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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
originally posted by: beezzer
I'd be curious to see if anyone doesn't like this.
And their reasons why.
(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.”
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
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.
originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: beezzer
Klingons dont have nude weddings you silly bunny thats betazoids how cultrally insensitive of you
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)