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 ...
Seems it was “made up” while he was still doing it...during his first term. That makes it history.
What does this achieve? How does this prevent homosexuals from legally marrying in Alabama?
I don’t get it.
God created, defined, and instituted marriage thousands of years before there even was a church. It was a precious gift to all of mankind, not just the church.
Marriage is the familial, societal, governmental, and economic building block of our civilization, our country, and our communities. It is fundamental to the laws of nature and of nature’s God, and absolutely necessary to the fulfillment of the ultimate stated purpose of the U.S. Constitution, which is “to secure the Blessings of Liberty to our Posterity.”
In short, the attack on the natural family represents an existential threat.
Well, governmental ONLY in the sense that a stable, married (father mother children) "government" is the foundation of American culture.
Government marriage only exists to insert itself via the courts, DHHS and other statutory claptrap.
It was made up.
“The claim that Thomas Jefferson had a sexual relationship with Sally Hemings began with James Thomson Callender, a notorious journalist and scandalmonger. Callender had demanded that Jefferson, who was elected president in 1800, appoint him postmaster of Richmond, Va. At one point during the summer of 1802, Callendar shouted from in front of the White House, “Sir, you know that by lying [in press attacks on President John Adams] I made you President!”
When Jefferson refused to make the appointment, Callender promised “ten thousand fold vengeance” and wrote a series of articles denouncing Jefferson as a French agent and an atheist. When those charges had no effect, he insisted that the president had taken a young slave girl to be his “concubine” while in Paris during the late 1780s. At the time, Sally attended to Jefferson’s young daughters, who lived in a Catholic boarding school across town in Paris that had servants’ quarters. She didn’t live at the Jefferson residence.
Both John Adams and Alexander Hamilton—political rivals of Jefferson’s at the time—rejected Callender’s charges, because they knew Jefferson’s character and had bitter personal experiences with Callender’s lies.
The case against Jefferson was the subject of a yearlong examination by a group of 13 distinguished scholars, including historians Robert Ferrell (Indiana University) and Forrest McDonald (University of Alabama), as well as political scientists Harvey Mansfield (Harvard) and Jean Yarbrough (Bowdoin). Save for a mild dissent by historian Paul Rahe (now at Hillsdale College) the group concluded that the story is probably false. This Scholars Commission, which I chaired, published its findings in book form late last year.”
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702304211804577500870076728362
No. Reciprocal state issues do not become federal issues. My California drivers license is accepted by law enforcement in all 50 states. It does not become essentially a “federal” drivers license. It is still a state drivers license. It is just accepted in the true meaning of “federalism” that has basically fallen by the wayside due to the over-reach of the US central government.
It’s not a license in the sense of permission. Everywhere in America you can shack up all you want.
What it really is is the establishment of certain basic necessary requirements before the whole body of people will legally recognize a union as legitimate.
Requirements which are necessary to protect the whole body of the people, and the children of a union.
That’s hardly oppressive.
With freedom, and the enjoyment of the benefits of living in a larger society, come certain basic obligations.
The solution is to ignore the lawless opinions of a court that has made itself illegitimate, not to finish destroying the civil institution of marriage for them.
This ill-advised strategy jumps out of one ditch right into another ditch, with the same outcome either way: marriage is destroyed.
How government involvement in Holy Matrimony, is not a violation of "separation of church and state" eludes me.
Your view of marriage is far too narrow.
Yes, marriage is of a unique, sublime, ineffable,, SPIRITUAL nature. It is a God-breathed mystery. It is among His ultimate greatest gifts to mankind, because it pictures the relationship between Christ and His churxh.
But, it is also the nexus of His eternal plan and all true, lasting, earthly riches. It is the foundational building block of all decent civic, governmental institutions. It is the basis of all true economics. It breeds peace and prosperity. It is the great stabilizer of civilizations. It is the well-spring and nursery of posterity.
It must be protected as a CIVIC institution, or America will fail and fall.
Yes, but, wouldn't that give the Christian churches the chance to sue for discrimination as the law is not being enforced "equally" among all citizens?
When marriage conferred no government benefits or restrictions on the married couple, it was a God-only thing.
As soon as married couples got tax deductions for children or exemptions for a working husband claiming a stay-at-home wife, a wife not being compelled to testify against a husband, joint custody of children, joint bank accounts, jointly held real property, it became a government thing. This is no new matter. This is centuries or millennia old.
Or, as stated in the article linked below:
__________________________________________________________
Now, back to the explanation by the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage Bureau’s administrative Assistant. He went on to explain that every contract must have consideration. The State offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself — the piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage. The other part of consideration by the State is “the privilege to be regulated by statute.”
He added that this privilege to be regulated by statute includes all related statutes, and all court cases as they are ruled on by the courts, and all statutes and regulations into the future inthe years following the commencement of the marriage. He said in a way the marriage license contract is a dynamic or flexible, ever-changing contract as time goes along – even though the husband and wife didn’t realize that. My thought on this is can it really be considered a true contract as one becomes aware of the failure by the State to make full disclosure of the terms and conditions. A contract must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully informed consent. Otherwise, technically there is no contract. Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed “contract.” Such a contract with the State is said to be a “specific performance” contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach.
Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state’s statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property. He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State. He commented that very few people realize this. He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as “the contract bearing fruit” — meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.
In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as “the contract bearing fruit,” he said it is vitally important for parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis. Parens Patriae means literally “the parent of the country” or to state it more bluntly – the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don’t offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children — the parents are only conditional caretakers.
He also added a few more technical details. The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State. Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise. The marriage contract acquires property throughout its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value. Also, the marriage contract “bears fruit” by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a “divorce” results the contract continues in existence. The “divorce” is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over children brought into the marriage. That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls “divorce” a dissolution of the marriage because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. He also pointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the States has on people.
__________________________________________________________
Thanks tje. Licensing marriage was begun to combat the spread of VD (as STIs used to be called, back before they were called STDs) and incest; pulling the plug on any gov't authority over marriage, kinky sex, sexual prefs, age of consent, drinking age, etc -- what could go wrong?!? /s
University? Political "scientists"...like Ward Churchill. Sounds like a bunch of guaranteed RAT political hacks.
...the story is probably false. (but otherwise inconclusive)
This Scholars Commission, which I chaired...(honk honk, pat pat pat)
No bias here...full disclosure.
I think if you dig you will find that all states except Louisiana recognize common law marriage. Maybe the statutes don’t say it, but so what?
Statutes don’t have anything to do with common law anyway.
Touche.
Game. Set. And match.
It is bad that the lying commie scum actively trying to destroy our nation use this bald faced lie to try to discredit one of our greatest Founding Fathers so as to create hatred for the United States among those amenable to it, but it is abominable when Freepers fall for these lies.
Just abominable.
The Marxist commie propaganda is so well produced and disseminated, you even have Freepers falling for some of it.
Sad. Very sad. I grieve.
You can lead a mule to water, but you can’t make him a horse.
I don't think so. Especially when we have a filthy corrupt government "protecting" it, as we have now.
Legal "marriage" largely exists in order to facilitate legal divorce. I think the Alabama Senate has it about right. Hopefully more states will follow.
What year was the Book of Proverbs written?
"Why they are no more two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." -Proverbs 2:17
Marx and Engels wrote almost two hundred years of their goal of destroying marriage. They knew they had to do it because it blocks their way.
Whether Left or Right finishes the civil institution off in this country, it is just as dead, and the communist vision is fulfilled.
I agree. You want to get married, go to DC.
Thank you, I think I said that earlier.
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.