Alabama Counties Stop Issuing Marriage Licenses

[Seawytch]

What the pin heads can't understand, even if alabama stopped all marriages , people who get married outside of alabama and move back in are married in the eyes of the law

In the eyes of the law, but not God. Big difference.

We've been marring in the eyes of god long before we could civilly marry.

 

[Seawytch]

Silly Rabbi...gay marriage must have you thrown off your game, man. Your link was from 2013, mine from 2015.

You understand that does not refute what I wrote, right?

You understand you posted a link that was older than mine. Your link is no longer valid, mine "trumps" yours.

OK so the answer to my question is "No" you do not understand you failed to refute what I wrote.

Your link didn't refute mine. Mine, being much more recent, certainly trumps yours. Economically, Alabama is doing far worse than California.

You still don't get it.

I get that you were wrong. California is doing much better than Alabama economically.

 

[Darkwind]

I've always wondered why it is you need a license to get married in the first place?

You don't. Gays were marrying for decades without one. However, the marriage license comes with rights, benefits and privileges.

Still confusing rights with privileges, I see.

And once again, it's all about the money.

Nope...there are benefits and privileges associated with the fundamental right to marry. You're free to take them all away if you'd like, but the fundamental right for gays to marry would remain, we'd still get civilly married and you'd still shake your fist at the clouds about it.

No fundamental right to marriage exists.

However, contract law has never been challenged and is perfectly legal in all 50 states!

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Yea I was alive back then. I was a Kennedy Democrat who supported the civil rights movement. Not a conservative who supported Jim Crow laws, racial segregation or participated in lynchings.

Liberals did not belong to the KKK...that is the sole property of conservatives from both parties.

Isn't it wonderful how delusion just sews itself in and out of reality.

Americans (Conservatives) did not and DO NOT oppose Rights for Black People...

We recognize that Black people have the same rights that we have... we simply did not support the idea that THE GOVERNMENT IS EMPOWERED TO GIVE RIGHTS TO ANYONE.

Which is what the "Civil Rights" do... the idea is that Black people owe their rights to the government.

That was wrong in the mid 60s, it's wrong today and it will always be wrong, because Black people have ALWAYS had the same rights as everyone else. They simply were not provided the means to exercise those rights because SOME PEOPLE felt that THEIR OWN SUBJECTIVE NEEDS SUPERSEDED THE RIGHTS OF THOSE BLACK PEOPLE.

Now... today, at this very moment there are human beings RIGHT HERE IN THE US, who are without a voice, who possess no means to defend themselves and are so innocent that they have never committed a single offense against anyone, never said a negative word against anyone and whose very existence is predicated upon the trustworthiness of ONE PERSON.

That person is their own mother.

Now... of the two competing sets of Ideas; That of the Ideological Left which rejects the very existence of "Objectivity" wherein HUMAN RIGHTS were discovered, or that of the Philosophical Right, which observes, recognizes, respects, defends and adheres TO the laws of nature that govern human behavior... all of which rest upon the premise which our founding fathers declared: All men are created equal ... that 'we are endowed by our Creator with certain, inalienable rights ... '. These principles declared through the Charter of American Principle, which ITSELF is WHOLLY REJECTED BY THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT AS BEING EVEN RELEVANT TO "MODERN AMERICA"...

Which would you say is entrenched today behind the IDEA that THE MOTHER OF MOST INNOCENT, WHOLLY DEFENSELESS HUMAN LIFE HAS "THE RIGHT" TO KILL IT... if that life represents an inconvenience to her subjective needs. And what's more, she can willfully engage in sexual intercourse as often as she wants and kill as many of her children as she dam' well pleases and that is because of: THE IDEOLOGICAL LEFT, OKA: The Democrats, Independent, Moderate, Liberal, Progressive, Socialists... AKA: The Communists.

.

.

.

Now friends and Readers... IF a people will murder their own children, what would it be that would prohibit those same people from killin' your black ass, either quickly by rope or slowly by a life of servitude, or BOTH? And by what delusion would a sane person trust such a people, whose subjective needs, sets you and your race or your sexual kink as temporally 'needed'?

 

[Asclepias]

We recognize that Black people have the same rights that we have... we simply did not support the idea that THE GOVERNMENT IS EMPOWERED TO GIVE RIGHTS TO ANYONE.

Are you really this dumb? Like seriously?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Gov. Mary Fallin signs bill allowing Oklahoma ministers to refuse to perform gay marriage

Any state can do this.

But if a minister is running a for-profit wedding business, he may run afoul of any PA laws the state may have.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Anyone who thinks straight couples are politically going to allow a state to not issue marriage issues is very, very limited in their thinking.

I see keys is trying to be an authority again.

 

[Bfgrn]

Kennedy would be ashamed of what Democrats have become now. After all, he was the last true Democrat.

He also detested Communism with a passion, you know. He also believed that giving tax breaks to corporations helped the middle class. Where do you think "Trickle Down" came from, Reagan?

Listen up, as a true JFK liberal, if you want to debate his policies with me, your right wing parroting act will not fly.

His corporate tax breaks were targeted to 'supply side', his personal tax breaks were Keynesian economics 101 'demand side' tax breaks weighted toward the poor and middle class.

JFK detested communism, but he didn't detest communists and people living under communist government. He was supremely confident that capitalism would prevail. That is why he opened a secret peace channel to Castro, led by U.N. diplomat William Attwood. He believed if we recognize Cuba, they'll buy our refrigerators and toasters, and they'll end up kicking Castro out.

He hailed the Russians for their courage during WWII, their accomplishments in science and space exploration.

Commencement Address at American University June 10 1963 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library Museum

"No government or social system is so evil that its people must be considered as lacking in virtue. As Americans, we find communism profoundly repugnant as a negation of personal freedom and dignity. But we can still hail the Russian people for their many achievements--in science and space, in economic and industrial growth, in culture and in acts of courage.

Among the many traits the peoples of our two countries have in common, none is stronger than our mutual abhorrence of war. Almost unique among the major world powers, we have never been at war with each other. And no nation in the history of battle ever suffered more than the Soviet Union suffered in the course of the Second World War. At least 20 million lost their lives. Countless millions of homes and farms were burned or sacked. A third of the nation's territory, including nearly two thirds of its industrial base, was turned into a wasteland--a loss equivalent to the devastation of this country east of Chicago.

Today, should total war ever break out again--no matter how--our two countries would become the primary targets. It is an ironic but accurate fact that the two strongest powers are the two in the most danger of devastation. All we have built, all we have worked for, would be destroyed in the first 24 hours. And even in the cold war, which brings burdens and dangers to so many nations, including this Nation's closest allies--our two countries bear the heaviest burdens. For we are both devoting massive sums of money to weapons that could be better devoted to combating ignorance, poverty, and disease. We are both caught up in a vicious and dangerous cycle in which suspicion on one side breeds suspicion on the other, and new weapons beget counterweapons.

In short, both the United States and its allies, and the Soviet Union and its allies, have a mutually deep interest in a just and genuine peace and in halting the arms race. Agreements to this end are in the interests of the Soviet Union as well as ours--and even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.

So, let us not be blind to our differences--but let us also direct attention to our common interests and to the means by which those differences can be resolved. And if we cannot end now our differences, at least we can help make the world safe for diversity. For, in the final analysis, our most basic common link is that we all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal.

Third: Let us reexamine our attitude toward the cold war, remembering that we are not engaged in a debate, seeking to pile up debating points. We are not here distributing blame or pointing the finger of judgment. We must deal with the world as it is, and not as it might have been had the history of the last 18 years been different.

We must, therefore, persevere in the search for peace in the hope that constructive changes within the Communist bloc might bring within reach solutions which now seem beyond us. We must conduct our affairs in such a way that it becomes in the Communists' interest to agree on a genuine peace. Above all, while defending our own vital interests, nuclear powers must avert those confrontations which bring an adversary to a choice of either a humiliating retreat or a nuclear war. To adopt that kind of course in the nuclear age would be evidence only of the bankruptcy of our policy--or of a collective death-wish for the world.

 

[AugmentedDog]

Yes, I do and yes, I've read your bible.
I am not, nor ever have been a Christian. I respect your right to believe what you will. That doesn't mean I accept your beliefs.

See the issue is that while you dont agree with him you also dont accept that he has a right to those beliefs.

You can't read very well, can you?
I clearly stated that I Do respect his right to believe what he will.

Are you OK with a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

No more than I would be OK with a business refusing to serve someone on racial grounds.
When you open a business to the public, you are open to The Public.

No similarity at all. You're equating homosexuality with raceThe U.S. Constitution offers certain rights and protections based on race and sex. For example, no establishment can legally refuse service to a black person.

Were you even alive back then? The Democratic party was the party of the KKK, Jim Crow, and the anti-civil rights movement.

Of course, they've become a little more refined since then. Now they just enslave minorities with taxpayer-funded entitlements and keep them in ghettos, so they can keep track of them.

There are even so-called "race pimps" such as Jessee Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Barack Obama. They based their entire careers on reinforcing the stereotype of black people as "victims".

Don't get out much, do you?

Yea I was alive back then. I was a Kennedy Democrat who supported the civil rights movement. Not a conservative who supported Jim Crow laws, racial segregation or participated in lynchings.

Liberals did not belong to the KKK...that is the sole property of conservatives from both parties.

Kennedy would be ashamed of what Democrats have become now. After all, he was the last true Democrat.

He also detested Communism with a passion, you know. He also believed that giving tax breaks to corporations helped the middle class. Where do you think "Trickle Down" came from, Reagan?

Similarity???
They equate directly.
Civil Rights are always Civil Rights. Even - and especially if they apply to those YOU would deny because you do not like who they are.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm not quite sure what this means logistically.

Do people (straight or gay) now have to go to another county to get married?

And I wonder if wedding deejays will have grounds to sue for damages....

.

 

[Seawytch]

I've always wondered why it is you need a license to get married in the first place?

You don't. Gays were marrying for decades without one. However, the marriage license comes with rights, benefits and privileges.

Still confusing rights with privileges, I see.

And once again, it's all about the money.

Nope...there are benefits and privileges associated with the fundamental right to marry. You're free to take them all away if you'd like, but the fundamental right for gays to marry would remain, we'd still get civilly married and you'd still shake your fist at the clouds about it.

No fundamental right to marriage exists.

However, contract law has never been challenged and is perfectly legal in all 50 states!

Saying there is no fundamental right to marry does not change the following Supreme Court Rulings:

Loving v Virginia
Zablocki v Redhail
Turner v Safley
Obergefell v Hodges

 

[Asclepias]

I'm not quite sure what this means logistically.

Do people (straight or gay) now have to go to another county to get married?

And I wonder if wedding deejays will have grounds to sue for damages....

.

It simply means the inbreds are willing to cut off their nose to spite their face.

 

[AugmentedDog]

What the pin heads can't understand, even if alabama stopped all marriages , people who get married outside of alabama and move back in are married in the eyes of the law

In the eyes of the law, but not God. Big difference.

And you are the authority regarding what is in the heart of G-d?
Have you a transcript of your last, personal conversation with G-d?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

I've always wondered why it is you need a license to get married in the first place?

You don't. Gays were marrying for decades without one. However, the marriage license comes with rights, benefits and privileges.

Still confusing rights with privileges, I see.

And once again, it's all about the money.

Nope...there are benefits and privileges associated with the fundamental right to marry.

There are benefits and privileges that are associated to marriage. But there is no fundamental right to marry... .

Marriage is an institution which is set upon a set of standards, or conditions... not the least of which is that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. The conditions spread underneath that foundation speak to the other conditions which provide that anyone can marry as long as they meet the fundamental standard and are not already kin... thus no parent can marry a child, no siblings can marry, no one may marry another species etc.

The supreme evil that is Left think, having erroneously claimed Marriage as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, have just erased ALL OF THOSE STANDARDS... all of which stood for sound reason. And because of that you have now affirmatively INJURED THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. As you did through the idiocy underneath ROE. So that's two strikes... You as a people have no set serious injury upon us TWICE.

Take a quick guess on what Nature considers to be the end of the contest, before the field changes and the means to strike is squelched, setting you to purely defensive means.

(Someone help her figure this out. And perhaps you need to show her how she's unleashed evil upon those intent upon using children for their sexual gratification and that its only a matter of time before Hillary or some other lesbian hag is found again crying for the emancipation of children and for government to provide OUR CHILDREN with 'EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW', which will allow for Children to make decisions in their own lives... not the least of which will be, legally recognized consent regarding sex. And how may strikes that will be... and how all of the weeping and gnashing of their collective tooth, will not help them stay offensive... as they lack the means to offend a people who no longer have a desire to tolerate your pitiful little cult.)

 

[WinterBorn]

"Pike County officials haven’t issued marriage licenses in months, and today Probate Judge Wes Allen announced that his office is now permanently out of the marriage business.

“My office discontinued issuing marriage licenses in February and I have no plans to put Pike County back into the marriage business,” Allen wrote in a statement. “The policy of my office regarding marriage is no different today than it was yesterday.”


Apparently the law says they MAY issue marriage licenses, not that they must.


Two counties out of marriage business for good after Supreme Court ruling AL.com

Great idea...

Simply stop issuing Marriage Licenses all together... Let the Church which marries people issue the document which designates them as married and only recognize those people as married.

LOVE IT!

Well marriage is after all, defined as a holy bond between one man and one woman. There is no Biblical church that I know of, that could honestly say it's adhering to God's word by attempting to marry a same-sex couple.

Any so-called "church" that sanctioned that, would be defying God.

There ARE religions that have no problem with same-sex marriage. So I guess you have no problem with them sanctioning marriages?

Oh of course not. Because in their doing so, a case can be made that would lead to stripping those respective cults of any sense that they represent religion.

Great point.

Let the games begin!

Oh, so unless the religion follows the tenets of Christianity, it is a cult? LMAO! Oh that would be fun to watch you try to do.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I've always wondered why it is you need a license to get married in the first place?

You don't. Gays were marrying for decades without one. However, the marriage license comes with rights, benefits and privileges.

Still confusing rights with privileges, I see.

And once again, it's all about the money.

Nope...there are benefits and privileges associated with the fundamental right to marry.

There are benefits and privileges that are associated to marriage. But there is no fundamental right to marry... .

Marriage is an institution which is set upon a set of standards, or conditions... not the least of which is that Marriage is the Joining of One Man and One Woman. The conditions spread underneath that foundation speak to the other conditions which provide that anyone can marry as long as they meet the fundamental standard and are not already kin... thus no parent can marry a child, no siblings can marry, no one may marry another species etc.

The supreme evil that is Left think, having erroneously claimed Marriage as a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT, have just erased ALL OF THOSE STANDARDS... all of which stood for sound reason. And because of that you have now affirmatively INJURED THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES. As you did through the idiocy underneath ROE. So that's two strikes... You as a people have no set serious injury upon us TWICE.

Take a quick guess on what Nature considers to be the end of the contest, before the field changes and the means to strike is squelched, setting you to purely defensive means.

(Someone help her figure this out. And perhaps you need to show her how she's unleashed evil upon those intent upon using children for their sexual gratification and that its only a matter of time before Hillary or some other lesbian hag is found again crying for the emancipation of children and for government to provide OUR CHILDREN with 'EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW', which will allow for Children to make decisions in their own lives... not the least of which will be, legally recognized consent regarding sex. And how may strikes that will be... and how all of the weeping and gnashing of their collective tooth, will not help them stay offensive... as they lack the means to offend a people who no longer have a desire to tolerate your pitiful little cult.)

ISIS welcomes you. They feel as you do, and have just as much say in this case...

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Kennedy would be ashamed of what Democrats have become now. After all, he was the last true Democrat.

He also detested Communism with a passion, you know. He also believed that giving tax breaks to corporations helped the middle class. Where do you think "Trickle Down" came from, Reagan?

Listen up, as a true JFK liberal, if you want to debate his policies with me, your right wing parroting act will not fly.

His corporate tax breaks were targeted to 'supply side', his personal tax breaks were Keynesian economics 101 'demand side' tax breaks weighted toward the poor and middle class....

ROFLMNAO! Sweet MOTHER that is some seriously deluded crap right there.

 

[WinterBorn]

What the pin heads can't understand, even if alabama stopped all marriages , people who get married outside of alabama and move back in are married in the eyes of the law

In the eyes of the law, but not God. Big difference.

Yes it is. Because the law is all that the gov't need concern itself with.

 

[Seawytch]

Anyone who has been there recently?

The entire state? You are asshole of epic proportions. A common theme with your ilk.

You obviously don't understand what an enclave is. No, the entire state is not made up of mouth breathers...there are just more of them than most places. They are way over their allotment.

Nothing compared to California though. Which state is bankrupt?

California is doing FAR better than Alabama...{SPOILER ALERT} California is 4th while Alabama...46th. (Wah wah...)

State Economy Rankings

LOL.
California=worst run state in the Union.
Best- and worst-run states Survey of all 50

Typical you cannot get metrics right. You can't figure out Tab A belongs in Slot B.

We've got a drought...that's it, otherwise we're doing great here. (Thanks Jerry)

Alabama though...jeez, one top 10 worst states to live in. That could change...us gays can buy up all that cheap land down there now that our marriages are legal there.

 

[Asclepias]

Its mind blowing that such ignorance still exists in this day and age.