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

Skip to comments.

Alabama Senate Passes Bill to Effectively Nullify All Sides on Marriage
TenthAmendmentCenter ^

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 ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; US: Alabama
KEYWORDS: homosexualagenda; ssm
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next last
To: Rock N Jones

They have done that in many places. I imagine you never heard to ‘Civil Unions’. That wasn’t good enough anywhere it was tried and the gay lobby continued to push for ‘full marriage equality’ even in the face of such laws.

Better that the state simply has no part in marriage whatsoever so the heavy hand of the state not be used against those who only want traditional(real) marriage.


21 posted on 05/29/2015 8:32:52 AM PDT by drbuzzard (All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: shove_it

which destroys all tax planning
utterly fails to address children (or worse makes them all accessories as the left wants)
totally rewrites inheritance laws.

opens the door WIDE for rampant fraud and criminal conduct.


22 posted on 05/29/2015 8:51:01 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Not just control, but a revenue stream. The North Carolina Colonial government was notoriously corrupt before the Revolutionary War and only improved slowly afterward.

I have an ancestor there who had to post a bond in the equivalent in today's money of about $20K to get a license to marry. His father had to mortgage the family grist mill to come up with the money. It was returned after either spouse died or they remained married for a specified time, about three years. But, of course, the government had use of the bond money all that time and returned only the face value of that bond.

Interesting stuff and could explain why so many moved into the high country, just shacked up or married with the local Cherokee who didn't require such bonds.

23 posted on 05/29/2015 8:58:13 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3294695/posts?page=2#2

The particular state isn’t the only one giving up revenue; the feds tax married hetero couples more.

That’s why a lot of hetero couples got married in church & didn’t file paperwork with the county clerk.

I agree, get the state & feds out of it & let em lose the $.


24 posted on 05/29/2015 9:00:00 AM PDT by WildHighlander57 ((WildHighlander57, returning after lurking since 2000)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa
The only original reason for licensing was to impose obligations (child support, alimony,) and protect future born (blood tests). It was never about conferring rights.

Nonsense, licenses go back 800 years, and are another option to a bann, Thomas Jefferson did not buy a marriage license because of alimony.

25 posted on 05/29/2015 9:02:57 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: shove_it

Finally. Why should anyone have to buy a “license” to get married? It is none of the States business.

Period.

L


26 posted on 05/29/2015 9:03:36 AM 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: Mrs. Don-o

So you want Muslim clerics and gay clergy, and Mormons, along with priests to decide what is a legal marriage?


27 posted on 05/29/2015 9:05:36 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNotSafety

See post 25.


28 posted on 05/29/2015 9:06:15 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory

Lousy consequences, I agree. But see post #21 to see why the current road we are heading down makes for even worse consequences.


29 posted on 05/29/2015 9:06:54 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: shove_it

How does this change anything?

Just as in 1760, 1860, 1960, and today, either a marriage will be recognized by law, or it won’t.

There has never been a time in America where you were forced to seek to make your marriage “legal”, if you didn’t want to.


30 posted on 05/29/2015 9:08:55 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibFreeUSA
Might as well go all the way and eliminate the word ‘Marriage’ from the term, and just call it ‘Partnership Contract’.

I'd call it a "civil union" since they already have that legal term (and it's more polite than the more accurate term - "perversion pact").

31 posted on 05/29/2015 9:13:40 AM PDT by Pollster1 ("Shall not be infringed" is unambiguous.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
I think the idea is, there is no "legal" marriage. It is church-defined and/or private contract.

I didn't say I'm endorsing that. I said I'm bookmarking and watching it.

32 posted on 05/29/2015 9:16:12 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watching." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman; don-o

Interesting. My husband’s Eastern TN ancestors include a Cherokee great-grandmama.


33 posted on 05/29/2015 9:25:03 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watching." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o

Of course there is legal marriage, aside from having to know what is legal for immigration and military service and so on, what about divorce, child custody, inheritance, division of property and so on?


34 posted on 05/29/2015 9:33:44 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: ansel12

The point is the purpose of state involvement is to impose an obligation not to grant a right. The gays have been allowed to change the argument to one of rights rather than one of obligations.


35 posted on 05/29/2015 9:33:57 AM PDT by Raycpa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Raycpa

The first federal laws in regard to marriage were about federal benefits.

That was legislation by the Continental congress, and then the United States Congress, in 1780, 1794, and 1798 and so on.


36 posted on 05/29/2015 9:45:12 AM PDT by ansel12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: ansel12
That would be interesting to look into. How was this handled before it was licensed by the state? That would be for most of the history of Western Civilization.

I know very little about the history of marriage and family law. I understand Mary Ann Glendon has written a pretty comprehensive book on the subject: The Transformation of Family Law: State, Law, and Family in the United States and Western Europe

I see it's available used for about $10. I might get it.

37 posted on 05/29/2015 9:45:53 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watching." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
Same here, only northern Georgia in my case. It isn't uncommon at all. North Carolina's bond laws were just a single driver.

An even bigger driver was the high country's shortage of marriageable women and the Cherokee viewing such marriages as a way to accommodate a growing number of white immigrants and ensure survival of the tribe. Many actually betrothed their children at a young age to children of influential white families, as in my mother's Georgia ancestor's case.

The children, of course, didn't actually get married until they reached the mature old age of 13, 14, 15 or so.

The Cherokee weren't the old tribe which did this, just one of the more successful. Others, such as the Lenape, kidnapped white children outright and impressed them into the tribe. Many didn't want to go back when rescued, particularly when years had passed. Those which didn't make the transition were still good for ransom income, especially in the southwest where Mexican half-breeds would pay good money and/or trade goods on the spot and take them to towns such as Sante Fe where they could turn a quick profit.

Still others, such as the Sioux and Cheyenne, targeted older kids, mid to preteens. They would bribe them away with a pony, comely maiden or sometimes just the promise to lead a life easier than the tough work of farming, ranching or even driving in a wagon train. This happened to my father's great grandfather.

38 posted on 05/29/2015 9:46:23 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Vigilanteman

I love family stories like this. So many would make great books or movies.


39 posted on 05/29/2015 9:48:24 AM PDT by Mrs. Don-o ("You can observe a lot just by watching." - Yogi Berra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Mrs. Don-o
I especially like this one, whom my grandfather called Uncle Owen.
40 posted on 05/29/2015 9:52:22 AM PDT by Vigilanteman (Obama: Fake black man. Fake Messiah. Fake American. How many fakes can you fit in one Zer0?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-90 next 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