Image credit: Tenth Amendment Center.

Truth In Media recently reported on Alabama Senate Bill 377, a legislative proposal aimed at solving an internal dispute over same-sex marriage. On May 19, the bill, which would end marriage licensing in the state and replace it with a contract process, passed the Alabama Senate with 22 voting in favor and 3 voting in opposition.

In January of this year, a federal court legalized same-sex marriage in Alabama, temporarily allowing some couples to marry before the Alabama Supreme Court issued an injunction, halting the practice. During the period of time in which same-sex marriages were allowed in the state, some local probate judges were refusing to sign off on same-sex licenses, effectively nullifying some couples’ right to marry.

In an effort to resolve the issue in advance of a potential future in which same-sex marriages may be declared legal once again, Senate Bill 377 would remove the requirement that couples obtain a license from a probate judge and replace it instead with a contract process requiring only a signature by a notary public, clergy member, or attorney. The bill would only allow two adult parties to join in marriage and would prohibit currently-married people from marrying a second time.

According to the Tenth Amendment Center’s blog, bill sponsor State Senator Greg Albritton (R-Range) said, “When you invite the state into those matters of personal or religious import, it creates difficulties… 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.” Senator Albritton wants to abandon the state’s recent experiment in marriage licensing and instead return to the older system where couples choose who they want to marry without government approval.

The Tenth Amendment Center’s Michael Boldin said in support of the bill, “Licenses are used as a way to stop people from doing things… My personal relationship should not be subject to government permission.”

“The intent or motives behind this bill are a moot point. By removing the state from the equation, no one can force another to accept their marriage, nor can they force another to reject that person’s own beliefs regarding an institution older than government,” wrote Shane Trejo for the Tenth Amendment Center.

Now that Senate Bill 377 has passed through the Alabama Senate, it moves on to the state’s House Judiciary Committee, where it will seek approval for a full vote before the Alabama House of Representatives.

 

UPDATE: Alabama House Rejects Bill to Abolish Marriage Licensing

  • Brett

    I wonder if this new process would be recognized by the fed as a legal marriage so that spouses can retain the legal benefits that would normally come with marriage?

    • Wiggin

      It doesn’t matter. Those benefits shouldn’t be doled out by the government anyways.

      • Scott Lemiere

        So the government shouldn’t be giving tax benefits to married people? If not the people who do the taxing, who?

        • Wiggin

          No, they shouldn’t. There was a reason for encouraging standard man-woman marriage (whether it’s a good reason is a different issue), but there isn’t a reason for encouraging same-sex marriage, so there’s no reason to continue providing benefits for something that is no longer the same thing that was originally given a benefit.

          • Bryan J. Maloney

            Too bad your mama married her brother.

          • g.johnon

            huh?!

        • PaxMentis

          No…why should they? There is nothing to justify treating people differently because they are married…a person’s personal relationships are not a matter for public policy unless someone is actually being harmed…then the issue is the harm, not the marital status.

          • Bryan J. Maloney

            You’re a moron, did you know that? The federal government gives NO tax benefits to married couples. The federal government PENALIZES married couples on taxes. So, then, are you in favor of abolishing the marriage penalty?

          • chief

            Government knows Conservatives marry overwhelmingly more than liberals and single people vote democrat overwhelmingly more than married people. Hence comes the Marriage Penalty. Get to tax Conservatives more and stop people from marrying. Win Win for Democrats.

          • g.johnon

            any tax is a win for democrats.

          • Jess Mee

            Says effing who?

      • g.johnon

        there is no more need for taxes than there is for marriage licenses.

    • Rebecca Smith

      Legally speaking, yes, it should be. The “bundle of legal rights” a couple is endowed with via the marital contract remains the same; only the process by which a couple enters into that contract has changed.

      • Bryan J. Maloney

        The “fed” allows each state to define “marriage” and then recognizes what that state has defined. That is the national precedent and policy.

    • Joe LaCour

      As of now (pending the SCOTUS ruling) states set their own rules on who is capable of marriage and its form. If Alabama wants to create a contract as opposed to a license, and it is within the framework of the Alabama Constitution, then more power to them.

    • Bryan J. Maloney

      The “fed” recognizes common law marriages from states that still accept common law marriage. It always has.

  • Garrett Menard

    Oh good i see a rise in incestuous relationships in BAMA’S future.

    • PaxMentis

      How stupid…I see nothing in this bill that affects the laws against incest.

      • blueangel69

        And if it weren’t for laws incestuous marriage would be rampant? I’m sure they plan on providing for this but still. Where is the epidemic of incest?

        • Kim Leino

          Incestuous urges are pretty rare in humans. I’m sure marriage linceses have little to no effect on the frequency of incest.

      • Garrett Menard

        “The bill would only allow two adult parties to join in marriage” plus the word” marriage” is what they removed from state statutes.

    • Yanksta

      From the report: “The bill would only allow two adult parties to join in marriage”

      • HelenLBraden

        ►►► $73.. per-hr @mi9//

        ➨➨➨https://WorldStarHipHopHosts.com/skills/help

      • David Swanick

        Of course, that limitation won’t last very long once marriage contracts replace marriage licenses. The law does not allow contracts to arbitrarily exclude more than two contractual parties.

        • What’s the problem? If I (a straight man) want to live together and share my possessions and legacy rights with (for example) another man and two women, for example, who are you to say that I shouldn’t? As per the children (the inevitable follow-up) the important thing is not if they have one mom and one dad, but whether they are LOVED.

          I am proud of Alabama and other states should follow suit.

          • MediaMike

            The goal isn’t that the child is LOVED, per se, but if the child is raised to be able to maximize their opportunities in the community, and the world while respecting the world’s inhabitants. It doesn’t take a village to raise a child, but it does take at least one cogent woman, and one cogent man to accomplish the goal in a way that is repeatable. Men and women have different traits, and both are needed to take the planet back from the oligarchs.

          • Tannim

            Still rejectarding, I see…

          • MediaMike

            The word doesn’t exist, and you haven’t provided a definition. You can’t see much through that veil of hate, can you?

          • g.johnon

            the child being loved is an awesome goal, please do not marginalize or demean it.

      • nondescript

        That can be fixed later.

      • Garrett Menard

        does a 21+ son or daughter count as an adult ?

        • Tannim

          Who cares? That’s their business, not yours or mine.

        • Yanksta

          I errantly considered the term “incestuous relationship” as non consenting. I see your point. If both parties are over 21 and consenting, they will do what they want to do anyway.

    • Jason L Martin

      does this mean i can marry my videogame character ?

      • chief

        If the videogame character can sign the other half of the contract.

        • MediaMike

          I can program a video character to do just that.

      • g.johnon

        i dont care if you do, but you would probably destroy the sanctity of crisschun ignorance if you actually procede. so yeah, go for it.

      • Tannim

        No, because once the game ends the marriage is dissolved, and you would still be an idiot in the back room of your momma’s trailer.

        Besides, the character can’t consent, and if they could, they wouldn’t.

    • Tannim

      So? Their choice, and not yours.

    • g.johnon

      those prone to incest will not be affected one way or another by this.

  • Shane Shaw

    interesting approach…

  • Cllr Chris Cooke

    The government should butt out of marriage. It is no business of theirs. It is between two people and – according to belief – their God.

  • kanenas101

    GOOD! Other states should follow suit.

  • nondescript

    Senator Albritton wants to abandon the state’s recent experiment in
    marriage licensing and instead return to the older system where couples
    choose who they want to marry without government approval.

    ABOUT TIME!

  • BongBong

    Great! Keep this ball rolling!

  • Chad Reid

    Gay marriage would have kept Alabama on the right side of history.

    • gzizzle

      The right side of history is to get the government out of our relationships. Force is antiquated.

      • Chad Reid

        Interesting viewpoint. So gays should be allowed to marry without any government interference, then?

        • Precisely the point. One man and one woman, two women, two men, or five women and two men should be able to get into whatever contractual negotiation they deem fair. After all, if you take religion out of marriage, it’s only a contract.

          • MediaMike

            This is the correct answer. There should be no “tax benefit” to being unmarried, married to one person, or married to your pet goat.

          • Tannim

            You go and marry your goat, rejectard.

          • MediaMike

            Surely with a response like that, you haven’t reached puberty yet. Please, let me assure you, that I believe a marriage is between a man, and a woman, or between some number of people who intend to populate.

          • g.johnon

            damn, I sincerely do believe that we should, by now, stop thinking in terms of “populating”. we need to just declare “mission accomplished” on the old be fruitful and multiply thing, and start backing off in earnest.

        • g.johnon

          by George, I think chad’s got it. but I don’t think he means it.

    • Pete Bromley

      OH it is assured to put Alabama on the right side of history because NOT having to have a judge sign a marriage license will thereby mean that any given willing ordained minister can validate said license and make the marriage legal in all ways and thereby resolve the current quandary of having to have a judge sign said document as I currently see it ( ok as it happened when I married my own same sex husband in our 29th year on my actual 55th birthday

  • gzizzle

    It’s a step in the right direction. Contract law should be available for all adults. Being more than a couple, should not bar you from entering contractual agreements. Still, it is a good step ahead.

  • Jay Strickland

    If this is the compromise needed to have gay marriage legalized then it seems reasonable.

  • Silence Dogood

    This is the way it should be. Gov’t should not be in the marriage business.

    • CrissCross

      So you support the abolition of the thousands of tax breaks and benefits that are provided by government to the married?

      • Silence Dogood

        Yes I do.

      • g.johnon

        yep everyone should get all those bennies. oh yeah, and there should be absolutely no taxes. you can have liberty and you can have taxes; but you cannot have both liberty and taxes.

        • MediaMike

          Liberty isn’t freedom. Liberty is permission. You can have your liberty and your taxes. I’ll take freedom, and contribute only to those things which are Constitutional. That sure as heck doesn’t mean funding Israel with 18 billion to turn around and pay ISIS leaders to make sure the war business is good. It doesn’t mean losing a trillion a year through the military budget, and wondering from where the new HumVees, M-16s and Stingers for ISIS come.

          Everyone has freedom at birth. It is a self-evident right. If The People want their collective government to share via taxes or nationalizing assets, the People can vote for same through representation that will comply to their wishes. Good luck.

          There is no representative government. In fact, they don’t even call Representatives “Representatives” anymore, they call them “Congressmen” even though Senators are Congressmen, too.

          The government should NOT be in the marriage business, because technically, if they are a party to the marriage, then they are entitled to assets gained in the marriage (aka children). It is a slippery slope that started with the heinous Roosevelt after bankrupting the United States and collecting all real money from the American people, and turning everything over to the bank cabal, and registering birth certificates.

          As far as tax benefits, you’re fighting for nickels and dimes instead of taking REAL action and learning that the law is clear. Unless you are exercising a privilege, you don’t owe income tax.

          What?

          Title 26 taxation is not a direct tax. There is no apportionment. It must therefore (if legal, and it is) be an indirect tax. You have a RIGHT to work. That is not a privilege. What is a privilege is working for the government, or working in a position that only exists because government made it (such as military or political position), or making gains (such as interest and dividends through government causation, like a Stock Exchange).

          That’s right. The system is rigged to make you think that the government is DUE some portion of private contract, but that simply is not the case. When you trade one hour of labor (which you can never get back) for $50, there is no gain, and no profit. It is an even exchange.

          Now, isn’t that more important and worth fighting for than some measly tax break you’re not getting because you’re not really married?

          • g.johnon

            mediamike, I mostly agree with you, but you certainly used a blunt instrument to play semantics with when you tried to differentiate liberty and freedom which are two 100% synonymous and 100% interchangeable terms. and tax (burden) is absolutely untenable to freedom, or liberty, no matter what you want to call it.
            (sorry there is obviously some kind of paranoid anti paste software here as I cannot post either definition nor link to definition here, so just google if you need proof.)
            and you have provided (birth certificates) your own proof that we are not born free.
            and I said nothing about fighting for any measly tax breaks, I said taxes are altogether not necessary.
            other than that, you got it pretty much correct.
            keep fighting the good fight.

          • MediaMike

            Fair enough, Johnson, but I will leave you with this: in the Navy, you are not free. You take orders. They give you LIBERTY to leave the boat, not “freedom.” Liberty is under conditions, freedom is not. To best understand the words in the context in which they were written, do not look to books published in 2010. In the 1890s, “gay” meant an ENTIRELY different thing than today. In 1789, the militia was everyone over 13 who could manage a rifle.

            Best wishes to you.

          • MJB

            When you enlist in the US Military you gove up your Freedom and Liberty and are relagated to the UCMJ… That is why they can “give you liberty”… You are under contract (of your own free will I might add)… So don’t equate a member of the military with the rest of the “Free Citizens” that simply will not fly with those of us who are aware of Contract Law limitations…

          • MediaMike

            I was using that as a subset in an example, MJB, not the example itself. Now, get off the wooden horse, and please google “difference between liberty and freedom.” Take YOUR pick as to the source, and then re-read my prior passage.

            So you know where the Republic ends and the corporation begins, do you, MJB?

          • g.johnon

            well mm, I googled, or actually binged “difference between liberty and freedom” and came up with quite a few hits. I read four of them and they were all, pretty much, the same semantic clusterfuck. the result of the kind of folks who try way to hard to be intellectual.

          • MediaMike

            To summarize, you don’t understand that “freedom” is a self-evident right granted by the Creator, and “liberty” is permission to move in an otherwise restrictive environment.

            Okay. Let’s move on.

          • g.johnon

            move on eh? as in run away? gawd I love how you ridiculous christers just can’t help but wallow in your own piety to the point that you do not even understand that you made absolutely no point whatsoever and then, with nose in the air, you dismiss all challenges by haughtily declaring time to move on. damn the drama of denial can be freaking entertaining sometimes.
            sorry though, before I “move on” I would enjoy sticking around, at least long enough to point out that granting a right is the same as giving permission. whichever authority you care to attribute the granting or permitting to notwithstanding.
            so, basically, all you did was spin your wheels mikey.
            now we can move on.

          • MediaMike

            You are so challenged in reading comprehension that you’ve surmised I am a “christer’? REALLY?

            You might want to go back and read what I write. It is consistent. I’m a Constitutionalist. In addition, I know what really happened to the man that was reported crucified, but in fact lived on to raise a family. No one died for everyone’s sins, and the jews created the concept to control the goyim.

            Granting a right is something only the Creator can do. Granting permission (or liberty) is something a human does. As such, a human can take away your liberty, but they can not take away a right. Only YOU can waive your rights, even if respect for same is being trampled by a superior foe.

            If I’m interpreted as haughty, it is only because of the easy contrast to your dogmatic response to exposures of your inaccurate statement of equality between “liberty” and “freedom.”

            I’ll bet you never taught English before.

          • g.johnon

            you capitalize a common noun in the middle of a sentence and attribute to that person, place or thing, the exclusive ability to grant rights to human beings. not a christer,? well my mistake and my apologies, but you are to some degree a religionist of some stripe or another. since all religion is pretty much the same thing to me, christer still pretty much fits from my point of view. but hey, that’s probably just me being “dogmatic” again.
            so, ok, only a capitalized common noun can grant a right and only a human can personally waive his/her own rights. interesting. you may actually be gnawing around the edges of something there.
            I think you and I are more on the same page than either of us is letting on here.
            and no, I have not ever taught English. so what?
            websters, colliers and Cambridge all agree that my statement of equality of liberty and freedom is not inaccurate, and so does Roget’s.

          • MediaMike

            Duh! Have you not read Tom Jefferson? Have you not read Ben Franklin? Have you not studied the evidence as old as 50,000 years that humans were engineered? Perhaps you pay no credence to anything you haven’t written.

            In this country, ALL RIGHTS come from the Creator. You can believe your creator is a giant guy with a big white beard. Guess what? YOU’RE ALLOWED! It’s called the First Amendment. You can believe your creator was a slime-mold. Guess what? That’s allowed, too!

            I happen to know that the human (sapiens) has been created and re-created 5 times on this world now. The historical records (in stone, I might add) are very clear, and consistent, and oh, by the way, so is the useless Bible and Quran on this issue!

            Your creator, was THE Creator whether you’d like to admit it or not, as it is that race that manipulated the DNA that there are still remnants of in YOUR body. In addition, by LAW, you have no rights except those granted by the Creator. This has nothing to do with religion, and EVERYTHING to do with history, and the creation of the human race.

            Now, impress me.

          • g.johnon

            man you do make the effort, can’t fault you there.
            I too have a copy of the urantia book.
            giant guy with a white beard or slime-mold is not the issue here.
            and I am quite aware that I can believe in either one. (slime-mold, of course, actually exists, so really no contest). the issue is: creator (historical) or THE Creator (religion)
            creator (most probably superior being to humans) THE Creator (outright supreme being of the universe with no peer or better in all ways of measure)
            I do realize that I came from somewhere and the old “out of the ooze” thingy just doesn’t quite work for me, so creator works fine even though beyond that Is just a big old pile of unknowns.
            as for the creator or THE Creator granting us natural rights or if they just happen to be a condition of how shit works in nature is something you can argue until your butt falls off. so unless a creator, or THE Creator steps up and calls it in and leaves no doubt. the doubt will always be there.
            in the end, I get the feeling that it has been left up to us to decide how free or at liberty we, each and every one of us are.
            not here to impress you mikey, just to share some thoughts. if you need a court jester, go look elsewhere.

          • MediaMike

            I finally see the dissociation in communication g. You thought that because I capitalized “the Creator,” that I meant guy with big beard or religious reference to the start of this Verse (commonly misnamed “Uni”). In reality, I’ve been in contact with the species that created the Nordic group of humans, and I respect them enough to call them the Creator. Not the creator of the entire “universe,” but the creator of the humans I’m most closely tied to by genetics, as in base pair combos. Verstehst?

            Not sure you’re ready for that, but I find potential in you.

          • g.johnon

            it took some kinda hutzpah to step up and make a public claim like that mike. I am not sure if I am ready either, but I would sure like to meet your friends.

          • MediaMike

            I’ve been trying to figure out, ever since, how to instigate another meeting. I didn’t choose the last one!

          • g.johnon

            well, if you ever get it figured out; tell em I said “hi”.

          • Kapricorn4

            How do you explain the fact that we share a significant amount of our DNA with the apes, especially the chimpanzees ?
            And how do you explain the similarity of skeletal structure in all vertebrates going back millions of years to include mammals, birds, dinosaurs, reptiles and amphibians?

          • MediaMike

            The bipedal construct is not limited to the Earth. We share almost as much DNA with a pine tree as we do with chimps. How do you explain that gorillas have more intact DNA pairs than humans? Are they more advanced? NO. They haven’t decayed as much as humans have.

            How do you explain this PROVEN NON-HUMAN skeleton has many characteristics that humans have…yet NOT ALL?
            http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1333481!/img/httpImage/image.jpeg_gen/derivatives/article_970/alien-1-0502.jpeg

            All species on this planet were engineered. The DNA construct codes are in Dark Knight orbiting the Earth in a polar orbit for over 10,000 years.

            http://i.imgur.com/U5ZeYbs.jpg

          • Tannim

            Birth certificate does not enslave you. SSN does.

          • g.johnon

            do a bit of homework tannim, seems like we are truly living within the nightmare of some very sick and twisted humans.
            man, my computer will not post links in here for some reason so, just google “birth certificate strawman”. lots of info and most of it will hurt your head. but the realization of what slaves we truly are is more than a little mind boggling.

          • MJB

            It is good to see you are not a COMPLETE idiot!

      • MzMeyer

        Any breaks issued by the government should be in the domain of a civil union, which is what this bill is all about. Holy “marriage” should be an entirely separate matter, left up to churches. So consenting adults who want to have a life legally binding together can *have it*, without being subject to the will of sanctimonious bigots who think they have God in a box.

        • CrissCross

          All marriage is a contract under civil law.
          This mythological beast you call “Holy marriage” is a civil law contract with a priest performing a voodoo ritual and chanting incantations from the peanut gallery. The holy bit is just hoodoo on the side.

          • Jared Stinson

            A religious marriage or a “Marriage in the eye’s of GOD” is a binding contract between 1 man 1 woman, and god. Regardless of how you feel about it, it’s ok that some people want to protect their religious practices.

            A legal marriage is for the binding of properties, states recognize religious marriage for this reason only.

            The two types need to be legally defined as separate things.

          • Asper ACT

            If the god of your religion accepts same sex marriages, wouldn’t that also be a “religious marriage”?

          • Jared Stinson

            If you are of a LGBT-Affirming religion, then the state and federal government would be required to not interfere with your religious practices, including marriage. I personally think there aren’t enough Satanic or Voodoo weddings in Alabama… who is with me? Wicca is well in the words of Supernaturals Dean Winchester ~ “I hate witches! Spewing their bodily fluids everywhere. It is insane! No, downright unsanitary!” Refs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT-affirming_religious_groups
            & Supernatural 3×09 Malleus Maleficarum

          • CrissCross

            “A binding contract between 1 man 1 woman, and god” is not a legally binding contract. God does not have the legal authority to contract under civil law. There is no evidence whatsoever of god’s consent being given in each and every marriage that is or was ever entered into. God is not a citizen, God has no rights under civil law.

            Issues of god are not issues of civil law, the constitution specifically prohibits matters of god from being recognized or mandated by law or by a court of law.
            The closest thing civil law has for dealing with matters of god is a guarantee that all citizens are free to believe whatever doolally religious thingumy they choose. None of those beliefs can be enforced in or by law, the law only recognizes the right to have those beliefs.

            A contract with God is a personal matter which no court of law on this earthly plane recognizes or has any jurisdiction over.
            Marriages issued in churches by clergy are issued “by the power vested in me by the State of _____”. The clergy are operating as agents of the State of _____, and are issuing an official document of the State of _____.
            The fact that the preacher man is doing so whilst performing voodoo dances and chanting mambo incantations is irrelevant to the contract and the legal status of the contract.

          • Jared Stinson

            Sorry Constitutional law is clear, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. Marriage is a religious tenet, therefore states MUST recognize it, and respect it. Unless they legally define the two types of marriage as legally different, they have to. Currently there is only one legal term for marriage. Which is also currently only between 1 man, and 1 woman, but is only for the allocation of property rights.
            ref. http://thelawdictionary.org/marriage/

          • CrissCross

            Marriage has been defined in civil law since before the US constitution was written.
            Learn some facts, and stop claiming ownership over that which is not yours.
            Marriage belongs to humanity.
            Your gods have nothing to do with it, irrespective of how much of a stupid silly pedantic protest the thieves in the temple put up.

          • Jared Stinson

            You keep talking about Civil law, as if you don’t live in the United States of America. The Constitution was written to protect a person’s civil liberties. Which is clear in the Declaration of Independance. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” You like to twist words. The fact is that Civil liberties, one of which is marriage, which is a religious practice for thousands of years. The Declaration cites as a reason the Constitution needed to be written to form a government that would protect these very things.

      • Tannim

        Government should treat each and every person as individuals with zero special benefits to any collective, including the collective formed by a marriage or family.

  • 13BURRN!!!

    Marrying your cousin, sister or farm animal can’t – and WON’T – be far behind. Which, I believe is precisely the point here: prove that when you break the sanctity of marriage between a MAN & WOMAN then devolution into an “anything goes” mentality becomes the punchline to a very sad joke.

    • badagliacco

      YOU ARE AN IDIOT!

      • MediaMike

        Read the response to Jordan.

        • MJB

          Again, you are an IDIOT!

          1st of all, it is not YOUR place tp judge! It is your place to LOVE!

          LEGITIMATE Judgement comes ONLY from God!

          • MediaMike

            If that were the case, a mass murderer could not be tried by a group of his peers. I’m a Constitutionalist. I believe that a mass murderer should be judged. Deal with it.

          • Red Fred

            Seems anytime someone points out sin it’s judging. Isn’t it judging when you accuse someone of judging??

          • MediaMike

            Funny.

    • Jordan Hansen

      I thought bigots like you were just a myth. But here you are. Spreading your retarded hate. I figured someone like you would be happy if they could marry their sibling. You already having sex, so why not make it official.

      • MediaMike

        13BURNN is dead on.
        FACT – A man marrying his brother is no different than any guy marrying any other guy. Since there is no reproduction, there is no biological risk. With queers in positions of power, devolution is not only probable, it is in the history of every great society, including Egypt, Greece, and Rome… just before the crumbling of those societies.

        Your opinions as to my intellectual prowess, or my unfounded “hate” for some group or another will assuredly follow. That’s okay. It isn’t people, but deeds that disgust me. Hate isn’t even involved.

        If those with uncontrollable urges contrary to the scientific biology of the species weren’t finding a way to the peak of power, then insulating themselves by rigging elections to ensure more of the same get into power, the masses wouldn’t be subjected to their warped sense of priorities, and a much greater representation of the majority would be in power to better advance the country at large.

        • Jared Stinson

          Marriage needs to be legally defined more clearly. That any religion can marry and choose to accept or not accept a marriage that is done outside of its faith. And a State forced to recognize marriages from all faiths, and capable of legally marrying two people. Legal Marriage, and Religious marriage are to different things that should never have been lumped together. I know this doesn’t resolve everything, and creates a few new issues.. but it allows everyone to do as they wish, short of violating someone else’s rights to fulfill theirs.

          • MediaMike

            Marriage should be irrelevant to the State. On that, we do agree.

        • Tannim

          I would suggest you see your neuroproctologist ASAP about your chronic cranium analium.

          • MediaMike

            Clever multi-syllabic prose does not change the truth. Biology doesn’t lie. Get over it.

          • EthanAllen

            It was multi-syllabic prose, but it really wasn’t very clever at all.

          • FoleyhasyourRecord

            Reading what WebMd and most modern medical journals and articles list as health hazards of anal sex in purely enough fodder for my chronic cranium analium. I guess if a doctor tells a gay man that he is crapping himself after 20 years of taking it up the duff, he could be sued for hate speech by stating it was caused by an unnatural use. Touche.

        • CrissCross

          Did Egypt, Greece and Rome devolve?
          Or did they perhaps find themselves facing a more powerful political/economic rival state or rival philosophy that they could not compete with or keep ahead of?
          All three nations technically still exist, and are more prosperous and advanced than they were back then.

          Did the British Empire devolve, or did it find itself unable to stay ahead of the new kid on the block: USA?
          Is USA devolving, or is it finding itself increasingly unable to outmaneuver the rising force of China?

          Did the oxcart devolve, or did it find itself unable to compete with the new fangled internal combustion engine?

          I suspect your arguments of devolution are a throwback to the ancient and decrepit ‘winner tells the tale’ nonsense of days gone by.
          It relies heavily on the propagandist drivel disseminated by a winner to convince the world that the old superpower is bad and backwards and fell apart, the new superpower is right and good.

          Are you falling apart or are you facing a challenger to your perch?

          • MediaMike

            Did the human have a disease, or did he just meet an egregious form of cancer that ate his body?

            Ridiculous.

            The records that survived point to the fact that these great societies fell from within, due to corruption. The weird rose to the top, and surrounded themselves with same.

        • Jess Mee

          The purpose of civil marriage is to create a family unit, forming a bond of kinship where none previously existed. Siblings are already kin to one another, so sibling marriage would serve no valid purpose.

          • MediaMike

            I agree with you then, that there is no valid purpose for two men marrying.

          • FoleyhasyourRecord

            If there were only two men left on a desert island to propagate the human race….we would be hosed.

          • Meghan

            I would like you to tell this to a man and women couple unable to have children and see how well that goes. Things have evolved past the idea of getting together for breeding purposes.

          • Jess Mee

            When I said “family unit”, I didn’t necessarily mean having kids. I was also referring to two people forming a family in themselves, regardless of the genders involved.

          • Jess Mee

            I was referring to the establishment of a family unit where none existed before, regardless of whether or not children are involved. I am quite aware that not all families include children.

        • Ken Warren

          If I recall Roman history, it was Christians that got in power just before their nearly 1000 year old civilization started to degenerate.

          • EthanAllen

            Rome was crumbling already. And it became “Christian” because Constantine, the emperor of Rome converted. But who’s to say that what he was practicing was anything resembling New Testament churches? Or for that matter, anything Christ said or did?

          • MediaMike

            Sufficient, but not exclusive. All of the powers became sexually deviant, and surrounded themselves with the sexually deviant. That is how Egypt, Greece, Rome, and America fell.

          • FoleyhasyourRecord

            There was that, too. I am so glad you read history.

          • FoleyhasyourRecord

            Oh, please, let us go back and read history. Follow the money and the shrinking military and ultimately it was the German’s (Clovis converted to Christianity, btw) that destroyed that empire. The probably had central banks. LOL.

      • FoleyhasyourRecord

        Oh, no…the Bible is going to be censored for “hate speech.” Look out.

        • Jordan Hansen

          Nah, nobody bothers to sensor fiction.

    • MzMeyer

      Anything “sanctified” should not be a matter for the State in the first place. A move like this has been the right answer all along. Make a civil union CIVIL, for things like taxes, employee benefits, survivorship, and so on, and let Churches fight it out over what kind of union “blessed by God.”

      • Charmain LaReau

        Amen I am shocked Alabama did this because it is mostly Southern Baptist but this needs to happen all over. I should not have to ask for permission from the government for anything

    • Tannim

      Rejectard much?

      • EthanAllen

        ^^ As opposed to the grunts exhibited here.

    • Sirius

      I know you barn people have a hard time with modern society, but trust me, in none of the countries that have established same-sex marriage for over a decade now, sister, cousin or farm animals were suggested as appropriate spouses. So keep your little Alabamanian fantasies to yourself, thanks.

      • Remy Lynne

        Legit lol’d

      • EthanAllen

        Your reply is classic! It shows wit and intelligence.

      • FoleyhasyourRecord

        Actually, Alaska has the highest incest rate…..California is number 3. So keep hating people.

      • FoleyhasyourRecord

        Washington state has highest bestiality rate. Alabama is highest in strokes, though. Guess cause we are so mad that other states that criticize us are actually better at incest and animal sex than we are? Don’t know….chewing on that one.

  • chief

    Democrat Politicians will hate this. It takes the fight away and they need the fight to get elected.

  • chief

    For people with the dumb comments. Only an adult can enter into a contract with another legal adult. Dogs cannot sign. Trees cannot sign. Video game characters cannot sign.

    • Tannim

      In Alabama, some people can’t sign, either.

      • Robert Barkdoll

        You are right. Like the people who now are the majority in Selma and Birmingham. Of course the people in E St Louis, Chicago, LA, Washington DC can not read or spell too well either. Thanks for pointing that out.

      • FoleyhasyourRecord

        Your dribble is a waste of precious space. In many states, literacy is an issue. http://247wallst.com/special-report/2014/02/07/states-where-children-are-struggling-the-most-to-read/3/ California is number 5…..Alabama is nowhere on the list. Boo-yah, dork.

        • danielle716

          actually, if you read the link that you posted, california is number 5 because it is the state with the most foreign born students (with english as a second language)….not because they are inbred hillbillies. considering nearly 1 in 8 americans live in california, from a statistical point of view, number 5 isn’t that bad.

    • Oshibo

      Actually you can marry a Video Game character, in Japan, Some one married a character from the Love Plus game. They even started rolling out marriage licenses for anime girls last year(Though only for Kirino Kousaka and Kuroneko at the moment).

    • FoleyhasyourRecord

      I have an obese gene. Because of that, I am going to eat all I want and get fat and have tons of disease in which I have special protection to get treated for. I can’t help it….I was born this way, baby.

  • Ty Welch

    so why stop at only two adults?

    • Gerald Abrahamson

      Perhaps they can’t count any higher….

    • Tannim

      Because it’s Alabama, and they only want people to be married to one cousin or sibling at a time.

      • IThinkForMyself

        so are you for or against gay marriage?

      • FoleyhasyourRecord

        That is an ignorant generalization that makes you as idiotic as the people over which you obviously feel superior. That will just have to be your little secret.

      • Jegsimmons

        for someone with a “no stupid” pic, you sure do spew a lot of it.

    • CrissCross

      Because more than two adults in a strictly heterosexual polygamous union creates a discriminatory contractual apportionment of rights and obligations along gender lines, and would be an unconstitutional & illegal contract.

      More than two adults in a strictly homosexual (or homosexual/bisexual only combination) marriage creates no such gender based discriminatory apportionment of rights and obligations. Which would be a legal contract.

      Since a strictly heterosexual polygamous contract cannot be legally recognized by any court, but a gay (or gay/bi combo) polygamous marriage contract could be, it means that polygamous contracts on the whole, are discriminatory (between different contracts) on the basis of sexual orientation.

      In 21 states discrimination along sexual orientation lines is not legally permitted, so in those 21 states, no polygamous marriages would be legally enforceable.
      But in the 29 states that do allow discrimination (aka the ‘South’) along sexual orientation lines, they would be. But those states would have an extremely hard time allowing sodomites to have something that nobody else can have, so no no no, they won’t let it happen.

      Does that answer your question?

      • Lafayette

        Of course not.

      • joedog

        The sexual orientation of the parties to the marriage contract is not important. The SCOTUS just ruled on that last week.

        You seem to think that marriage is a contract revolving solely around sexual activity. Marriage may include sex, or may not, and is an institution designed to create a legal family unit that can share assets and responsibilities – married people may share property like a home, assets like medical and retirement benefits, or responsibility for raising and caring for children.

        There is no reason that the marriage partnership be restricted to just two people, no matter what their sexual orientation or gender identification is.

        According to the IRS, “a partnership is a relationship between two or more persons”. A marriage partnership should be able to work in just the same way as a business partnership, since marriage is very much about “business” – taxes, hospital visitation rights, property ownership, etc.

        Polygamy has existed since before the Bible, is a traditional form of marriage, and is still practiced legally in several countries.

        .

        • James T.

          Excellent response. People tend to get emotional about this when it really is just this straightforward.

        • CrissCross

          I am not referencing sex at all. I am referencing rights and obligations within the marriage and between parties to the marriage.
          In a polygamous situation, the sexual orientation does become an issue because it does impact on the rights and obligations of parties within the marriage.
          Sexual orientation is not only about sex acts. It affects everything. Most of culture is a construct built up around the central core of sexuality, despite the fact that sex is a private behind closed door activity.

  • Amanda Cashman

    What does this do to divorce? This may sound a bit silly but how would you get a divorce under the new law?

    • Tannim

      Since it’s a contract, dissolve the contract and arbitration.

    • CrissCross

      Marriage is a contract under marriage law.
      Divorce is a contractual dispute under marriage law.
      So technically it does nothing to divorce.

      It only has an impact if marriage law were to be repealed altogether.

  • Mark DeBarbieri

    The premise of licensing marriages began in 1868, when the “Republic of the United States” changed it venue to the “Corporation of the United States”. As astounding as this may sound, I will not take the time to explain how this happened, because that is also unbelievable.

    In short, when licensing for marriages first began, it changed “God” as our third party in our marriages, to the “state” becoming the third party in our marriages. This also means the “state” also has the power over divorces, division of property and to whom the children will be entrusted.

    Essentially, licensing for anything by a so-called, “authority”, is a government contract, which comes under contract or administrative law, for which our courts are merely enforcers of those contracts and not courts of constitutional law.

    • IThinkForMyself

      Mark. Great information and something very few people understand. I am going to use your write up when re-posting this on Facebook… hope you don’t mind.

    • Xyxox

      Wow, never thought anybody would post Sovereign Citizen nuttery openly!

      • EthanAllen

        But you can always count on someone posting insults openly, without really backing up with any kind of facts whatsoever, what is clearly an opinion! (you know what they say about opinions….)

    • Dallas Cowboy

      Since God doesn’t really exist its kind of hard to let him handle the contract side of things…so government became necessary as more people grew out of their backwood hayseed lifestyles back then…

      • EthanAllen

        You don’t know God “doesn’t exist” as a fact any more than anyone can know that he does, as a fact. It’s a matter of belief. Don’t confuse belief with knowledge. When you do that, other “facts” you state become suspect.

        • Dallas Cowboy

          Well its just that the whole talking snake that conned a woman into eating an apple that made her ashamed of her vagina, thing, makes God kind of suspect…

      • FoleyhasyourRecord

        I know for a fact He exists. When you die, you will not have your “wisdom” to explain anything and you will be overwhelmed by Him whether you like it or not.

      • Mark DeBarbieri

        If there is no God, then how can one explain our brains? Biology 101… life comes from life! It is impossible to create life from something dead or by fiat. Belief in evolution can be compared to having an explosion in a print shop and creating an encyclopedia. And no, the Earth is not 6000 years old… it is as purported by scientists that the Earth is about 6 billion years old. If you are interested and nearly no one is talking about it, but Biblicially speaking there were two creations… there are billions of years between Genesis verses 1 and 2, therefore both creationists and secular sciences are wrong in their assumptions, as to the origin of the Earth and life thereof. More details if you are truly interested and not being so dogmatic. The truth is out there, but very few know it or even understand it.

  • Charmain LaReau

    Does this apply for all peoples? I dont want to ask anyone either.

    • IThinkForMyself

      yes

  • Marriage is a contract. Government should not be discriminating about who can enter into contracts.

    As far as government is concerned all marriage should be considered civil contracts, leave marriage to the private sector.

    • IThinkForMyself

      you are correct and the current situation allows the STATE to be part of your marriage contract therefore giving them a right to the fruits of the partnership. This is why CPS can easily come in and take your kids, because they are owned by the state through the marriage contract.

      • Astraea_Muse

        Seriously? No. CPS can take away the kids of single parents, unmarried parents, or non-parent guardians who mistreat children. Where the hell are you getting your “information”?

        • Miracle Smith

          He’s getting his information from facts. Our laws are based on English common law and marriage believe it or not is a legal contract. That’s why you can get married by a judge and get divorced by a judge. You can’t can’t get “legally” married by a minister or divorced by a minister or priest. Come on. Oh yeah, I’m a lawyer, so trust me on this.

          • Joshua Tree

            “Legally”. Lol. So the marriages that existed prior to marriage licenses were not legal. Funny.

          • Joshua Ward

            You do realize marriage existed before common law, yes? It was a religious institution first and then became a legal matter when Caesar created legal unions.

      • KP

        I guess not everyone should be allowed to think for themselves. You’ve obviously abused it.

  • nightwisp

    Used to be Blood tests had to be administered before Marriage licenses could be procured. Now people want nothing to bar the way to wedded bliss. Marriage is a religious thingy. States just thought they could make money off of it. Now it is too costly for them. Contracts should not be labeled ” Marriage” contracts… Just contracts.

    • Remy Lynne

      Religious thingy, lol. I agree though. You can make a ceremonial commitment to another human being anywhere, at any time. You just needed government permission to reap the legal benefits.

    • Astraea_Muse

      States don’t make money off marriage licenses. And the blood tests were to ensure that certain rather vicious STDs wouldn’t spread. Marriage is *not* a religious thing, unless you are religious. It’s a government-approved contract that carrie with it a stack of rights and privileges.

      • Suzanne Miranda

        God made marriage.

        • Meghan

          Actually God supposedly mad man who made marriage. If you want to be factual according to religion, God gave man and women free will and the ability to make things on their own. Marriage is one of those things. If you want to go off of the idea that “God made everything so that means he made marriage” then you can also say that gay people are created in God’s great order.

          • Suzanne Miranda
          • Dave Meek

            Who made Dinosaurs?

          • FoleyhasyourRecord

            God 🙂

          • Jordan Hansen

            Youre getting into dangerous talk Dave. Dinosaurs are a no fly zone for religious nuts. They can´t explain why the earth is 8,000 years old yet everything on earth is older than that.

          • Bobbette Davis

            Jordan Hansen– Recorded history is what 5/6 thousand years old.That does not mean that GOD did not create the dinosaurs several million years ago. And, you must realize that GOD does not live in linear time as we do. A day to GOD is a 1000, 100,000, even 1,000,000 years. HE lives in eternal present time,…no past, no future. Just NOW

          • Joshua Ward

            What you are saying doesn’t make sense. Within the creation timeline, which is not prophecy (the only thing the Bible says needs interpretation), all creatures were made within a literal 6 days. How then did the dinosaurs exist before everything on the orb of water?
            When you try and appeal to both man’s theory of creation and God’s version, you are going to contradict yourself at some point, and quickly.

          • Lyric Thompson

            Satan did.. he did so to tempt humans into not believing in him.. At least that is what they believe, I have actually had someone tell me as much..

          • Lyric Thompson

            Not yours.. IF anything the GODDESS made marriage.. After all SHE was worshiped for thousands of years before your war god showed up..

          • archerb

            No. God made Eve to be Adams wife. Genesis Chapter 2.

            But even if you don’t believe that, you still have to accept that the institution of marriage was a religious one starting before written history itself.

        • Lyric Thompson

          Not YOUR god.. Marriage was around long before the religions of Abraham. For that matter GOD has NOTHING to do with our courts or licenses.

    • Miracle Smith

      Actually it’s a legal thingy, a legal contract based on English common law. Where all American law comes from. The religious aspect is purely ceremony.

      • Lyric Thompson

        LOL You will confuse them with facts..

  • ReadMoreBks

    The State should really consider rolling back its role in a lot of other areas of our lives. This is yet another area in our lives where the government feels the need for you to ask permission from the government first before you act. Now maybe more citizens can gum up the courts with cases in other areas of life in which are nonviolent, where the State feels the need to unnecessarily intervene in our lives, except in other States.

    • Dallas Cowboy

      That.made no sense

      • Faa Cue

        You noticed that, too, Dallas Cowboys..?

      • Michael

        It made sense up until that last sentence. Then it totally disintegrated.

  • Xyxox

    Excellent, no new tax breaks for newly married Alabama couples!

    • Jegsimmons

      i thought marriage was about love, bro?

      isnt that what the gays fought for? love?

      Oh wait…just taxes? well….i see how it is then.

      • Lyric Thompson

        WOW its about equal rights and protections under the laws !!! What is your problem with your fellow citizens having equal rights? By the way asshat its also about being able to make medical decisions and basic rights.. You ignorant asshats pulled the same shit over black citizens.. Don’t you ever get sick of being wrong? I mean really you’re 48th with regard to education, perhaps your energy should be focused on that issue.

        • Jegsimmons

          Did i say i was against equal rights, you knee jerking generalizing fuckwad?
          You ever think of learning what sarcasm is?
          No, keep on assuming with incoherent arguments about nothing like the ass clown you are.

  • John Andrew Schmanek

    So Alabama might get it right when the Feds and Supremes get it wrong. More states should follow suit

    • Jegsimmons

      we’re just kind of awesome that way.

  • Danny J Wilson

    Good idea

  • Even without state licensing, if there’s another path to make it legal, it STILL has to be recognized as marriage in terms of local, state and federal laws. If this law intends to skirt that, Alabama will be getting a visit from federal troops before long.

    • Hey, If they Tried that……..SECESSION OF ENTIRE SOUTH…..YOU KNOW, THE PLACE THAT IS OVER 60% OF US ECONOMY RIGHT NOW….
      And as being from Louisville & a media-ite, you can attest that Texas, Georgia, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Florida, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky economies are kicking ‘buttocks’ to Michigan, Minnesota, NY, Pennsylvania, California & the Deep Blue New England stuck in Taxes & Folks bailing.

      • MediaMike

        All we have to do is have TEXAS leave the union. The rest can’t sustain.

    • Michael

      If you actually read the article, you would see that State-issued marriage licenses would be replaced with private contracts thereby cutting out government approval while still requiring court enforcement. This measure was to prevent rogue judges from denying same-sex marriage licenses despite the ruling and should in no way incite any sort of reaction from the feds. It is one of the only cases that I know of where the State actually acted to solve a problem intelligently, efficiently, and preemptively.

    • DPJ

      Federal law? When have you ever had to prove you’re married? For me, probably once in nearly 20 years. The IRS doesn’t ask and neither does anyone else for the most part.

  • Suzanne Miranda

    We left the liberal state of calif 3 years ago and moved to Georgia, looks like we should have moved to Alabama.

    • Jegsimmons

      well we do have a better college football team

    • Lyric Thompson

      WHY? Unless you just enjoy bigoted backwards knuckle draggers? OR do you just have an issue with equal rights?

  • Johnny25343

    So then they invite a hard slap from SCOTUS because in not granting marriage licenses to anyone they are still in violation of the 14th amendment, silly little men with their ideas about how to circumvent the law.

    • not if you as a state are out of the Marriage License business… Go to Vegas, they have Buffets.

    • Michael

      What are you talking about? This was to prevent rogue judges from DENYING same-sex marriage licenses in spite of the SCOTUS decision. Did you even read the article?

      • DPJ

        A judge can’t deny something which doesn’t exist to be denied in the first place.

    • archerb

      Nope! The SCOTUS only said that everyone must be treated equally, as the 14th amendment says. This bill would have prevented anyone from receiving marriage licenses.

      • Lyric Thompson

        SO that also means no family courts? Who pray tell is going to deal with all your who is my babies daddy issues?

    • Donald Cole

      That means that they can just go put of the state and get married and still get the federal tax incentives for doing so and no one will get the state tax breaks. Hahaha… idiot bigot rednecks will lose in the end. Can’t stop progress. Ask the people that tried to deny black people rights…

  • FoleyhasyourRecord

    This is brilliant. I am very glad that Alabama recognizes the importance of the 10th amendment and refuses to be bullied. I am glad that Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan and her female partner are happy today. I am sure Harvard appreciated her addition of transgender law classes to the curriculum. No matter what, we have the 10th amendment and no sacred cow of Gayness should circumvent that. No matter what your opinion is, if for or against, our constitution was ignored. Yay for Alabama.

    • andrea

      I’m very glad that this failed and that SCOTUS recognizes the 14th amendment, which is about the rights of PEOPLE not organizations. Such as politically biased (and childishly butt-hurt) state governments who refuse to recognize the equal rights of citizens.

      • Jody Schubert

        So I assume you have no issue with a person carrying their Colt Defender in say….Chicago, NY, or the District of Colombia?

        • andrea

          Do you often change the subject when you’re lost?

          • ronc

            This is not off topic…the point being made is that many states issue and recognize concealed carry permits from other states. Other states do not recognize these permits, so the laws are not “equal”. It is exactly the same arguement posed to the Supreme Court for same sex marraige…The SCOUTUS has opened the proverbial “can of worms”.

          • Donald Cole

            Your right to own a gun has never been infringed. While states can make a process to obtain licensing for anything to include guns and marriage, the law has to affect everyone the same. So if you have licensing for gun ownership that works, if you have licensing for marriage, that is also good. Everyone should receive due process equally. So gun control can happen without violating rights. You can own a gun. The 2nd Amendment doesn’t guarantee what kind, how many etc. Or whether you need to pass a background check to make sure you’re legal and possess the rights of a law abiding citizen. The states will bow to the SCOTUS ruling.

          • yor mom

            100% spot on.

        • MediaMike

          If EVERYONE carried one, the death toll would drop DRAMATICALLY as proven by the statistics of every State in the union.

    • Lyric Thompson

      So your proud of the fact that Alabama is again on the wrong side of equal rights? Furthermore you also know that a marriage license IS A CONTRACT? So to get hung up on a word? REALLY? Not too bright.. Its really pathetic that you are so removed from sense that you applaud this ridiculous bullshit.. Again Alabama is a laughing stock..

  • Jegsimmons

    My state it so awesome, they found a way to pimp slap SCOTUS while violating zero rights of any couple.

    And people wonder i love this state so.

    • Stephen Hartt

      Except that this was already proposed and rejected almost a month BEFORE the SCOTUS ruling. Apparently the education system in your state isn’t that great.

      • Jegsimmons

        Its actually back up and kicking, you donk. it’s been reintroduced.

        • Lyric Thompson

          If you think that this is a good idea you have issues.. Not only is a marriage license already a contract but the fact that this bullshit is where your tax dollars go? WOW

          • Jegsimmons

            Are you a moron who doesnt understand the different between a government regulated contract and an unregulated private contract with only courtroom recognition?

            If not then stop speaking and making everyone you’re a moron.

  • GregTR
  • Ronay Deikitsen-Nixon

    Currently married people cannot marry again does this mean if you seperate you cannot divorce and marry another? I’m lost on that part.

  • StoneAge

    Here’s why NO ONE should have a Marriage License: http://macquirelatory.com/Marriage%20License%20Truth.htm