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 Cheif Justice Effectly Bans Same-Sex Marriage in the State

page: 5
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth
Did you even read any of my first posts in this thread?


Of course. The church is irrelevant when it comes to marriage, they have no say.




posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth



You are blurring the lines again with emotion and drama. That's the entire problem with today's problems people don't understand the laws at all.




And you said:


The church can retain it's term Marriage and everyone is happy.


Happy is an emotion. Why do you care if the church is happy? The word "marriage" is just a word. It also means to join any two things together, like common economic interests marry the two countries. The church doesn't own the word.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Realtruth
Did you even read any of my first posts in this thread?


Of course. The church is irrelevant when it comes to marriage, they have no say.


They are not irrelevant if the people get marriage within their walls, that's where the problem starts, and why the term "Marriage" has been blurred.

If people get married in a court house or city hall the church does not recognize the union = and equals a full corporation

If people get married in a church typically they make the two people get a "Marriage License" a state legal form to form a corporation, and then people can get married. This = A full corporation and a marriage within their church.

If people get married in a church without the State form this = A marriage only in a church and is not recognized by the state legally.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

Happy is an emotion. Why do you care if the church is happy? The word "marriage" is just a word. It also means to join any two things together, like common economic interests marry the two countries. The church doesn't own the word.


I don't, it's an expression smh

And yes "Marriage" is just a word, but one that is used by the legal system so it makes a difference when arguing legal terms, and actually understanding laws, with some reasonable amount efficacy.

Isn't it great the church doesn't own words, because if they did we'd all be in a world of trouble.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Realtruth
Did you even read any of my first posts in this thread?


Of course. The church is irrelevant when it comes to marriage, they have no say.


They are not irrelevant if the people get marriage within their walls, that's where the problem starts, and why the term "Marriage" has been blurred.

If people get married in a court house or city hall the church does not recognize the union = and equals a full corporation

If people get married in a church typically they make the two people get a "Marriage License" a state legal form to form a corporation, and then people can get married. This = A full corporation and a marriage within their church.

If people get married in a church without the State form this = A marriage only in a church and is not recognized by the state legally.


NO ONE is required to get a Legal Government Marriage.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

NO ONE is required to get a Legal Government Marriage.



That's is what I have been trying to convey here. smh

They are separate entities.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Annee

NO ONE is required to get a Legal Government Marriage.



That's is what I have been trying to convey here. smh

They are separate entities.


That is not what you've been trying to convey.

You've been trying to make Legal Marriage a Civil Union - - and religious marriages Marriage.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth
That's the whole issue Annee people do not understand that equality in marriage was already guaranteed, in a legal sense. Churches/Religion got so mixed up in state/federal laws the lines got blurred.


Bravo! The 14th Amendment guaranteed marriage equality when it was written (1890?). Marriage equality has been guaranteed since then! The religion-inspired state laws that "banned" a certain group from marriage (to show righteous disapproval) are the ones that violated the Constitution.

Keep religion OUT of government and we won't have this problem.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth
They are separate though, and that is the problem. Most people do not understand the laws.


That doesn't mean we should "dumb down" the laws and change the wording so that people can understand them and feel more "comfortable" with them.

It's very simple. Marriage is a LEGAL union. Individual marriages CAN have a religious element, but it's not necessary for it to be legal.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

That is not what you've been trying to convey.

You've been trying to make Legal Marriage a Civil Union - - and religious marriages Marriage.



Annee

I'm not sure what your background in law is, but I have many years in law.

I am stating what our system currently has in place legally.

Do you understand that when two people sign a piece of paper via the state (Marriage License) they have enacted a full legal corporation?

They are then bound by laws of that state, and in order for them to dissolve the marriage one has to sue the other to dissolve the corporation.

Unless that paper is signed no one can be held accountable when separating, unless there is "Common law marriages statutes in place, in that state".

I have no problem with gay people getting married, in fact, it never should have been an issue imo per our constitution, but again religion has gotten in the way.




edit on 7-1-2016 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Annee

That is not what you've been trying to convey.

You've been trying to make Legal Marriage a Civil Union - - and religious marriages Marriage.



Annee

I'm not sure what you background in law is, but I have many years in law.

I am stating what our system currently has in place legally.

Do you understand that when two people sign a piece of paper via the state (Marriage License) they have enacted a full legal corporation?

They are then bound by laws of that state, and in order for them to dissolve the marriage one has to sue the other to dissolve the corporation.

Unless that paper is signed no one can be held accountable when separating, unless there is "Common law marriages statutes in place, in that state".

I have no problem with gay people getting married, in fact, it never should have been an issue imo per our constitution, but again religion has gotten in the way.




Uh what?

This is completely new to the discussion.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Realtruth
They are separate though, and that is the problem. Most people do not understand the laws.


That doesn't mean we should "dumb down" the laws and change the wording so that people can understand them and feel more "comfortable" with them.

It's very simple. Marriage is a LEGAL union. Individual marriages CAN have a religious element, but it's not necessary for it to be legal.


This thread is a perfect example of why the wording should be changed, most people have no idea what is going on legally.


Marriage is not a "Legal" union, unless someone signs a "State/County Marriage" license", or they have "Common law marriage Statutes, in that state.


Again people can marry in a church, and the state has absolutely zero record of the marriage happening.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee

Uh what?

This is completely new to the discussion.



Return back to my first and many posts in this thread. It's the same thing repeated over and over.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Annee

Uh what?

This is completely new to the discussion.


Return back to my first and many posts in this thread. It's the same thing repeated over and over.


Then provide a link to your first post.

I'm not gonna go searching for it.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth
Marriage is not a "Legal" union, unless someone signs a "State/County Marriage" license", or they have "Common law marriage Statutes, in that state.


But that's what 99% of people do. They get a marriage license and get married, whether on the beach, in the courthouse or in a church. It's the SAME LEGAL union.



Again people can marry in a church, and the state has absolutely zero record of the marriage happening.


They CAN, but 99% of the people who get married in a church have already gotten a marriage license from the state. If they don't, they don't get ANY state or federal benefits.

What the hell does "smh" mean?
edit on 1/7/2016 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 12:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

They CAN, but 99% of the people who get married in a church have already gotten a marriage license from the state. If they don't, they don't get ANY state or federal benefits.

What the hell does "smh" mean?


All those religious people can give up their Legal Marriages if they want to.

I'm not stopping them.


edit on 7-1-2016 by Annee because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 01:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Realtruth
They are not irrelevant if the people get marriage within their walls, that's where the problem starts, and why the term "Marriage" has been blurred.


The religious service has no bearing on the fiduciary or familial benefits that have been codified into law.


If people get married in a court house or city hall the church does not recognize the union = and equals a full corporation


It equals a legal partnership regardless of where or whether you have a ceremony.


If people get married in a church typically they make the two people get a "Marriage License" a state legal form to form a corporation, and then people can get married. This = A full corporation and a marriage within their church.

If people get married in a church without the State form this = A marriage only in a church and is not recognized by the state legally.


All of that is irrelevant and a red herring. You are not legally married without a marriage certificate and that is what the entire marriage equality issue revolves around.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 01:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: Realtruth
Marriage is not a "Legal" union, unless someone signs a "State/County Marriage" license", or they have "Common law marriage Statutes, in that state.


But that's what 99% of people do. They get a marriage license and get married, whether on the beach, in the courthouse or in a church. It's the SAME LEGAL union.



Again people can marry in a church, and the state has absolutely zero record of the marriage happening.


They CAN, but 99% of the people who get married in a church have already gotten a marriage license from the state. If they don't, they don't get ANY state or federal benefits.

What the hell does "smh" mean?




Thank you BH!


That is what I have been trying to get at from my first post. The benefits are the "Corporation" I have been talking about.

If someone is married with a state marriage license they have all the legal rights of a marriage corporation.

Churches are suppose to be separate, but it appears only when it suits, then they choose to be separate.

Even if the Supreme Court rules same sex marriages they cannot force the churches to marry same sex people, because of the "Religious Freedom".



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 01:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
What the hell does "smh" mean?


'Shaking My Head' because you iz to stupidz 2 undertand.



posted on Jan, 7 2016 @ 01:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus


If people get married in a church typically they make the two people get a "Marriage License" a state legal form to form a corporation, and then people can get married. This = A full corporation and a marriage within their church.

If people get married in a church without the State form this = A marriage only in a church and is not recognized by the state legally.


All of that is irrelevant and a red herring. You are not legally married without a marriage certificate and that is what the entire marriage equality issue revolves around.


In agreement completely

That's what I have been trying to state since the beginning. " Red Herrings" is an understatement when it comes to issues with church and state.

We/ us the people cannot force a church to marry two people they do not want to. This is guarantee by the first amendment.

The church doesn't matter.

Again let me state the Church does not matter, if two people want to get married then they can go to a court house and form their "Legal Union", with all the benefits.

The problems arise when most people do not understand the full legalities of marriage, and the separation of church and state.



edit on 7-1-2016 by Realtruth because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
29
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join