Posted on 06/28/2015 4:59:21 AM PDT by tje
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (May 23, 2015) – This week, the Alabama state Senate passed a bill that would end the practice of licensing marriages in the state, effectively nullifying both major sides of the contentious national debate over government-sanctioned marriage.
Introduced by Sen. Greg Albritton (R-Bay Minette), Senate Bill 377 (SB377) would end state issued marriage licenses, while providing marriage contracts as an alternative. It passed through the Alabama state Senate by a 22-3 margin on May 19.
“When you invite the state into those matters of personal or religious import, it creates difficulties,” Sen. Albritton said about his bill in April. “Go back long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. Early twentieth century, if you go back and look and try to find marriage licenses for your grandparents or great grandparents, you won’t find it. What you will find instead is where people have come in and recorded when a marriage has occurred.”
The bill would replace all references to marriages “licenses” in state law with “contracts.” The legislation would not invalidate any marriage licenses issued prior to the bill being passed.
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
I like this one:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3304967/posts#14
“I would be happy to officiate but in the interest of celebrating diversity the ceremony should be held in a mosque. Let me know when you have found one.”
:-)
You are absolutely correct. It is politicians trying to curry favor (votes) by catering to a demographic.
No, civil marriage was just destroyed by the Left. It cannot be salvaged. Next up the battle to protect marriage from the Left. The gutsy Republicans (and some Dems) will take the position that marriage is a first amendment right of churches only. Anyone else using the term marriage is referring to "civil marriage" which now means nothing or anything.
Fight the battle to protect marriage and at the same time expand civil marriage to cover anything and everything. If I were in Alabama I would instruct local officials to hand out civil marriage licenses to any two animate objects that walk in the door. In Californica it can be a woman and a tree (I think it already has). All protected under the law. If the tree dies, the woman gets all the firewood.
no, marriage of a man and a woman is still the parvenu of the Church.
a Contract for Cohabitation becomes the parvenu of common law
this solution was available prior to the SCOTUS decision. the CFC is in effect an LLC corporation, a contractual arrangement to achieve the goal of managing common property and interests and finances under the IRS code
Seriously, how long does anyone think the Federals will allow this to stand?
Again I say as I have been for years, we didn't need Gay Marriage we needed a Flat Tax, Steve Forbes was way ahead of his time....
They can’t claim you said no!
“Some federal judge will likely find this law unconstitutional when it’s challenged in court.”
Why yes - Chief Pirate Roberts will simply add it to Obama’s SCOTUScare bill
Serious subject of course, but I’m STILL laughing. Thanks for posting that. :-)
This is the best solution I can see so far to the problem.
States (e.g. gov’t) should not be involved in “Licencing” marriages for the reasons the Senator stated.
I, (name), take you (name), to be my USSC-designated plant/animal/robot/fictional partner in what the Chief Justice has defined to be “marriage”, to have and to hold from this day forward, for better or for worse, for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health, to love and to cherish; from this day forward until divorce and/or boredom do us part.
Why do you think there’d be a problem with it. 7 states already recognize common law marriages and have forever. How is this any different?
You just have to keep your sense of humor and “situational awareness”. Out-Alinsky them. It can’t be too hard as libtards are mostly useful idiots dumber than a box of hammers.
Technically, the contract becomes a common law contract
marriage remains a Church function to acknowledge the contract between an man and a women
“If a church chooses not to marry a same sex couple they would likely lose/risk their tax exemption through the feds.”
Yeah, the feds would punish Christian churches in that manner, but somehow I think the feds would give the muzz a pass.
Thank you for a sorely needed chuckle among the apocalyptic disaster facing us.
How about Permanent Cohabiting Contracts.
You just have to keep your sense of humor and “situational awareness”. Out-Alinsky them.
************************************
I’m kinda liking this approach:
Be The Best Saboteur You Can Be
http://sultanknish.blogspot.com/2015/06/be-best-saboteur-you-can-be.html
The practice of licensing marriage is ridiculous. It goes back to medieval times, in which vassals were bound to the land, effectively the “furniture” that came with inherited or acquired land. The lord would “license” marriage among these peasants. A free people should not need licenses to marry.
“Why do you think there’d be a problem with it.”
WHY?
For starters, any such law would undermine the power of the Federal Government.
Second, the homosexual community would have a federal lawsuit before their Supreme Court before the week was out.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.