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


1 posted on 04/27/2016 7:45:24 PM PDT by Lorianne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Lorianne

Great idea. The government never should have been involved anyway. They only did so they could turn it into a revenue source.

So I agree, get the government out of all things connected to family matters. It should be something between people and God.


2 posted on 04/27/2016 7:50:44 PM PDT by OneVike (I'm just a Christian waiting for a ride home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

Good. Marriage is none of the states business.

L


3 posted on 04/27/2016 7:51:09 PM PDT by Lurker (Violence is rarely the answer. But when it is it is the only answer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne
Good. Get the gubment out of marriage licensing.

If you're gay and happen to find a church that will marry you, then fine you're married within that church.

4 posted on 04/27/2016 7:53:14 PM PDT by broken_clock (Go Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

So if Alabama doesn’t have marriage then Alabama will not have homosexual marriage. What will the liberals say about this turn of events????


5 posted on 04/27/2016 7:53:27 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

Alabama surrenders.


6 posted on 04/27/2016 7:54:33 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist (Rafael Cruz: Canadian-born, Cuban ancestry, ineligible for POTUS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

Way to go Bama. Your getting as good as North Carolina


8 posted on 04/27/2016 7:58:47 PM PDT by progunner (no compromise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne
Leave marriage in the hands of the church where it belongs.

But then again, the liberal Federal government will find a way!!

10 posted on 04/27/2016 8:05:56 PM PDT by sonofagun (Some think my cynicism grows with age. I like to think of it as wisdom!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne
This is a great move for a number of reasons, many of them posted here by Freepers.

This could potentially turn the entire Internal Revenue Code on its head. What happens if 17 related people in Alabama and sign a contract that calls themselves "married," then all try file tax returns as "married, filing jointly?"

11 posted on 04/27/2016 8:10:16 PM PDT by Alberta's Child ("Sometimes I feel like I've been tied to the whipping post.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

Next:

Get The State out of care for orphans, etc.

Separate The State and Education.


12 posted on 04/27/2016 8:10:45 PM PDT by gaijin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne
This has always seemed an excellent idea, following the Supreme Court's rulings and hegemony.

The 9th and 10th amendments and the U.S. Constitution at large has to demonstrate a clear and present danger, watered down to a compelling state interest for exercising any power over not specifically addressed in the Constitution.

Originally, the compelling state interest was the welfare of children, but after gay adoption was normalized, the only way remaining to maintain the Rule of Law has been for the States to simply get out of the marriage business.

People can contract together for any purpose, guided by contract law, under free association. It would also take heat off the Churches, allowing them to witness and perform ceremonies without the State having any interest aside from contract courts.

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.

13 posted on 04/27/2016 8:11:44 PM PDT by Prospero (Omnis caro fenum)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

Since marriage is a church sacrament, the government shouldn’t have ever been involved.


17 posted on 04/27/2016 8:46:03 PM PDT by bgill (CDC site, "We still do not know exactly how people are infected with Ebola")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

How does this help anything? They’re still “officiated” before a government representative.


20 posted on 04/27/2016 9:24:06 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne
Put your glasses down. Later in the article, the implications are listed, including:

"Under SB143, the state would record same-sex marriages."

This bill does nothing to protect marriage.

24 posted on 04/27/2016 9:36:31 PM PDT by fwdude
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

Excellent idea


27 posted on 04/28/2016 12:01:21 AM PDT by wastedyears (I identify as an A-10 Warthog and am attracted to tanks. If you don't agree, you're otherkin phobic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Lorianne

The next thing they should do is get out of the business of divorce. If the couple freely choses to enter into a union that states “until death do us part” then the state should have no authority to nullify that contract. If you do not like that provision then do not put it into your marriage contract. The introduction of no-fault divorce, which the states have imposed upon all marriages, basically outlawed marriage as it had be understood in the West (dare I say Christendom) for over a thousand years.


35 posted on 04/28/2016 3:35:54 AM PDT by Petrosius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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: 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 ]

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