Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alabama House Committee Passes Bill Eliminating Government Marriage Licensing
Tenth Amendment Center ^ | 21 April 2016

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“All requirements to obtain a marriage license by the State of Alabama are hereby abolished and repealed.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 ...


TOPICS: Government; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: alabama; homosexualagenda; license; marriage
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last
To: Lurker
Good. Marriage is none of the states business.

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?

41 posted on 04/28/2016 6:26:48 AM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

They’re called “contracts, Wills, and Powers of Attorney.”

Really, you can look it up.

L


42 posted on 04/28/2016 6:41:43 AM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Once again, blood relatives won’t be able to enter into these “marriage” contracts, so the state is still involved in regulating them.


43 posted on 04/28/2016 8:27:14 AM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Conservatives wanted the government to define and regulate marriage. So it did.

How do you like it?

L


44 posted on 04/28/2016 8:36:22 AM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
No, government didn't regulate marriage, they recognized it, which isn't the same as "regulating" it. Big difference.

What they recognize, they must define. And marriage has always had a basic, specific definition in this nation.

45 posted on 04/28/2016 9:13:25 AM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

“What they recognize, they must define.”

Which they did. So I’ll ask again. How do you like it?

L


46 posted on 04/28/2016 9:57:22 AM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: wastedyears

Did you pose this question years before the militant homosexual Mafia started forcing it down our collective throats.


47 posted on 04/28/2016 9:57:47 AM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Rafael Cruz: Canadian-born, Cuban ancestry, ineligible for POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

How can the government NOT recognize anyone’s marriage?


48 posted on 04/28/2016 11:05:02 AM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Why should they “recognize” it at all? Where is the Constitutional authority for them to do so?


49 posted on 04/28/2016 11:06:50 AM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
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?

50 posted on 04/28/2016 11:10:51 AM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

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


51 posted on 04/28/2016 11:12:58 AM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Prospero
Prenups would be all the state had any remaining business becoming involved in.

It might teach the liberal scolds the difference between government and "society." A lot of people need to learn the difference.


The only problem that still remains is that so much government stuff is tied up into your marital status - filing taxes jointly, insurance spouse requirements, etc. I fully agree the government needs to get out of this, but they need to get fully out of the marital status completely. Not just marriage licensing.
52 posted on 04/28/2016 11:24:38 AM PDT by Svartalfiar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lurker
Talk about comprehension impairment.

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.

53 posted on 04/28/2016 11:24:50 AM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

We are done, dude.

Your being deliberately obtuse.

L


54 posted on 04/28/2016 11:34:42 AM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

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.


55 posted on 04/28/2016 11:46:58 AM PDT by commish (Freedom tastes Sweetest to those who have fought to preserve it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lurker

Can you answer even one relevant question? Who enforces these contracts?


56 posted on 04/28/2016 11:56:04 AM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: fwdude

Courts, you dolt.

L


57 posted on 04/28/2016 11:56:42 AM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Lorianne

My vote is for a Braveheart wedding, with a happier ending, hopefully.


58 posted on 04/28/2016 8:58:26 PM PDT by Dirt for sale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-58 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson