It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Faun]

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.

And they would still recognize all marriages, including gay marriages...

recognize

: to accept or be aware that (something) is true or exists

: to accept and approve of (something) as having legal or official authority​

 

[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.

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.

Of course it doesn't change marriage law. Again, what is the point in Alabama passing an unconstitutional law that cannot stand? The way that it is entered into is the only issue, that's why it's made clear this is the only thing that changes. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Why do you think I am making some other argument or claim?

Look... do you want me to sit here and claim that Alabama is passing a law to run all them goddamn homo queers outta our state once and for all!? Is THAT what you want to hear me saying? By God, we're gonna pass a law to ban them faggots from marryin up in OUR state! That's what you want to hear me saying? Well guess what? It's NOT my argument! Hasn't ever been my argument! Won't ever be my argument! So you can keep on pretending that is what you're hearing me say... I can't do a damn thing about your mental disorder but it's not something I have said. You're not going to ever make me say it.

Alabama is going to pass a law which removes the state from sanctioning marriages. Period!

 

[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.

And they would still recognize all marriages, including gay marriages...

recognize

: to accept or be aware that (something) is true or exists

: to accept and approve of (something) as having legal or official authority​

Recognize can have different meanings as you're pointing out here. You do not have to accept or approve of something to recognize it exists. Licensing something is official state sanction. Permitting a contract between two private parties is an administrative action. If you're too stupid or illiterate to comprehend the difference, I don't know what to tell you. I think I have explained it thoroughly and we're just wasting time here.

 

[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.

The State doesn't "hold" anything.

You're fucking deranged.

(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.​

Who knows what you think the state would not be holding when the law clearly states otherwise?

 

[Faun]

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.

And they would still recognize all marriages, including gay marriages...

recognize

: to accept or be aware that (something) is true or exists

: to accept and approve of (something) as having legal or official authority​

Recognize can have different meanings as you're pointing out here. You do not have to accept or approve of something to recognize it exists. Licensing something is official state sanction. Permitting a contract between two private parties is an administrative action. If you're too stupid or illiterate to comprehend the difference, I don't know what to tell you. I think I have explained it thoroughly and we're just wasting time here.

As usual, you spout complete nonsense.

My car is registered with my state. That authorizes it to be legally driven. And they did not license my car; yet by accepting my registration, they recognize my car as being legally allowed on public roads. Same way Alabama would be recognizing and authorizing marriages in their state.

 

[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.

You're fucking deranged.

(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.​

Who knows what you think the state would not be holding when the law clearly states otherwise?

That does not say the state is "holding" anything as far as I am reading.

 

[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.

Of course it doesn't change marriage law. Again, what is the point in Alabama passing an unconstitutional law that cannot stand? The way that it is entered into is the only issue, that's why it's made clear this is the only thing that changes. Why is this so hard for you to comprehend? Why do you think I am making some other argument or claim?

Look... do you want me to sit here and claim that Alabama is passing a law to run all them goddamn homo queers outta our state once and for all!? Is THAT what you want to hear me saying? By God, we're gonna pass a law to ban them faggots from marryin up in OUR state! That's what you want to hear me saying? Well guess what? It's NOT my argument! Hasn't ever been my argument! Won't ever be my argument! So you can keep on pretending that is what you're hearing me say... I can't do a damn thing about your mental disorder but it's not something I have said. You're not going to ever make me say it.

Alabama is going to pass a law which removes the state from sanctioning marriages. Period!

And you complain about me creating arguments you didn't make?

I would like you to admit that people would still be getting legal civil marriages in the state of Alabama had the bill passed. I would like you to admit that the bill says nothing at all about civil unions. I would like you to realize that I've been saying since you started this argument about the bill that the only thing that would change is the way marriage is entered into, and you are the one who has argued that isn't true. I'm not looking for you to admit your anti-homosexual bigotry. You can accept that about yourself or not.

I'm not making any silly claims about Alabama running homosexuals out of the state and have not 'pretended that is what I'm hearing you say'. I've been pretty clear about what I'm reading from you, I've quoted you on numerous occasions saying things you insist you did not say, I've quoted the bill in contention to support my points while you continue to do nothing but spout completely unsubstantiated opinion.

You provided a definition for sanction which contradicts your claim. The state of Alabama would continue to permit marriages to be entered into under SB377. The state of Alabama would approve of marriages, in the sense of consenting or confirming the marriages. Perhaps all your talk of sanctioning is based on approval in the moral sense, although why you would think the state is making a moral judgement by licensing a marriage but not doing so if instead a marriage contract is approved and filed is beyond me.

I do not accept your straw men nor your lies. I will continue to point out what I see as errors as long as I feel the desire to. You can continue to lie, show an amazing degree of hypocrisy, and use your own personal meanings for words, all while providing no evidence to support your claims, if that's what you want.

 

[Boss]

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.

And they would still recognize all marriages, including gay marriages...

recognize

: to accept or be aware that (something) is true or exists

: to accept and approve of (something) as having legal or official authority​

Recognize can have different meanings as you're pointing out here. You do not have to accept or approve of something to recognize it exists. Licensing something is official state sanction. Permitting a contract between two private parties is an administrative action. If you're too stupid or illiterate to comprehend the difference, I don't know what to tell you. I think I have explained it thoroughly and we're just wasting time here.

As usual, you spout complete nonsense.

My car is registered with my state. That authorizes it to be legally driven. And they did not license my car; yet by accepting my registration, they recognize my car as being legally allowed on public roads. Same way Alabama would be recognizing and authorizing marriages in their state.

We can keep on and on with the irrelevant examples if you like, I've got nothing else to do. It's not going to change the fact that Alabama will not be sanctioning marriages, but if you just want to argue and have me stomp your ass, we can do that.

Now to shoot down this latest strawman... the state certainly DOES license your vehicle... what do you think that rectangular thing on the bumper with the numbers and decal is? Registration does not authorize your car to be driven legally, you have several other things you must also comply with, including proof of insurance and a driver's license. The driver's license is a specific state sanction of your right to operate a motor vehicle.

 

[Boss]

I would like you to admit that people would still be getting legal civil marriages in the state of Alabama had the bill passed.

I've never claimed people wouldn't be getting legal civil marriages in Alabama. I used to get this same complaint all the time when I debated civil unions reform. People somehow interpret that as the state "doing away with civil marriage" and it's not. I carefully laid out my argument for how things wouldn't change with regard to the various laws concerning marital rights, that it would simply be a change in what the state officially called it... instead of marriage, it's a civil union. Marriage is returned to the people and churches where it belongs. I would post this over and over, and the same idiots would line up to hoot me down with "that's ridiculous, no one is going to do away with civil marriages... good luck with that!"

So we have the same exact thing happening here. I am saying the State is going to change from issuing a license (official sanction) to administering a contract (clerical action). And for some weird and bizarre reason, you are interpreting me to be saying "do away with civil marriages." I don't know how to overcome your stubborn stupidity on this, if you're just not going to listen to what I am saying, I can't do anything about that. If you're going to create shit that I never argued and try to win that argument, you'll have to do that without my help.

 

[Montrovant]

I would like you to admit that people would still be getting legal civil marriages in the state of Alabama had the bill passed.

I've never claimed people wouldn't be getting legal civil marriages in Alabama. I used to get this same complaint all the time when I debated civil unions reform. People somehow interpret that as the state "doing away with civil marriage" and it's not. I carefully laid out my argument for how things wouldn't change with regard to the various laws concerning marital rights, that it would simply be a change in what the state officially called it... instead of marriage, it's a civil union. Marriage is returned to the people and churches where it belongs. I would post this over and over, and the same idiots would line up to hoot me down with "that's ridiculous, no one is going to do away with civil marriages... good luck with that!"

So we have the same exact thing happening here. I am saying the State is going to change from issuing a license (official sanction) to administering a contract (clerical action). And for some weird and bizarre reason, you are interpreting me to be saying "do away with civil marriages." I don't know how to overcome your stubborn stupidity on this, if you're just not going to listen to what I am saying, I can't do anything about that. If you're going to create shit that I never argued and try to win that argument, you'll have to do that without my help.

If the state is changing the name from marriage to civil union, they are not getting legal civil marriages, they are getting legal civil unions. Ignoring the fact that the bill says literally nothing about civil unions and in fact mentions marriage many times, isn't this the very pointlessness you've complained about? Why change the name from marriage to civil union if they are still considered marriages?

Of course, since the bill doesn't say anything at all about changing the name from marriage to civil union, doesn't mention civil unions at all, repeatedly explains how marriage will remain the same, this argument is really about your fantasy.

I am reading what you are saying. You have said, multiple times, that there would be no civil marriage, instead there would be civil unions. Despite that you also claim that there would be no end to civil marriage. So, civil marriage would remain at the same time civil marriage would change to civil union. You contradict yourself so blatantly it's hard to accept your argument as sincere.

Changing from marriage to civil union IS getting rid of civil marriage. It gets rid of civil marriage and replaces it with civil union, kind of like how the bill would get rid of marriage licenses and replace them with contracts of marriage. Does it seem odd to you, claiming a change in name in one case is a huge adjustment to marriage while in the other the change in name has no effect at all?

 

[Boss]

I would like you to admit that people would still be getting legal civil marriages in the state of Alabama had the bill passed.

I've never claimed people wouldn't be getting legal civil marriages in Alabama. I used to get this same complaint all the time when I debated civil unions reform. People somehow interpret that as the state "doing away with civil marriage" and it's not. I carefully laid out my argument for how things wouldn't change with regard to the various laws concerning marital rights, that it would simply be a change in what the state officially called it... instead of marriage, it's a civil union. Marriage is returned to the people and churches where it belongs. I would post this over and over, and the same idiots would line up to hoot me down with "that's ridiculous, no one is going to do away with civil marriages... good luck with that!"

So we have the same exact thing happening here. I am saying the State is going to change from issuing a license (official sanction) to administering a contract (clerical action). And for some weird and bizarre reason, you are interpreting me to be saying "do away with civil marriages." I don't know how to overcome your stubborn stupidity on this, if you're just not going to listen to what I am saying, I can't do anything about that. If you're going to create shit that I never argued and try to win that argument, you'll have to do that without my help.

If the state is changing the name from marriage to civil union, they are not getting legal civil marriages, they are getting legal civil unions. Ignoring the fact that the bill says literally nothing about civil unions and in fact mentions marriage many times, isn't this the very pointlessness you've complained about? Why change the name from marriage to civil union if they are still considered marriages?

How many times do I have to address this before it penetrates your hard head? This is the THIRD time I have explained to you that the bill HAS TO comply with the constitution, federal law, the SCOTUS ruling, and about 1,500 various and sundry connections to other laws covering a thing described consistently as "marriage." So how are they supposed to legally address all of those but not use the word "marriage?" Of course it mentions marriage many times, of course it doesn't say "civil unions" instead. This has not a damn thing to do with the intent and purpose of the bill itself.

It also is not about changing the name. As I have repeatedly argued, it is about changing the relationship of the state with marriage. Removing them from an official capacity of sanctioning the action and establishing the state in the role of administrator only.

I am reading what you are saying. You have said, multiple times, that there would be no civil marriage, instead there would be civil unions. Despite that you also claim that there would be no end to civil marriage. So, civil marriage would remain at the same time civil marriage would change to civil union. You contradict yourself so blatantly it's hard to accept your argument as sincere.

Well okay, if I said that, I made a mistake. There will still be civil marriages just like there were civil marriages before Alabama was a state, before the US was a country. People will still get married and have weddings. The state will no longer be sanctioning marriage.

Changing from marriage to civil union IS getting rid of civil marriage. It gets rid of civil marriage and replaces it with civil union, kind of like how the bill would get rid of marriage licenses and replace them with contracts of marriage. Does it seem odd to you, claiming a change in name in one case is a huge adjustment to marriage while in the other the change in name has no effect at all?

No, it's not. A marriage is a form of civil union. You've said virtually the same thing except you used the word "contract" in place of "civil union" which has the same meaning in legal context. No one is talking about "getting rid" of anything except for you. Alabama is attempting to remove the state as a party to the action of whatever the hell is going to be redefined as marriage in this country. That is the intent and purpose of the bill and what it seeks to accomplish.

 

[Skylar]

I would like you to admit that people would still be getting legal civil marriages in the state of Alabama had the bill passed.

I've never claimed people wouldn't be getting legal civil marriages in Alabama. I used to get this same complaint all the time when I debated civil unions reform. People somehow interpret that as the state "doing away with civil marriage" and it's not. I carefully laid out my argument for how things wouldn't change with regard to the various laws concerning marital rights, that it would simply be a change in what the state officially called it... instead of marriage, it's a civil union.rriage is returned to the people and churches where it belongs. I would post this over and over, and the same idiots would line up to hoot me down with "that's ridiculous, no one is going to do away with civil marriages... good luck with that!"

So we have the same exact thing happening here. I am saying the State is going to change from issuing a license (official sanction) to administering a contract (clerical action). And for some weird and bizarre reason, you are interpreting me to be saying "do away with civil marriages." I don't know how to overcome your stubborn stupidity on this, if you're just not going to listen to what I am saying, I can't do anything about that. If you're going to create shit that I never argued and try to win that argument, you'll have to do that without my help.

If the state is changing the name from marriage to civil union, they are not getting legal civil marriages, they are getting legal civil unions. Ignoring the fact that the bill says literally nothing about civil unions and in fact mentions marriage many times, isn't this the very pointlessness you've complained about? Why change the name from marriage to civil union if they are still considered marriages?

How many times do I have to address this before it penetrates your hard head? This is the THIRD time I have explained to you that the bill HAS TO comply with the constitution, federal law, the SCOTUS ruling, and about 1,500 various and sundry connections to other laws covering a thing described consistently as "marriage." So how are they supposed to legally address all of those but not use the word "marriage?" Of course it mentions marriage many times, of course it doesn't say "civil unions" instead. This has not a damn thing to do with the intent and purpose of the bill itself.

Or, exactly as SB377 actually says; a contract of marriage is a record of marriage. And all your 'civil union' nonsense is imaginary jibber jabber that is mentioned no where in the bill.

Remember, Boss......you don't actually have a clue how the law works. And are just making up your claims as you go along.

It also is not about changing the name. As I have repeatedly argued, it is about changing the relationship of the state with marriage. Removing them from an official capacity of sanctioning the action and establishing the state in the role of administrator only.

SB377 never even mentions 'sanctioning'. That's you citing yourself again. Which is meaningless.

Under SB377 the State still authorizes marriage in Alabama. It still records marriage in Alabama. It still recognizes marriage. No other marriage law is changed. No benefit is lost.

You simply have no idea what you're talking about.

Well okay, if I said that, I made a mistake. There will still be civil marriages just like there were civil marriages before Alabama was a state, before the US was a country. People will still get married and have weddings. The state will no longer be sanctioning marriage.

So you said there would be no marriage law. And then backpedalled. You insisted there would be no marriages. And then backpedalled. You insisted it the Alabama law was 'Killing Homosexual marriage. And then backpedalled.

Again, you don't know what you're talking about.

And the State is still legally authorizing marriages, recognizing them, enforcing marriage laws, and recording such marriages. Meaning that the State isn't removed from marriages. With SB377 making exactly zero mention of 'sanctioning' anything. Nor did the law SB377 replaces.

There is nothing you got right.

 

[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.

The State doesn't "hold" anything.

You're fucking deranged.

(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.​

Who knows what you think the state would not be holding when the law clearly states otherwise?

That does not say the state is "holding" anything as far as I am reading.

Now I have to teach you what "hold" means?

hold

1 a :to have possession or ownership of or have at one's disposal <hold property worth millions> <the bank hold the title to the car>​

Since the state will "have possession" of the marriage contract on file, just as they always have, the state "holds" it, just as they always have.

 

[Skylar]

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.

You're fucking deranged.

(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.​

Who knows what you think the state would not be holding when the law clearly states otherwise?

That does not say the state is "holding" anything as far as I am reading.

Now I have to teach you what "hold" means?

hold

1 a :to have possession or ownership of or have at one's disposal <hold property worth millions> <the bank hold the title to the car>​

Since the state will "have possession" of the marriage contract on file, just as they always have, the state "holds" it, just as they always have.

Again, Boss doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. He claimed that there would be no marriage law at all......and backpedalled. He insisted there would be no marriage....and backpedalled. The entire premise of his 'killing homosexual marriage' nonsense was that the new law would remove all State benefits of marriage. SB377 does no such thing.

And now he's babbling about 'holding'....and still doesn't understand what the term means. The contract of marriage is a record of marriage recorded at the Vital Statistics Office. Says who? Says SB377:

to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate office for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics;

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

The idea that Alabama wouldn't recognize marriage under SB377 is pure nonsense. The idea that Alabama wouldn't hold records of marriages performed under SB377 is pure nonsense.

 

[Faun]

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.

And they would still recognize all marriages, including gay marriages...

recognize

: to accept or be aware that (something) is true or exists

: to accept and approve of (something) as having legal or official authority​

Recognize can have different meanings as you're pointing out here. You do not have to accept or approve of something to recognize it exists. Licensing something is official state sanction. Permitting a contract between two private parties is an administrative action. If you're too stupid or illiterate to comprehend the difference, I don't know what to tell you. I think I have explained it thoroughly and we're just wasting time here.

More Boss derangement syndrome.

Here's the state of Alabama recognizing marriages in their state as legal...

The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage.​

 

[Faun]

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.

And they would still recognize all marriages, including gay marriages...

recognize

: to accept or be aware that (something) is true or exists

: to accept and approve of (something) as having legal or official authority​

Recognize can have different meanings as you're pointing out here. You do not have to accept or approve of something to recognize it exists. Licensing something is official state sanction. Permitting a contract between two private parties is an administrative action. If you're too stupid or illiterate to comprehend the difference, I don't know what to tell you. I think I have explained it thoroughly and we're just wasting time here.

As usual, you spout complete nonsense.

My car is registered with my state. That authorizes it to be legally driven. And they did not license my car; yet by accepting my registration, they recognize my car as being legally allowed on public roads. Same way Alabama would be recognizing and authorizing marriages in their state.

We can keep on and on with the irrelevant examples if you like, I've got nothing else to do. It's not going to change the fact that Alabama will not be sanctioning marriages, but if you just want to argue and have me stomp your ass, we can do that.

Now to shoot down this latest strawman... the state certainly DOES license your vehicle... what do you think that rectangular thing on the bumper with the numbers and decal is? Registration does not authorize your car to be driven legally, you have several other things you must also comply with, including proof of insurance and a driver's license. The driver's license is a specific state sanction of your right to operate a motor vehicle.

They'll be sanctioning marriages according to the definition you provided earlier. And no, registration is not a license. The tag on my plate is also not a license. My license to drive has nothing to do with my car's registration. Having my car registered means it's legally allowed to be driven on public roads by a licensed driver with my approval. My driver's license permits me to drive any legally registered non-commercial vehicle with the owner's approval.

 

[Boss]

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.

You're fucking deranged.

(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.​

Who knows what you think the state would not be holding when the law clearly states otherwise?

That does not say the state is "holding" anything as far as I am reading.

Now I have to teach you what "hold" means?

hold

1 a :to have possession or ownership of or have at one's disposal <hold property worth millions> <the bank hold the title to the car>​

Since the state will "have possession" of the marriage contract on file, just as they always have, the state "holds" it, just as they always have.

Thank you.

The State will never "hold" marriage. They don't possess it or own it.

You need to take your meds.

 

[Boss]

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.

And they would still recognize all marriages, including gay marriages...

recognize

: to accept or be aware that (something) is true or exists

: to accept and approve of (something) as having legal or official authority​

Recognize can have different meanings as you're pointing out here. You do not have to accept or approve of something to recognize it exists. Licensing something is official state sanction. Permitting a contract between two private parties is an administrative action. If you're too stupid or illiterate to comprehend the difference, I don't know what to tell you. I think I have explained it thoroughly and we're just wasting time here.

More Boss derangement syndrome.

Here's the state of Alabama recognizing marriages in their state as legal...

The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage.​

Correct, and if they did not say this, what would that mean from a legal standpoint? Couldn't the new law be challenged that it violated federal law regarding the recording of legal marriages?

This is an administrative duty they are obligated to perform. This simply doesn't mean they sanction or approve of the marriage in any way.

 

[Boss]

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.

And they would still recognize all marriages, including gay marriages...

recognize

: to accept or be aware that (something) is true or exists

: to accept and approve of (something) as having legal or official authority​

Recognize can have different meanings as you're pointing out here. You do not have to accept or approve of something to recognize it exists. Licensing something is official state sanction. Permitting a contract between two private parties is an administrative action. If you're too stupid or illiterate to comprehend the difference, I don't know what to tell you. I think I have explained it thoroughly and we're just wasting time here.

As usual, you spout complete nonsense.

My car is registered with my state. That authorizes it to be legally driven. And they did not license my car; yet by accepting my registration, they recognize my car as being legally allowed on public roads. Same way Alabama would be recognizing and authorizing marriages in their state.

We can keep on and on with the irrelevant examples if you like, I've got nothing else to do. It's not going to change the fact that Alabama will not be sanctioning marriages, but if you just want to argue and have me stomp your ass, we can do that.

Now to shoot down this latest strawman... the state certainly DOES license your vehicle... what do you think that rectangular thing on the bumper with the numbers and decal is? Registration does not authorize your car to be driven legally, you have several other things you must also comply with, including proof of insurance and a driver's license. The driver's license is a specific state sanction of your right to operate a motor vehicle.

They'll be sanctioning marriages according to the definition you provided earlier. And no, registration is not a license. The tag on my plate is also not a license. My license to drive has nothing to do with my car's registration. Having my car registered means it's legally allowed to be driven on public roads by a licensed driver with my approval. My driver's license permits me to drive any legally registered non-commercial vehicle with the owner's approval.

No, they will not be sanctioning marriages. Again, you are conflating the administrative obligation they have to record marriages with the act of authorizing and sanctioning through a license.

Your car tag is also known as a "license plate" and it signifies that your vehicle is registered with the state and you've paid your ad valorem taxes. This does not authorize your car to be driven by anyone. In some states, your car may need to pass an inspection. Your car will need to have insurance. It can't have broken headlights or taillights. It can't be a threat to public safety. It has to have working seat belts. Most importantly, it requires a licensed driver. This is a very bad analogy to present for something that does not require state sanctioning.

 

[Faun]

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.

You're fucking deranged.

(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.​

Who knows what you think the state would not be holding when the law clearly states otherwise?

That does not say the state is "holding" anything as far as I am reading.

Now I have to teach you what "hold" means?

hold

1 a :to have possession or ownership of or have at one's disposal <hold property worth millions> <the bank hold the title to the car>​

Since the state will "have possession" of the marriage contract on file, just as they always have, the state "holds" it, just as they always have.

Thank you.

The State will never "hold" marriage. They don't possess it or own it.

You need to take your meds.

Nah, you're just fucking deranged. No skin off my back.

I never said they would hold marriages.

If facts and truth was on your side, you wouldn't have to make such delirious comments.