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 ...
“... in what the Chief Justice has defined to be “marriage”....”
No, he didn’t. Roberts dissented from the majority opinion. At least he got that one right (though I suspect if it had been 4 - 4 before he chose his side, he would have sided with the homos).
It’s why the juggernaut keeps rolling along.
It’s how politicians earn their bread & butter, so they’re not going to change it.
I wouldn't be so sure about that, anymore. That statement certainly doesn't apply to individuals who bake cakes and choose to avoid baking a cake that goes against their religious beliefs.
It looks good on paper for the politicians so they can win the next election but it does not stop the corporate and big government elites from imposing their will through the judiciary on religious people whose conscience will not allow them to support gay marriage.
Which is the way it should of been all along. The “state” got in the marriage business and the result is what we now have. Had it stayed as you say this wouldn’t be as big a deal.
My children had a babysitter who shared an apartment with her handicapped brother. She been responsible for his care for decades
So?....Why couldn't this brother and sister form an LLC under a “Contract for Cohabitation” and receive all the legal and tax benefits that a gay couple will now enjoy?
“States can issue civil unions and name changes, which are legal documents.”
But they apply to all states so they are not “state” documents. They are essentially federal.
Exactly!
Is that gonna be at gunpoint? By holding the preacher and/or congregation in full headlock? Will they use waterboarding to make them do it? They can't "force" me to do anything. They can punish me.
I would think they are already half way there. Under the law the sister can claim the brother as a dependent. The LLC would clarify other aspects of the union
And get rid if the laws against bigamy. I would live to see liberal wives deal with that!
I believe Mississippi has done this just yesterday or something.
—I would be willing to bet that within a month, a same-sex pair will demand to married by a Roman Catholic priest and will attempt to file a lawsuit requiring him to do so upon refusal-—
You've missed what happened in Obergefell. The SCOTUS already destroyed marriage as a civil institution. By their decision there is now an institution in all 50 states falsely called "marriage" which is not marriage. Whether it optimally takes the form of the bill in Alabama, or some other form (Fr. John Whiteford proposed each state creating a "community property registry" and a "registry of potential births"), the correct response is not to accept the Newspeak version of "marriage" which means whatever the Federal government says it means, but for the several states to refuse to participate in the sham the SCOTUS has foisted on us.
Watch what happens in the military where the priest works for an formerly (when he was commissioned) protective of religious freedom. Where is he going to go for protection of his right to practice his religion? The Supreme Court?
Clergy are free now to accept or decline couples who wish to marry based on other criteria such as if they were previously divorced or even if the clergy person deems them incompatible.
An institution formerly protective of religious freedom
Completely agree with you. Marriage has financial and government freebies associated with. How do we get around that? Let marriage be an instrument of a church, temple, etc. How do we get government out of the marriage business? We need to come up with ideas.
Sort of like a museum piece...
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.