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: 8
29
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 06:33 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

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 ...



I went and read the link.

The actual bill does not prohibit same sex marriage. There is no where in the bill that same-sex marriage is prohibited.

The prohibition is in the state constitution, SCOTUS effectively nullifed the Alabama state constitution with their ruling. Making the constitution of Alabama null and void
on that point. Alabama according to the ruling by SCOTUS may not enforce
the constitution of the state on that matter.


I still say people are looking for a fight after a victory. Strange.




posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Kapriti
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.



Uh-huh...You noticed the special status granted clergy ...did you?

Did you notice that this also is more expensive than a marriage license?

It starts to look less like a "get government out of marriage" bill when you read it.



13 This bill would also authorize the judge of
14 probate to collect a fee for recording the contract
15 of marriage. This bill would provide that the fee
16 currently collected by the judge of probate and
17 paid to the district attorney upon issuance would
18 be paid when the marriage contract is presented for
19 recording.
20 This bill would provide for an additional
21 fee to be paid to the General Fund.

g) A recording fee of twenty-five dollars ($25)
18 pursuant to Section 12-19-90, Code of Alabama 1975, an
19 additional fee of thirty dollars ($30) pursuant to Section
20 30-6-11, Code of Alabama 1975, and an additional fee of twenty
21 dollars ($20) pursuant to Section 3 shall be paid to the judge
22 of probate upon filing of a marriage contract pursuant to this
23 act.

"(3) Grant of letters of guardianship or
2 conservatorship, three certified copies ..... 20.00
3 "(4) Partial or final settlement of guardianship or
4 conservatorship ..... 15.00

"(5) Each additional certified copy of letters
6 testamentary, letters of administration, or letters of
7 guardianship or conservatorship ..... 3.00

"(6) Proceedings in filing and granting petition of
9 adoption, including one certified copy of decree for
10 petitioner, one certified copy for the Department of Human
11 Resources, and one copy to the State Bureau of Vital
12 Statistics. (Fee shall apply to each child adopted) .....75.00

8) Proceedings in change of name ..... 15.00

"(5) Witnesses certificate ..... 3.00
2 "(6) Order of publication ..... 3.00
3 "(7) Posting order of publication, each ..... 3.00
4 "(8) Notice by mail to creditor and heirs, each
5 ..... 3.00
6 "(9) Each notice not otherwise provided for .....
7 3.00
8 "(10) Issuing commission to take testimony .....
9 10.00
10 "(11) Entering returns of sheriff, printer, or
11 commissioner, each ..... 3.00
12 "(12) Appointment of guardian ad litem, special
13 attorney, or administrator ad litem ..... 5.00
14 "(13) Approving bonds ..... 10.00
15 "(14) Presiding in noncontested cause or examining
16 papers, pleadings, taking testimony, etc. ..... 10.00
17 "(15) Presiding in contested cause, per day .....
18 25.00
19 "(16) Examining vouchers, each ..... 1.00
20 "(17) Examining and entering decree or other order
21 ..... 3.00
22 "(18) Drafting decree ..... 10.00
23 "(19) Each certificate with seal 3.00
24 "(20) Each certificate without seal ..... 3.00
25 "(21) Filing and docketing each claim ..... 3.00

IT GOES ON AND ON...I cant even tell what this has to do with marriage, but it costs 400?

Discharging his or her duties in relation
11 to public roads, on proof to the county commission that he or
12 she had discharged such duties, annually, to be paid out of
13 the county treasury or, in the discretion of the county
14 commission, to be paid out of the county gasoline tax fund,
15 not exceeding ..... 400.00



alisondb.legislature.state.al.us...

You should read the bill



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 06:37 PM
link   
Well this is a sorry state of affairs! I was so optimistic at first read, but the more I read......... too bad -- sneaking in the back door. At least it's been defeated.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 06:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: ladyinwaiting
Well this is a sorry state of affairs! I was so optimistic at first read, but the more I read......... too bad -- sneaking in the back door. At least it's been defeated.


Agreed. I suspected from the beginning, but I couldn't put my finger on it. It was just seemingly too good to be true for the gays regardless of how it was couched as false equality.

A sinister ploy.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 06:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence


Oh yes, it's tricky! It's like they have put forth something knowing perfectly well there is something else to prevent it.

But was it ever decided, I couldn't really tell ....has the bill itself been thrown out? I mean, was that verified?
edit on 6/29/2015 by ladyinwaiting because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: J.B. Aloha
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.


The only reason people suddenly want the government out of marriage is because they don't want to let gays marry. This seems like a thinly veiled attempt to deny gay marriage. The religious (and some non religious) right don't like the fact the government have stepped in and said everyone has to be equal and that marriage is now open to same sex couples so suddenly they want government out of the equation.

The problem with this is that it basically leaves it in the hands of the religious. Suddenly it will be back to square one, where same sex marriages are not allowed. It may not start out like that but the religious right are masters of taking an inch and running a mile.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:37 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Funny, I can't tell either. The article linked to in the OP is from MAY 25. Upon a google search I can find nothing other than blogs talking about this issue.

Anything current (as in the last week, since the ruling), seems to leave it up to the individual county, most of whom are complying with the SCOTUS ruling to actually issue license.

That said, as far as the initial bill AL SB377 the only current thing I can find is adjourned sin die.

So since the OP is based on a voted bill over a month old (and possibly in anticipation of the ruling) AND that is currently indefinitely adjourned, I can find little validity.



posted on Jun, 29 2015 @ 07:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: NiZZiM
would you be ok with a state banning a religion?


A state banning religion…Book me there! I can't wait for that to happen and be around people that are of sound mind.



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 10:40 AM
link   
The first couple of pages with the known regular posters on ATS lauding the brilliance of the bigotry loophole was enough to tell me this bill was anything other than a good idea.
Lauding sedition as a good idea is well, hilarious.

Christians DON'T own marriage. It is not a a purely religious institution. Just get over yourselves with that "we own marriage" cry baby crap.
Give it up.


edit on 30-6-2015 by zazzafrazz because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 30 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: AshOnMyTomatoes

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?


Don't know what people think. As long as you don't hurt or interfere in another's life, marry a squid if you want to

There is a case in the U.K. where that is happening. A same sex couple is trying to "force" the Church of England to allow them to be married in Church, against the Church's wishes.

That, to me, seems wrong.

Link to Article
edit on 30-6-2015 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: pavil
People will try. Miguded and silly people. It will not pass though and it's no different to the religious trying to get government to pass laws that adhere to that religion in my opinion. That aside though, the law in the UK I'm sure makes it illegal to force a church (any church) into it if they don't want too. People running around claiming that it is going to happen and that they are going to be forced into it. Are just scaremongering and I throwing thier toys out of the pram.

The Bible may say things about homosexuals but I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't say treat them like jerks.



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: pavil

I believe there is no separation between church and state in the UK. The church of England is linked directly to the government, so I could see valid lawsuits over there. That is not the case here in America, where there is no official "Church of the USA".



posted on Jul, 1 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: pavil

I believe there is no separation between church and state in the UK. The church of England is linked directly to the government, so I could see valid lawsuits over there. That is not the case here in America, where there is no official "Church of the USA".


That's *one* of the main reasons many of our English ancestors packed up and moved across the pond (at least to begin with), and one of the reasons we *do* have that separation here as a founding—and current—principle.

Not sure how it is over there now.
edit on 1-7-2015 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 01:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Megatronus
The only reason people suddenly want the government out of marriage is because they don't want to let gays marry. This seems like a thinly veiled attempt to deny gay marriage. The religious (and some non religious) right don't like the fact the government have stepped in and said everyone has to be equal and that marriage is now open to same sex couples so suddenly they want government out of the equation.


Ironic that Christians don't mind using government to deny equality to all only to complain when the government acts in a manner that they don't like.

I am curious how Christians would feel being subjected to Sharia law.

I still say politicians using religion as a guideline when it comes to laws defining marriage is a violation of the 1st amendment. Defining marriage using religion and then forcing that view on all (even when they are not members of said religion)smacks of the government establishing a defacto state sanctioned / required religious viewpoint.

Secondly having Christians going nuts over gay marriage in the manner they are is a violation of their religious tenants. Specifically the parts that say don't judge unless ye be judged, judgment of others is reserved to God alone, etc.

I love it when religious types claim moral superiority via religion while behaving as "cafeteria Christians", picking and choosing what top follow and what not to follow, depending on how the outcome serves as an advantage to them alone.

Since the inception of religion humans have been murdering each other ever since... Remember, don't forget to pray for peace, love and harmony while condemning those who are different.


Going to war over religion is like fighting over who has the better imaginary friend.


edit on 4-7-2015 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 02:47 AM
link   
The first marriage was really really simple. Jehovah God just made a woman from the rib of Adam and gave her to him. And they became "one flesh." No ceremony, no lot's of words being spoken. Just God consecrated their marriage, and made it sacred.

Even in ancient Israel, marriage was just you took the person you were engaged with, to your house. This was a legally binding contract. You were officially married.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 09:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: grandmakdw

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.



Well well well. So you are going to accuse me of lying, call me names, accuse me of willfully fabricating material, and otherwise give a blistering and vicious assessment of my character, then just turn tail and run off?

Or are you going to man-up, admit you were absolutely off somewhere in left field while listening to no one, and give me a well deserved and requested apology?

Again, you owe me an apology. You can do it here will be fine.



posted on Jul, 4 2015 @ 12:59 PM
link   
a reply to: angeldoll

Don't forget, gran was the same person who stated in other posts how she just can't fathom why people have the nerve to assume they know what someone is thinking...and then did this same thing to you

Well the veil on this little project is so thin I could cut tomatoes with it. ((that doesn't make sense but you get my point lol)

How anyone could not see this as a whiny and pathetic attempt to get around the SCOTUS decision is beyond me



new topics

top topics



 
29
<< 5  6  7   >>

log in

join