It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Syriusly]

Really? And yet the wife of Doctor Martin Luther King said:

“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”

The rejection of gay marriage is not homophobia. That is your bigotry shining through.

Not everyone who objects to gay marriage is a homophobe.

But based upon your OP- you certainly are a homophobe- one who lives in fear of gay men forcing you to have sex with them.

 

[Syriusly]

Once again we see you hypocritically nit-picking. The state issues marriages, permits marriages, authorizes marriages. Pick a word you are comfortable with.

They are not going to issue permits. Why does the State need to permit you to do a fundamental constitutional right? Why does it need to be authorized by them? The State doesn't issue marriage... marriage is a union of two individuals according to SCOTUS... has it changed again?

You're really not making much sense. The State is going to wash it's hands of sanctioning marriages. They will hand you a form and file it with the necessary agencies or whatever, but that is something they are obligated to do already.

Again...you are fine with this, it doesn't encroach on anyone's rights, doesn't change a thing except for the state not sanctioning marriage in an official capacity. Instead of authorizing it through a license, they will administer a contract.

Did you miss the commas? I didn't say issues permits, I said issues marriage, permits marriage.....in other words, giving examples of words you can use instead of grant, since you had a nit-picking issue with that term.

Again, marriage is not the only fundamental right that ever requires state authorization or permission to exercise. That's been gone over multiple times.

According to the bill, anyone entering into marriage must be legally authorized to do so.

You are obviously going to continue to conflate sanction and license, I'll assume those words are interchangeable when you use them.

So the ball is back in your court just that quickly. But I have to ask this... How long do you generally argue over things that don't make a difference or matter? This particular argument has been going on for about a week and you're still no closer to winning it. We can repeat and rehash the same points over and over again for another week if you like, you're still not going to win this argument. But at what point does your mind tell you.. meh, it's just not worth it to me anymore? You'd have to think that most rational people who truly believed this changed nothing, would have already moved on.

Boss- still arguing about why it doesn't make any sense for anyone to continue to argue with him.

Why he can't follow his own advice?

Well because even he doesn't believe what he wrote.

 

[Montrovant]

Once again we see you hypocritically nit-picking. The state issues marriages, permits marriages, authorizes marriages. Pick a word you are comfortable with.

They are not going to issue permits. Why does the State need to permit you to do a fundamental constitutional right? Why does it need to be authorized by them? The State doesn't issue marriage... marriage is a union of two individuals according to SCOTUS... has it changed again?

You're really not making much sense. The State is going to wash it's hands of sanctioning marriages. They will hand you a form and file it with the necessary agencies or whatever, but that is something they are obligated to do already.

Again...you are fine with this, it doesn't encroach on anyone's rights, doesn't change a thing except for the state not sanctioning marriage in an official capacity. Instead of authorizing it through a license, they will administer a contract.

Did you miss the commas? I didn't say issues permits, I said issues marriage, permits marriage.....in other words, giving examples of words you can use instead of grant, since you had a nit-picking issue with that term.

Again, marriage is not the only fundamental right that ever requires state authorization or permission to exercise. That's been gone over multiple times.

According to the bill, anyone entering into marriage must be legally authorized to do so.

You are obviously going to continue to conflate sanction and license, I'll assume those words are interchangeable when you use them.

Well, I tried a couple of words and you insisted on taking them out of context. Now you say it doesn't matter what word we use the state is still authorizing permission. How the state authorizes permission for you to exercise a constitutional right, I have no idea.

sanc·tion - official permission or approval for an action.
li·cense - a permit from an authority to do a particular thing.

(aka: What Alabama will no longer be doing with marriages.)

So the ball is back in your court just that quickly. But I have to ask this... How long do you generally argue over things that don't make a difference or matter? This particular argument has been going on for about a week and you're still no closer to winning it. We can repeat and rehash the same points over and over again for another week if you like, you're still not going to win this argument. But at what point does your mind tell you.. meh, it's just not worth it to me anymore? You'd have to think that most rational people who truly believed this changed nothing, would have already moved on.

You do realize that under the proposed bill a couple would still need official permission to marry, don't you? Marriages would still happen in Alabama and the participants would need to be legally authorized to marry, i.e. permitted by the state. Look at that, Alabama would be sanctioning marriages per the definition you've provided!

Before you argue, let me once again quote the actual bill :
(b) A contract to be married shall contain the
2
following minimum information:
3
(1) The names of the parties.
4
(2) A statement that the parties are legally
5
authorized to be married.

It's pretty obvious that you are talking about approval, that you think the bill would remove state approval from marriage. Your definition says permission, however, and couples would clearly still need permission from the state to enter into civil marriage after the bill.

I would argue that in allowing marriages the state is tacitly approving them, but that is a separate argument.

 

[Montrovant]

Now, first and foremost, I have never said that Alabama is abolishing civil marriages or replacing them. Those are your words and your understanding of what I have said. I've corrected you repeatedly, but you continue to insist on phrasing my argument as such. I can't do anything about you being stubborn and not listening to me. If you want to change my argument into one I am not making, that's up to you. I think it speaks volumes to what kind of pathetic and dishonest low-life you are.

Here, let me quote :

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

There will be no "marriage" contracts. There will be domestic civil union contracts.

I think it expressly removes them from responsibility or acknowledgment (in sanction) of ANY kind of "marriage" and replaces it with civil union contracts.

Care to revise your stance about dishonesty here?

Any chance you're going to respond to this? I've given multiple quotes in which you claimed that instead of marriage Alabamans would get civil unions. You called me a 'pathetic and dishonest low-life' for pointing out that you made such a claim. Are you going to respond to the clear proof that you did, in fact, make such claims?

 

[Skylar]

Once again we see you hypocritically nit-picking. The state issues marriages, permits marriages, authorizes marriages. Pick a word you are comfortable with.

They are not going to issue permits. Why does the State need to permit you to do a fundamental constitutional right? Why does it need to be authorized by them? The State doesn't issue marriage... marriage is a union of two individuals according to SCOTUS... has it changed again?

You're really not making much sense. The State is going to wash it's hands of sanctioning marriages. They will hand you a form and file it with the necessary agencies or whatever, but that is something they are obligated to do already.

Again...you are fine with this, it doesn't encroach on anyone's rights, doesn't change a thing except for the state not sanctioning marriage in an official capacity. Instead of authorizing it through a license, they will administer a contract.

Did you miss the commas? I didn't say issues permits, I said issues marriage, permits marriage.....in other words, giving examples of words you can use instead of grant, since you had a nit-picking issue with that term.

Again, marriage is not the only fundamental right that ever requires state authorization or permission to exercise. That's been gone over multiple times.

According to the bill, anyone entering into marriage must be legally authorized to do so.

You are obviously going to continue to conflate sanction and license, I'll assume those words are interchangeable when you use them.

So the ball is back in your court just that quickly. But I have to ask this... How long do you generally argue over things that don't make a difference or matter? This particular argument has been going on for about a week and you're still no closer to winning it. We can repeat and rehash the same points over and over again for another week if you like, you're still not going to win this argument. But at what point does your mind tell you.. meh, it's just not worth it to me anymore? You'd have to think that most rational people who truly believed this changed nothing, would have already moved on.

Boss- still arguing about why it doesn't make any sense for anyone to continue to argue with him.

Why he can't follow his own advice?

Well because even he doesn't believe what he wrote.

Boss rarely does. Most of Boss' threads follow this pattern:

1) Boss makes outrageous claims in an OP
2) Boss can't back those outrageous claims in the OP
3) Boss slowly concedes virtually every point in the OP

Which is why Boss abandoned the 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' thread and its every accusation. And brought it here to be beaten again.

 

[Skylar]

Now, first and foremost, I have never said that Alabama is abolishing civil marriages or replacing them. Those are your words and your understanding of what I have said. I've corrected you repeatedly, but you continue to insist on phrasing my argument as such. I can't do anything about you being stubborn and not listening to me. If you want to change my argument into one I am not making, that's up to you. I think it speaks volumes to what kind of pathetic and dishonest low-life you are.

Here, let me quote :

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

There will be no "marriage" contracts. There will be domestic civil union contracts.

I think it expressly removes them from responsibility or acknowledgment (in sanction) of ANY kind of "marriage" and replaces it with civil union contracts.

Care to revise your stance about dishonesty here?

Any chance you're going to respond to this? I've given multiple quotes in which you claimed that instead of marriage Alabamans would get civil unions. You called me a 'pathetic and dishonest low-life' for pointing out that you made such a claim. Are you going to respond to the clear proof that you did, in fact, make such claims?

You're facing what I like to call 'belligerent ignorance'. Where the willfully ignorance has no idea what they are talking about. And the more accurate, relevant information you bring up.....the more abusive they become.

And you Mont.....commited the cardinal sin: you quoted the ACTUAL bill rather than Boss' imaginary version. So of course you're a 'pathetic and dishonest low-life'. As only such an individual would cite reality and use evidence rather than merely accepting whatever hapless bullshit that Boss makes up as gospel truth.

 

[Skylar]

Obviously, administering a contract is a different thing completely. However, you are using the fact that the legislation uses the language "marriage contract" to infer there is no distinction between a contract and license. The fact that Alabama has to use specific language in order to comply with federal laws and the SCOTUS ruling on marriage, has nothing to do with the state sanctioning of an activity itself.

Two huge problems with your narrative:

First, the State of Alabama draws no distinction between a contract of marriage and a license of marriage in terms of the State's recognition of marriage. You made all that up, pulled sideways out of your ass, citing only yourself.

And you citing yourself is legally meaningless......because of point two:

Second, you have no idea what you're talking about.

1) You said there was no contract of marriage under the Alabama bill. You didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.....as the bill specifically cites 'contracts of marriage'.

2) You said that there were only civil unions under the bill You didn't know what the fuck you were talking about.........the bill never mentions 'civil unions'

3) You said that the State no longer recognizes marriage under the bill. You didn't know what the fuck you were talking about....the bill recognizes contracts of marriage as record of marriage, stored at the Department of Heath of Alabama.

4) You said that the state no longer authorized marriage under the bill. You didn't know what the fuck you were talking about......the bill requires all those entering the contract of marriage to be legally authorized by the State of Alabama to be married.

At every stage you were wrong. You are literally ignoring the very bill you claim to quote.

No thank you.

 

[Boss]

You do realize that under the proposed bill a couple would still need official permission to marry, don't you? Marriages would still happen in Alabama and the participants would need to be legally authorized to marry, i.e. permitted by the state. Look at that, Alabama would be sanctioning marriages per the definition you've provided!

LMAO? What, because you say so?

Alabama is not officially authorizing you to do anything by administering a contract required by law. If you go to a car dealership and purchase a car on credit, you sit down with the finance manager and you fill out a contract for a loan with a financial institution. The dealer is not involved in any way with that contract other than administering it. They give you the form to fill out but the arrangement is between you and finance company and the dealer has nothing to do with it, nor are they "granting you permission" to finance the car.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the huge difference between a license and a contract?

 

[Skylar]

You do realize that under the proposed bill a couple would still need official permission to marry, don't you? Marriages would still happen in Alabama and the participants would need to be legally authorized to marry, i.e. permitted by the state. Look at that, Alabama would be sanctioning marriages per the definition you've provided!

LMAO? What, because you say so?

Because the bill says so:

Effective July 1, 2015, the only requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein.

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

Remember, you don't have the slightest fucking clue what you're talking about. It tends to undermine your arguments.

Alabama is not officially authorizing you to do anything by administering a contract required by law.

So when the bill in question says 'legally authorized to be married', they don't actually mean 'legally authorized to be married'......

.....because you say so?

Sigh....its almost like Andy Samberg could see this thread when he created his 'Like a Boss' video.

 

[Boss]

Now, first and foremost, I have never said that Alabama is abolishing civil marriages or replacing them. Those are your words and your understanding of what I have said. I've corrected you repeatedly, but you continue to insist on phrasing my argument as such. I can't do anything about you being stubborn and not listening to me. If you want to change my argument into one I am not making, that's up to you. I think it speaks volumes to what kind of pathetic and dishonest low-life you are.

Here, let me quote :

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

There will be no "marriage" contracts. There will be domestic civil union contracts.

I think it expressly removes them from responsibility or acknowledgment (in sanction) of ANY kind of "marriage" and replaces it with civil union contracts.

Care to revise your stance about dishonesty here?

Any chance you're going to respond to this? I've given multiple quotes in which you claimed that instead of marriage Alabamans would get civil unions. You called me a 'pathetic and dishonest low-life' for pointing out that you made such a claim. Are you going to respond to the clear proof that you did, in fact, make such claims?

Well from the State's perspective that's what you're going to get. You want to argue that because the bill uses the term "marriage contract" that it's still the same exact thing as a "marriage license" and I can't seem to penetrate your granite-like skull that there is a big difference between administering a contract and authorizing a license.

I do know that every single word in whatever bill Alabama should pass, has to stand the test of constitutional scrutiny because it will be challenged. You are exploiting the fact that they have to address certain things using certain language to mean something it doesn't. I can't change your mind, it's convinced.

 

[Montrovant]

You do realize that under the proposed bill a couple would still need official permission to marry, don't you? Marriages would still happen in Alabama and the participants would need to be legally authorized to marry, i.e. permitted by the state. Look at that, Alabama would be sanctioning marriages per the definition you've provided!

LMAO? What, because you say so?

Alabama is not officially authorizing you to do anything by administering a contract required by law. If you go to a car dealership and purchase a car on credit, you sit down with the finance manager and you fill out a contract for a loan with a financial institution. The dealer is not involved in any way with that contract other than administering it. They give you the form to fill out but the arrangement is between you and finance company and the dealer has nothing to do with it, nor are they "granting you permission" to finance the car.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the huge difference between a license and a contract?

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that whether the state uses a license or a contract to authorize marriage, it is still authorizing marriage? The bill states clearly that no other marriage laws are changed.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that when states give a marriage license, it is still for a marriage contract?

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that the arrangement in marriage is between a couple and the state, not between the couple and no one else?

Using your example, the dealer would be analagous to the office of the judge of probate, while the financial institution would be the state.

None of this is because I say so. Unlike you, I actually provide quotes from the bill to support my points.

"
Section 1. (a) Effective July 1, 2015, the only
25
requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties
26
who are otherwise legally authorized to be married"

Legally authorized to marry.

"f) This section shall not affect any other legal
21
aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited
22
to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or
23
common law marriage."

No other aspect of marriage law shall be affected, including the already-recognized unlicensed common law marriage.

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/ALISON/SearchableInstruments/2015RS/PrintFiles/SB377-eng.pdf

You are the only one who seems to be operating under the assumption that the only difference between marriage and any other contract is the issuance of a license.

And you still have failed to respond to the fact that you did, on multiple occasions, claim that this bill would change it so that rather than getting married, or obtaining a marriage contract, couples in Alabama would get civil unions.

 

[Montrovant]

Now, first and foremost, I have never said that Alabama is abolishing civil marriages or replacing them. Those are your words and your understanding of what I have said. I've corrected you repeatedly, but you continue to insist on phrasing my argument as such. I can't do anything about you being stubborn and not listening to me. If you want to change my argument into one I am not making, that's up to you. I think it speaks volumes to what kind of pathetic and dishonest low-life you are.

Here, let me quote :

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

There will be no "marriage" contracts. There will be domestic civil union contracts.

I think it expressly removes them from responsibility or acknowledgment (in sanction) of ANY kind of "marriage" and replaces it with civil union contracts.

Care to revise your stance about dishonesty here?

Any chance you're going to respond to this? I've given multiple quotes in which you claimed that instead of marriage Alabamans would get civil unions. You called me a 'pathetic and dishonest low-life' for pointing out that you made such a claim. Are you going to respond to the clear proof that you did, in fact, make such claims?

Well from the State's perspective that's what you're going to get. You want to argue that because the bill uses the term "marriage contract" that it's still the same exact thing as a "marriage license" and I can't seem to penetrate your granite-like skull that there is a big difference between administering a contract and authorizing a license.

I do know that every single word in whatever bill Alabama should pass, has to stand the test of constitutional scrutiny because it will be challenged. You are exploiting the fact that they have to address certain things using certain language to mean something it doesn't. I can't change your mind, it's convinced.

No, I am not saying that marriage contract is the exact same thing as marriage license. I am saying that those different ways to enter into marriage would not, according to the bill, change the way the state authorizes or recognizes or deals with marriage and marriage laws. I am saying that the bill never says that couples in Alabama will no longer be getting married, or that couples in Alabama will be getting civil unions. I am saying that your idea that licensing is the only way the state can sanction or authorize something is asinine, backed by no evidence, and in fact contradicted by the very definition of sanction you provided, as the state would still need to permit couples to marry and that would fit the 'official permission' definition of sanction.

You have not once shown anywhere in the bill that Alabama would change from marriage to civil union as you claimed. You've lied and said you did not make that claim (calling me dishonest for pointing it out) and so I provided multiple quotes of you saying just that. Now you are repeating the claim, despite the bill using the word marriage on numerous occasions and never using the term civil union at all. I guess that marriages will be civil unions 'from the State's perspective'......because you say so?

Oh, and couples who would get married under the bill would still need to be authorized to do so. Not according to me, according to the actual text of the bill. You know, that thing you fail to quote because it doesn't support your claims?

 

[Boss]

Why is it so hard for you to grasp that whether the state uses a license or a contract to authorize marriage, it is still authorizing marriage? The bill states clearly that no other marriage laws are changed.

Is a car dealer authorizing you to finance a car? By offering you an application for a contract between yourself and a finance company, are they approving your choice of car? Are they sanctioning your interest rate? Are they saying this is the only way to purchase the car? Are they, in any way, a party to the terms of the contract?

 

[Boss]

No, I am not saying that marriage contract is the exact same thing as marriage license. I am saying that those different ways to enter into marriage would not, according to the bill, change the way the state authorizes or recognizes or deals with marriage and marriage laws.

You're only partially correct. You indicate you understand there is a difference between license and contract but then you go on to try and claim nothing would change. Well which one is it? Let me help you... the secret is in the difference between a licence and a contract.

I think what is happening here is, some of you really do want for Alabama to be passing some kind of ignorant and defiant rejection of the SCOTUS ruling and that's not what is happening. Therefore, you claim that what they ARE doing is superficial, doesn't matter, doesn't change anything.

 

[Seawytch]

Really? And yet the wife of Doctor Martin Luther King said:

“Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood.”

The rejection of gay marriage is not homophobia. That is your bigotry shining through.

Yeah, actually it is. It's anti gay bigotry (read homophobia)

No. It's actually not. We don't allow ANY group to redefine our traditional pillars. It has nothing to do with bigotry, it's common fucking sense. Something you have little of.

Nope, sorry Skippy, it's still bigotry. It's bigotry when racists do it and it's bigotry when homophobes like you do it.

 

[Montrovant]

No, I am not saying that marriage contract is the exact same thing as marriage license. I am saying that those different ways to enter into marriage would not, according to the bill, change the way the state authorizes or recognizes or deals with marriage and marriage laws.

You're only partially correct. You indicate you understand there is a difference between license and contract but then you go on to try and claim nothing would change. Well which one is it? Let me help you... the secret is in the difference between a licence and a contract.

I think what is happening here is, some of you really do want for Alabama to be passing some kind of ignorant and defiant rejection of the SCOTUS ruling and that's not what is happening. Therefore, you claim that what they ARE doing is superficial, doesn't matter, doesn't change anything.

Marriage is a form of contract even when licensed.

There is a difference between a license and a permit. If marriage were entered into with a permit does that mean the state would treat marriages differently?

The difference is how state authorized marriage is entered into, not what those marriages entail.

 

[Montrovant]

No, I am not saying that marriage contract is the exact same thing as marriage license. I am saying that those different ways to enter into marriage would not, according to the bill, change the way the state authorizes or recognizes or deals with marriage and marriage laws.

You're only partially correct. You indicate you understand there is a difference between license and contract but then you go on to try and claim nothing would change. Well which one is it? Let me help you... the secret is in the difference between a licence and a contract.

I think what is happening here is, some of you really do want for Alabama to be passing some kind of ignorant and defiant rejection of the SCOTUS ruling and that's not what is happening. Therefore, you claim that what they ARE doing is superficial, doesn't matter, doesn't change anything.

Actually it is the bill itself which says it doesn't change marriage law other than the way it is entered into. That's been shown to you, using actual text from the bill, more than once.

 

[Faun]

You do realize that under the proposed bill a couple would still need official permission to marry, don't you? Marriages would still happen in Alabama and the participants would need to be legally authorized to marry, i.e. permitted by the state. Look at that, Alabama would be sanctioning marriages per the definition you've provided!

LMAO? What, because you say so?

Alabama is not officially authorizing you to do anything by administering a contract required by law. If you go to a car dealership and purchase a car on credit, you sit down with the finance manager and you fill out a contract for a loan with a financial institution. The dealer is not involved in any way with that contract other than administering it. They give you the form to fill out but the arrangement is between you and finance company and the dealer has nothing to do with it, nor are they "granting you permission" to finance the car.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the huge difference between a license and a contract?

You're fucking deranged.

The difference between reality and the car dealership analogy you dreamed up ... is .... the dealership doesn't hold your loan, the credit agency which gave you the loan does. Whereas, the state of Alabama would hold the marriage contracts. So while the car dealer is not involved with your contract between you and your credit agency, Alabama is directly involved with marriages taking place in their state.

 

[Boss]

No, I am not saying that marriage contract is the exact same thing as marriage license. I am saying that those different ways to enter into marriage would not, according to the bill, change the way the state authorizes or recognizes or deals with marriage and marriage laws.

You're only partially correct. You indicate you understand there is a difference between license and contract but then you go on to try and claim nothing would change. Well which one is it? Let me help you... the secret is in the difference between a licence and a contract.

I think what is happening here is, some of you really do want for Alabama to be passing some kind of ignorant and defiant rejection of the SCOTUS ruling and that's not what is happening. Therefore, you claim that what they ARE doing is superficial, doesn't matter, doesn't change anything.

Marriage is a form of contract even when licensed.

There is a difference between a license and a permit. If marriage were entered into with a permit does that mean the state would treat marriages differently?

The difference is how state authorized marriage is entered into, not what those marriages entail.

Yes, marriage is a form of contract... which is why it can be legally administered as a contract by the state. Again, the state action of administration for a contract is not a state sanctioning or endorsing of the reason for the contract. Licensing is specifically that.

 

[Boss]

You do realize that under the proposed bill a couple would still need official permission to marry, don't you? Marriages would still happen in Alabama and the participants would need to be legally authorized to marry, i.e. permitted by the state. Look at that, Alabama would be sanctioning marriages per the definition you've provided!

LMAO? What, because you say so?

Alabama is not officially authorizing you to do anything by administering a contract required by law. If you go to a car dealership and purchase a car on credit, you sit down with the finance manager and you fill out a contract for a loan with a financial institution. The dealer is not involved in any way with that contract other than administering it. They give you the form to fill out but the arrangement is between you and finance company and the dealer has nothing to do with it, nor are they "granting you permission" to finance the car.

Why is it so hard for you to grasp the huge difference between a license and a contract?

You're fucking deranged.

The difference between reality and the car dealership analogy you dreamed up ... is .... the dealership doesn't hold your loan, the credit agency which gave you the loan does. Whereas, the state of Alabama would hold the marriage contracts. So while the car dealer is not involved with your contract between you and your credit agency, Alabama is directly involved with marriages taking place in their state.

The State doesn't "hold" anything. The two parties hold the contract with each other. The State is simply administering the contract. They are not involved with marriages in the state, the have no idea whether you have a wedding and get married or not. They can't prevent you from breaking the contract and getting a divorce.... Nor can they force you to marry if you have a contract to do so. Those choices are totally between the two parties to the contract. The State is not involved other than as an administrative agent, which they are required by law to be.