field or the worker within the city gate are guilty of the shedding of blood.'

As for the issue of marriage licensing by the State, no thank you. I do not need a government to license me to live my life as I see fit.
edit on 29-6-2015 by Kapriti because: completing a thought and doing a bit of grammar fixing...



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: ManBehindTheMask

One thing is that they need to take out 'clergy member' as one to act as witness of the contract. Leave the clergy and religion out of it altogether at the level of government.



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 4  5  6    8 >>

log in

join