Posted on 05/29/2015 6:48:25 AM PDT by shove_it
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 ...
I'm just wondering why it is also recorded that the father had to mortgage the family grist mill to pay for his son's wedding. We had always assumed that it was for the bond. I guess it is possible that it was for a fancy wedding instead.
My Mrs posts a series of her thoughts, ideas and questions and you seem to just want to brush all that off and complain.
Cantankerous gets old, fast.
"Hence it is that above 30,000L Sterling have lately been expended to bring over 5 or 6000 Ignorant, mean, worthless, beggarly Irish Presbyterians, the Scum of the Earth, and Refuse of Mankind"
He was anti-revolution ""Rev. Charles Woodmason angered the local Patriots by performing the special liturgy authorized for that occasion, which stresses that those in authority—especially the King—must be obeyed, and read the homily on obedience (the traditional reading for this day), all as the Prayer Book rubrics directed.
That act, coupled with his refusal to publish at that service the “Brief for collecting Money for relief of the poor of Boston, (but in fact to purchase Ammunition)” according to Woodmason's 1776 memorial to the Bishop of London, led a local Patriot committee to advise him to “consult his safety”. He did so by returning to England.""
Would he have possibly bought a piece of land for the new family?
Yeah, this could, possibly, be a major act of civil disobedience against the Federal Government.
Would Federal tax law apply the same for couples that have a “Marriage Contract” as those who were licensed to marry?
At the least it would create a massive legal and administrative headache that would get dumped into the courts to sort out. If it is different, it means one can be married (with all the contractual benefits of marriage) without the burden of things like the marriage penalty.
Her meanderings are irrelevant, why post them to me and ignore the actual problem, on the News/Activism thread on this Alabama legislation?
Why ignore the topic? We need to defeat gay marriage, and to do that we need to figure out a way to keep all of the gay marriage threads from being pulled off of the politics and into the tall grass of chatting and philosophical discussions, libertarianism and irrelevant thoughts and ramblings.
If it is legal.
I don't see how all this game playing changes anything, either the relationship will comply with the law for recognition, or it won't.
That was the way it was in 1950, and 1900, and 1990, either you do what the law requires for the government to recognize the union, or you blow off the government part.
It is you who engaged her in post 27 and then kept responding to her.
I shall now return to my long standing FR policy of ignoring you.
Have a nice, cantankerous day.
we USED to have common law marriage when the frontier was open and recording was difficult.
When recording was “voluntary” it was rife with fraud. Consider divorce. Divorce is because you say you are divorced and there is no obligation to childsupport or even standing to subpoena for testing. It is a leftists wet dream.
You and I are done, ansel12.
Exactly; like would there be any such thing anymore as “married filing jointly”
We still have common law marriage in many states in America, Texas for instance (and with no license),
With common law marriage you can call yourself married, but for it to be legal, you have to do it in a state that recognizes it, and meet the legal requirements of that state.
Making your relationship “legal” is a personal choice, just at it was 20 or 50 years ago.
I wish you would respond to my post 27 before you drop out.
You never would actually discuss the thread topic.
ping
Might be a possibility worth investigating . . . Tnx!
It would be (as I once observ’d before) a Great Novelty to a Londoner to see one of these Congregations—The Men with only I a thin Shirt and pair of Breeches or Trousers on—barelegged and barefooted—The Women bareheaded, barelegged and barefoot with only a thin Shift and under Petticoat—Yet I cannot break [them?] of this—for the heat of the Weather admits not of any [but] thin Cloathing—I can hardly bear the Weight of my Whig and Gown, during Service. The Young Women have a most uncommon Practise, which I cannot break them off. They draw their Shift as tight as possible to the Body, and pin it close, to shew the roundness of their Breasts, and slender Waists (for they are generally finely shaped) and draw their Petticoat close to their Hips to shew the fineness of their Limbs—so that they might as well be in Puri Naturalibus—Indeed Nakedness is not censurable or indecent here, and they expose themselves often quite Naked, without Ceremony—Rubbing themselves and their Hair with Bears Oil and tying it up behind in a Bunch like the Indians—being hardly one degree removed from them—In few Years, I hope to bring about a Reformation, as I already have done in several Parts of the Country.It ain't your powdered wig colonial period, that's for sure.
He is fascinating.
He doesn’t shrink from writing what he wants to write, that’s for sure.
http://www.indiana.edu/~kdhist/H105-documents-web/week05/Woodmason1767.html
I realize what i sad was impractical. But I want the Supreme Court to address
this issue, that is, homosexuals marriages that are unable to bear children are
equal to male and female marriages that do. I want to see their reasoning. I cant see how governments will not be involved. I want sanity to prevail. I don’t care if gays enter into a union but what I don’t want is the heavy hand of government punishing those that do not agree with gay marriages. We will see.
I realize what i sad was impractical. But I want the Supreme Court to address
this issue, that is, homosexuals marriages that are unable to bear children are
equal to male and female marriages that do. I want to see their reasoning. I cant see how governments will not be involved. I want sanity to prevail. I don’t care if gays enter into a union but what I don’t want is the heavy hand of government punishing those that do not agree with gay marriages. We will see.
A lot of America is laissez faire to a fault about the issue.
That isn’t working so well because the “gays” are not laissez faire at all. It’s forward HARCH! for them. This is what crazy lusts do.
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.