The new normal?

[This_person]

A bill to eliminate marriage licenses and end the requirement for a marriage ceremony in Alabama is on the move in the state Legislature.

Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Range, has introduced the legislation several times since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage in 2015 in the case Obergefell v. Hodges.

Albritton's bill, which has changed some from the initial version, has passed the Senate previously. Last week, senators made it one of the first bills they passed this session when they approved it on a 19-1 vote.

The House Judiciary Committee is scheduled to consider it on Wednesday, which could set it up for a final vote in the House next week.

Instead of applying for a marriage license, a couple would submit a form to the probate judge swearing that they are of legal age, are entering the marriage willingly, are not already married and are not related by blood or adoption. The probate judge would record the form as the official marriage document.

Mississippi, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Alabama - all want to stop issuing marriage licenses.


What say you?

 

[stgislander]

Mississippi, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Alabama - all want to stop issuing marriage licenses.


What say you?

So it sounds like every marriage becomes a civil union. The govt has no say except in the limited cases mentioned. It just records the union.

 

[This_person]

So it sounds like every marriage becomes a civil union. The govt has no say except in the limited cases mentioned. It just records the union.

Seems a good thing in my view. Not even sure recording is required, outside of the legal process for divorce and dividing assets, which could be done differently as well.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

There's an argument that getting govt. out of marriage licensing will actually NOT shrink its involvement. The govt. still has to authorize, sign off, and register these partnerships.

 

[GURPS]

Mississippi, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Alabama - all want to stop issuing marriage licenses.


What say you?

get the Gov. out of the marriage business .... you want play house, sit down with a lawyer and draw up a contract and submit to a judge


this also [hopefully] removes the prospect of the Gov. forcing Churches from performing Gay Marriages down the road

 

[This_person]

get the Gov. out of the marriage business .... you want play house, sit down with a lawyer and draw up a contract and submit to a judge


this also [hopefully] removes the prospect of the Gov. forcing Churches from performing Gay Marriages down the road

 

[Chris0nllyn]

get the Gov. out of the marriage business .... you want play house, sit down with a lawyer and draw up a contract and submit to a judge


this also [hopefully] removes the prospect of the Gov. forcing Churches from performing Gay Marriages down the road

Hypothetically speaking, wouldn't govt. have to recognize it to leave it alone?

...to marry, to have children, and to raise and educate them according to the dictates of one’s own conscience are all a part of what it means to have a free society. By the same token, the government of a free society must respect those instances when this liberty has been exercised—and therefore perhaps must formally recognize them. In other words, perhaps the government should recognize marriages only so it can more effectively leave them alone

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/PA671.pdf

How will the govt. get out of marriage is they still have to authorize it, register it, and record it? The govt. will still set up rules, regulations, and enforce contract requirements.
What about spousal immunity? In all 50 states, your spouse can't testify against you, so if the govt. gets away from marriages and only recognizes you as a contractual couple, how does that play into spousal immunity?


Does it make you feel funny knowing that some leftists agree with your position? In all seriousness, Martha Fineman, Cass Sunstein, Masha Gesson, and other prominent leftists have also argued for the same because they recognize that govt. would still be involved (it's worth noting that they are arguing from an angle of individual power. i.e. marriage discriminates against single people)

From some of their books:

Under our proposal, the word marriage would no longer appear in any laws, and marriage licenses would no longer be offered or recognized by any level of government. . . . Under our approach, the only legal status states would confer on couples would be a civil union, which would be a domestic partnership between any two people.*(*Footnote: We duck the question of whether civil unions can involve more than two people.)

abolish marriage as a legal category

 

[This_person]

Hypothetically speaking, wouldn't govt. have to recognize it to leave it alone?

How will the govt. get out of marriage is they still have to authorize it, register it, and record it?

A) There would be no "authorization" beyond protection of minors, I would presume.
B) What is the difference between registering and recording in this context? I would see a recording of people who voluntarily come forward to say they're married for the tax benefits (or detriments, which is the case for the majority of two-income families where the two incomes are both above average). Beyond that, what is there?

The govt. will still set up rules, regulations, and enforce contract requirements.

But, this would be merely as requested. It's actually the way it is now, but most people don't look at marriage as a contract between two people until long into their marriage. Like, 7 years, give or take. In the view I think we're discussing, the rules and regulations would simply be what people impose upon themselves.

What about spousal immunity? In all 50 states, your spouse can't testify against you, so if the govt. gets away from marriages and only recognizes you as a contractual couple, how does that play into spousal immunity?

I suspect it will have zero impact. If you are a contractual couple, filed as "married", why would it be different?

The real question is, how many same-sex (or opposite-sex) unions will be filed for this sole purpose by two people who are not traditionally a "couple" but only together in crime. Think Bill and Hill, or Anthony and Huma.

Does it make you feel funny knowing that some leftists agree with your position? In all seriousness, Martha Fineman, Cass Sunstein, Masha Gesson, and other prominent leftists have also argued for the same because they recognize that govt. would still be involved (it's worth noting that they are arguing from an angle of individual power. i.e. marriage discriminates against single people)

From some of their books:

Their goal was very different. Their goal was to eliminate the word "marriage" because that implies a personal commitment between two people in a very traditional way. By reducing it to only civil union (which is not what is being discussed here - what is being discussed to to change the way "marriage" is viewed by law, not change the word the way Obergfell did). Their goal was to eliminate the personal, the religious, the traditional, and replace it with a godlike government.

That is to say, they did not agree with my position, merely one aspect of implementing a reduced government. Theirs had no goal of reducing government.

 

[vraiblonde]

What say you?

Works for me. I don't really understand how the government got power to regulate marriage in the first place.

 

[This_person]

Works for me. I don't really understand how the government got power to regulate marriage in the first place.

I'm not sure, but I suspect it was to document the marriage for tax purposes and protect kids and help prevent incestuous relationships. I'm fine with the child protection aspect.

 

[stgislander]

I'm not sure, but I suspect it was to document the marriage for tax purposes and protect kids and help prevent incestuous relationships. I'm fine with the child protection aspect.

Besides children, I would add female spouses. Back in previous centuries, the man could up and take everything, leaving his wife and children on the street with nothing.

 

[Gilligan]

Back in previous centuries, the man could up and take everything, leaving his wife and children on the street with nothing.

We called those the "Good Ole Days".

 

[PsyOps]

Works for me. I don't really understand how the government got power to regulate marriage in the first place.

Divorce.
Taxes
Property rights
Children

 

[This_person]

Besides children, I would add female spouses. Back in previous centuries, the man could up and take everything, leaving his wife and children on the street with nothing.

I was actually thinking about protecting children from becoming spouses too young, but you make a good point.

 

[Rommey]

I'm not sure, but I suspect it was to document the marriage for tax purposes and protect kids and help prevent incestuous relationships. I'm fine with the child protection aspect.

Prior to the 16th Amendment, there were no tax implications, but if you have done any genealogy, there have been marriage licenses and government recordings of marriages back to the early 1800's (in addition to church records going even farther back).

 

[Bird Dog]

Marriage is a religious contract not a governmental one....they should stay out of it. JMHO

....and why are all the secularists not for the abolishment of Government getting involved in religion?

 

[BernieP]

Mississippi, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Alabama - all want to stop issuing marriage licenses.


What say you?

I think technically speaking "marriage" is a sacrament in Christianity.
I'm surprised none of the anti-religious people haven't gotten around to protesting "marriage" as state sanctioned

I see someone else had the same thought, should have read all the way thru first.

 

[PsyOps]

Marriage is a religious contract not a governmental one....they should stay out of it. JMHO

So, in property or custody disputes, who decides?

 

[Kyle]

So, in property or custody disputes, who decides?

The same entity that decides those cases between people who aren’t married.

 

[This_person]

Marriage is a religious contract not a governmental one....they should stay out of it. JMHO

....and why are all the secularists not for the abolishment of Government getting involved in religion?

Why? Because, without marriage laws, there would be no way to impose secular control over a religious act like this. Having marriage laws at all is, in fact, a "big government" concept. I am personally for the tax breaks that a plurality of marriages get (and fully against the detrimental tax effects of married people who both earn a larger-than-average income), but the reality is that the advantages seen for centuries of what was commonly perceived as marriage is essentially gone anyway. Now, with "marriage" being a social experiment by government, it is long overdue to remove government from marriage in every way - JMHO.