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.

[C. Edmund Wright]

One little marriage license handles all the powers of attorney and wills.

Oh that's just precious. Naive. Totally wrong, but cute in a pollyanna way.

[X-spurt]

On its surface this sounds like a way to speed up the lefts “be careful what you wish for” process shipwreck.

Wonder how other (not 3rd world) countries handle marriage license and civil marriages.

If the state no longer licenses, then the only way to be married is through the church.

[Leep]

Well there’s a lot of lost revenue that will accomplish nothing.

---

Not to worry they will find another way to extract money from We The People.

[ConstantSkeptic]

Civil marriage is nothing.

Religious marriage is everything.

Personally, I love the civil benefits I am entitled to of filing a joint tax return, getting a surviving spouse estate tax exemption, and receiving social security spousal benefits.

(BTW, I was married in a church to my dear husband 39 years ago this month. I'm not discounting the religious side of marriage. However, as a practical matter, the civil side of marriage is important in today's world.)

[ansel12]

As far as I know history, there weren’t marriage licenses when this country was founded

THOMAS JEFFERSON
Bond for Marriage License [23 December 1771]
Know all men by these presents that we Thomas Jefferson and Francis Eppes are held and firmly bound to our sovereign lord the king his heirs and successors in the sum of fifty pounds current money of Virginia, to the paiment of which, well and truly to be made we bind ourselves jointly and severally, our joint and several heirs executors and administrators in witness whereof we have hereto set our hands and seals this twenty third day of December in the year of our lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy one.
The condition of the above obligation is such that if there be no lawful cause to obstruct a marriage intended to be had and solemnized between the abovebound Thomas Jefferson and Martha Skelton of the county of Charles city, Widow,1 for which a license is desired, then this obligation is to be null and void; otherwise to remain in full force.
th: jefferson
francis eppes
GEORGE WASHINGTON

[discostu]

It’s true. And I can tell it’s true because you have, as always, resorted entirely to insults. So now that we both know I’m right and you’re wrong have a nice day.

[discostu]

All the way up until you’re in a coma and it turns out you missed a set.

[Controlling Legal Authority]

A similar issue arose in my office this week. Several states still allow common law marriage. It can be complicated proving it in some situations but eased I think if a couple gets married in a church that issues a certificate of marriage which
recites the elements for a common law marriage in that state. At least it gets judges and county court clerks (or equivalent ) out of having to be involved in marriages.

[epow]

and then force Churches to marry gays?

And how would they force religious organizations such as Christian churches to go against established church doctrine other than deny tax exemption?

I have thought for decades that churches should stop accepting tax exempt status. For one thing, that would separate the sheep from the goats before the next Sunday services began, and for another thing I doubt that neither the Obama administration nor the Democrat party itself is anxious to stir up literally millions of church and synagogue members who up until now have been too lazy or indifferent to bother voting, but were quite happy to claim the tax break.

Of course judges could, and no doubt many would, order pastors and priests to perform "gay" marriages on pain of heavy fines and/or lengthy jail sentences. But IMHO the bad publicity and resulting vote losses that would no doubt ensue would probably cause the Obama administration to urge the judiciary to back off and let sleeping dogs lie.

Just MHO, and I'm probably over-estimating Obama's reticence to punish the churches, synagogues, and ministers who would do that, but only time will tell.

[Flick Lives]

As the old saying goes, the Left may find out that the only thing worse than not getting what you want is getting what you want. Or, consider the words of Mr. Spock.

[djf]

There is no real reason for civil marriage anyways.

Most people do not know, but a marriage “license” is permission to marry someone not of your (I’m assuming) white race.

Up until the first marriage “licenses” were issued, marriage always happened where it is supposed to happen.

In a church.

[discostu]

Eventually you need to come to the realization that religious holy matrimony and legal marriage are two different things that only really relate to each other because many people use the ceremony of one to enter into the other. But you don’t have to. You can file for a legal marriage without a religious ceremony and you can have a religious ceremony without any paper work.

So if you want to have the religious ceremony and not enter into the legal definition you don’t have to. I know people who’ve done it, in neopagan circles (especially in the SCA parts) there’s an event called a handfasting, it’s a declaration of your relationship that doesn’t really apply to the outside world because almost nobody couples the handfasting with a marriage license. Within the circle they are handfasted and everybody recognizes and respects that as they would a marriage. Outside the circle they’re just 2 people. There’s no reason other religions can’t go on the same path. Have your ceremony, be recognized within your circle, don’t bother with the license.

[ansel12]

I don’t get that, if you want a legal marriage, then the state has to recognize it and approve of your evidence, what is the huge difference between getting a license from the clerk, or proving to the state that you are married to satisfy them legally?

[ConstantSkeptic]

Marriage is a religious institution in which the state should play no role at all. Everything that needs to be done civilly can be handled under contract and probate law.

This is not only wrong, it's overwhelmingly wrong.

Tax returns. Estate tax exemptions. Social security. Veteran and military benefits for spouses. Family rates for insurance. Family discounts. Suing for wrongful death of a spouse. Obtaining insurance benefits through a partner's employer (and if the company does offer those benefits, you're taxed on them if not married). Spousal protections re 401(k) plans.

And that's only some of the protections and benefits.

[zipper]

Well there’s a lot of lost revenue that will accomplish nothing.

Yes, revenue and political correctness are SO much more important than principles!

[PreciousLiberty]

“The destruction of civil marriage has been the real goal.”

And that’s fine. Civil marriage never should have existed, marriage is a religious ceremony. The state should always have stayed out of it, as part of the separation of church and state.

Marriage should convey no government-related status, that should be a separate instrument if anything.

If the Fair Tax were to be enacted, there’s no “tax break” for married couples anyhow...

[C. Edmund Wright]

It’s not true idiot......a simple marriage license does not begin to take the place of executorship or power of attorney or anything like that.....those are separate issues altogether.

Get out more dude.

[CodeToad]

Interesting piece of history, the Marriage Bond. 50 quid was a lot of dough back then. Since this was 1771 and bonds examples also come from 1815, I can only assume they remained throughout.

[ansel12]

Here are the wives of Warren Jeffs, he believes only in religious ceremonies and doesn't use marriage licenses, or seek recognition from the state.

Here is one man's, church marriage(s).

[discostu]

This isn’t a principled stand. This is a hollow gesture. It accomplishes nothing.