After Gay Marriage Decision, Mississippi May Stop Issuing All Marriage Licenses

Newsweek ^ | June 26, 2015 | Polly Mosendz

[EveningStar]

Mississippi is considering pulling the plug on issuing marriage licenses altogether after the Supreme Court struck down bans on gay marriage Friday morning.

As the state's governor and lieutenant governor condemned the court's decision, state House Judiciary Chairman Andy Gipson began studying ways to prevent gay marriage in Mississippi. Governor Phil Bryant said he would do all he can "to protect and defend the religious freedoms of Mississippi." To Bryant's point of doing "all" the state could do, Gipson, who is a Baptist minister, suggested removing marriage licenses entirely.

[Nowhere Man]

Basically it could come down to this where much like it was in the old Soviet Union and many European countries today, you have two sides to a marriage, the religious ceremony sanctifying the union and the civil process honoring the civil and legal rights of the contract. It might be like that at some point.

Personally, I don't care who marries who, but I do believe in this nation we all have our own biases, principle and conscience and all sides must be respected and no one should be driven into a corner. Sadly, those who feel it is wrong on religious grounds and so forth are bring driven into a corner and it should not be this way. I know in the past, I don't have a problem if two guys want to get married, let them do it but those who oppose must not be forced to participate if they do not want to yet, I fear this ruling will blow the lid off of that. There are times I might disagree with some here on FR on this but I don't want to see their rights trampled on either as well as being bullied and we may have that. I will defend them even though we might disagree on some things. This demonisation must stop. I think the Court made bad law here and I even believe the 14th Amendment is bad law like the 18th with Prohibition. The 14th needs repealed pronto although it will not happen.

I did disagree on Mark Levin's idea of an Article V convention but as time goes on with the Obamacare ruling, which irks me even more, I am willing to toss in and roll the dice. If it was up to me, I'd toss out the 14th, 15th 16th and 17th Amendments. As the case of the 15h, I'd base sufferage upon passing a simple test on basic reading, history and math and one cannot be able bodied and on the dole. Those who are on welfare because of age or disability would be exempt but they must still pass the test. Upon returning to work form welfare, as long as they previously passed the test, they will be able to vote after a 6 month probationary period.

Other than that, well, there is always the idea of "going Galt" and move to Panama.

[vette6387]

“It’s not just the money, also note they will accomplish NOTHING.”

I completely disagree! The government should be totally “divorced” from any role whatsoever in marriage. For me, getting them out of the business of “issuing licenses” and “approving” who can perform marriages would be a plus.

[Viennacon]

They will just have to be more careful about making sure they write wills.

[onyx]

Great!

[ansel12]

Let civil unions be handled by the court, after all they do the divorces. Marriages is a religious function

Fine, atheists have legal marriages, and Muslims and Mormons, and gay churches, and non-gay churches, and Hindus have their religious marriages, of all types, gay, polygamous, monogamous.

But what does everyone do when they want to join the military and want their marriage recognized as legal, or for work, or in a divorce?

[vette6387]

“Till it is tax time.”

Simple answer: File a notice in the local paper and have it recorded. Works for handling the affairs of the deceased, why not the living?

[C. Edmund Wright]

Other than that, well, there is always the idea of "going Galt" and move to Panama.

Or Costa Rica. Or Nicaragua. Or Ecuador. I know people in all locations, ex pats, swear it was the best thing they ever did.

[dfwgator]

Get rid of marriage on tax forms, and just make everyone file as an individual.

Also, make everyone get their own health insurance instead of being on their spouse’s policy.

[C. Edmund Wright]

TRUE....

[Nowhere Man]

Well, it could come down to it, the “American Diasporia,” “Gentleman, Start Your Engines.”

[C. Edmund Wright]

We’ve started exploring already....

[ansel12]

I do know that the most important and step would be to end immigration, while fighting with all the delays and obstacles, and holding efforts, that we can.

[Nowhere Man]

I always believed that, if we have an income tax (we need to repeal that but if we have to have one) we should make it simple, no deductions, make it individual and flat.

[vette6387]

“TRUE....”

And FWIW, I don’t remember ever having to declare to the IRS that my wife and I were married (and I’ve been married for 49 years).

[MNDude]

The state and church marriage in Mexico is that way...both are separate.

[ansel12]

How do you remove the concept of legal marriage?

If you don’t want your marriage to be legal, then don’t seek it, nobody cares.

Americans have always called themselves married, even when it wasn’t legal, if they wanted to.

[dfwgator]

I am here in Poland, and I must say, I like it a lot, these are people that won’t abandon their Judeo-Christian heritage without a fight.

[dfwgator]

Americans have always called themselves married, even when it wasn’t legal, if they wanted to.

They can now call themselves a "woman" if they want to.

[C. Edmund Wright]

another great point! BTW, here is the statement from the article (which no one ever reads anymore apparently: One of the options that other states have looked at is removing the state marriage license requirement,” Gipson told The Clarion-Ledger, a local newspaper. “We will be researching what options there are. I personally can see the pros and cons to that. I don’t know if it would be better to have no marriage certificate sponsored by the state or not. But it’s an option out there to be considered.”

That is a measured, reasoned approach - this is something worth looking into, and it has pros and cons.

[miss marmelstein]

Could Mississippi change it back to that? And if it can, will the government force churches to marry gay guys? It might anyway, of course, with this scotus verdict.