Posted on 04/27/2016 7:45:24 PM PDT by Lorianne
On Wednesday, an important House committee passed a bill that would abolish marriage licenses in Alabama and effectively nullify both sides of the contentious debate on same-sex marriage. If passed into law, the bill would essentially remove the state from the business of marriage.
Sen. Greg Albritton (R-Bay Minette) introduced Senate Bill 143 (SB143) in February, where it was passed by a 23-3 vote last month.. The legislation would abolish all requirements to obtain a marriage license in Alabama. Instead, probate judges would simply record civil contracts of marriage between two individuals based on signed affidavits.
“All requirements to obtain a marriage license by the State of Alabama are hereby abolished and repealed. The requirement of a ceremony of marriage to solemnized the marriage is abolished.”
Under the proposed law, a judge of probate would have no authority to reject any recording of a marriage, so long as the affidavits, forms, and data are provided. In practice, the state’s role in marriage would be limited to recording marriages that have already occurred. As noted in the official bill synopsis, “This bill would eliminate the requirement of marriage licenses.”
Yesterday, the House House Judiciary Committee passed SB143 with some amendments, which inside sources say will help it get to the Governor’s desk.
“Licenses are used as a way to stop people from doing things,” said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. “My personal relationship should not be subject to government permission.”
(Excerpt) Read more at blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com ...
Nevertheless, the state will be compelled out of necessity to recognize marriage just like before. What will be done with divorces? Property disputes? Child custody?
Pistols at 20 paces?
They’re called “contracts, Wills, and Powers of Attorney.”
Really, you can look it up.
L
Once again, blood relatives won’t be able to enter into these “marriage” contracts, so the state is still involved in regulating them.
Conservatives wanted the government to define and regulate marriage. So it did.
How do you like it?
L
What they recognize, they must define. And marriage has always had a basic, specific definition in this nation.
“What they recognize, they must define.”
Which they did. So I’ll ask again. How do you like it?
L
Did you pose this question years before the militant homosexual Mafia started forcing it down our collective throats.
How can the government NOT recognize anyone’s marriage?
Why should they “recognize” it at all? Where is the Constitutional authority for them to do so?
So, who officiates and enforces divorce? Inheritance? Polygamy? You want it to be a free-for-all?
Once again for the comprehension impaired:
Contracts.
Wills.
Trusts.
Powers of Attorney
None of which require any “license” or acknowledgment of any religious state of matrimony whatsoever.
L
Contracts.
Contracts are meaningless without enforcement. Who enforces them? Pistols at 20 paces?
Wills. Trusts.
Again, meaningless without actionable force of LAW. You don't seem to get that.
Powers of Attorney
Power, meaning what? Exclusive ability backed by law, that's what. Laws are organs of the STATE.
None of which require any “license” or acknowledgment of any religious state of matrimony whatsoever.
From the article:
SB143 would maintain a few state requirements governing marriage. Minors between the ages of 16 and 18 would have to obtain parental permission before marrying, the state would not record a marriage if either party was already married and the parties could not be related by blood or adoption as already stipulated in state law. Under SB143, the state would record same-sex marriages.
State requirements governing marriage. That's involvement. Very little changes except the "solemnizing" part.
We are done, dude.
Your being deliberately obtuse.
L
I fully support this move, but it must be pointed out that a lot of entities require a marriage license as proof of marriage. Most employers that offer family insurance - the insurance company asks for a marriage license before providing spousal coverage. Hopefully this law takes this into account.
Can you answer even one relevant question? Who enforces these contracts?
Courts, you dolt.
L
My vote is for a Braveheart wedding, with a happier ending, hopefully.
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.