Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Syriusly]

The Alabama bill itself says that it doesn't effect marriage laws. And no where does it say the State won't recognize marriage. It merely says that marriage is accessed via contract rather than license.

Which Boss in yet another fit of glorious ignorance has interpreted as the State not longer recognizing marriage.

Boss's comments are much easier to interpret when you realize that he's never read SB377, has no idea what it says, cares even less, and has no clue what he's talking about.

Come on people. What Alabama is doing makes sense. It is doing away with the gays and lesbians dragging some pastor, justice of the peace, judge, notary, clerk, or any other person before another federal judge in order to force that person to perform a wedding ceremony for them. The form they fill out is a legal agreement. They are legally married. They just no longer need a marriage ceremony.

Would the proposal have a direct effect on wedding ceremonies? I thought getting a license happened before a ceremony. Did I miss something in the bill?

This isn't a license. It's the actual wedding contract. Once you have this document probated, you are married. There is no need for a ceremony. Certainly you can go and have a ceremony but you have no grounds to force anyone to perform one since you are already legally married.

There's no need for a ceremony under the license methodology either. Just go in and get your license.

The difference is for the benefit of the probate judges and clerks. They were catching shit for refusing to issue or record the licenses. Now neither are necessary. Just submit your marriage 'contract', confirmed by a notary, and you're done.

All the same laws still apply. Section 1, Paragraph f of SB377 says as much.

Boss genuinely has no fucking idea what he's talking about.

Actually, I look for the numbers of gay and lesbian marriages to drop a mite once all the states adopt this or something similar. Once these gays and lesbians realize they have no day in the limelight and tv publicity forcing someone to participate in their depraved unions and that they are now open to divorce and community property laws, etc., then some may opt out of entering into a marriage contract altogether.

Well I look for the number of gay and lesbian marriages to greatly increase- now that they can get legally married.

Which is of course- all that they asked for from the beginning.

 

[Skylar]

As long as their are social and financial benefits from marriage, gays and lesbians will engage in it. Its plain old self interest.

There will inevitably be a massive surge as all the gays and lesbians that wanted to get married do. But after that, it will settle into a predictable pattern. In Massechussets, 10 years after the same sex marriage was legalized....about 6% of all marriages are for same sex couples. Which is actually a bit higher than you'd expect.

Well, I read somewhere that they made up only about 7% of the population anyways. They're almost insignificant.

Which is what makes opposition to same sex marriage so absurd. It genuinely doesn't effect you.

No because I am so very very married and have been for 51 years. LOL! Now the polygamists can go forward and pick up a few of these forms and fill them out and have their marriages to multiple partners as well.

Except that they can't.

Why not? The Supreme Court ruling does not forbid it.

Ask the States that do.

 

[Syriusly]

Would the proposal have a direct effect on wedding ceremonies? I thought getting a license happened before a ceremony. Did I miss something in the bill?

This isn't a license. It's the actual wedding contract. Once you have this document probated, you are married. There is no need for a ceremony. Certainly you can go and have a ceremony but you have no grounds to force anyone to perform one since you are already legally married.

There's no need for a ceremony under the license methodology either. Just go in and get your license.

The difference is for the benefit of the probate judges and clerks. They were catching shit for refusing to issue or record the licenses. Now neither are necessary. Just submit your marriage 'contract', confirmed by a notary, and you're done.

All the same laws still apply. Section 1, Paragraph f of SB377 says as much.

Boss genuinely has no fucking idea what he's talking about.

Actually, I look for the numbers of gay and lesbian marriages to drop a mite once all the states adopt this or something similar. Once these gays and lesbians realize they have no day in the limelight and tv publicity forcing someone to participate in their depraved unions and that they are now open to divorce and community property laws, etc., then some may opt out of entering into a marriage contract altogether.

As long as their are social and financial benefits from marriage, gays and lesbians will engage in it. Its plain old self interest.

There will inevitably be a massive surge as all the gays and lesbians that wanted to get married do. But after that, it will settle into a predictable pattern. In Massechussets, 10 years after the same sex marriage was legalized....about 6% of all marriages are for same sex couples. Which is actually a bit higher than you'd expect.

Well, I read somewhere that they made up only about 7% of the population anyways. They're almost insignificant.

Yeah- hardly worth treating them equally.

Same thing with Jews and Mormons.

Almost insignificant.

 

[Pop23]

And one of those guarantees is equal protection.

Prior to SSM being recognized siblings could not marry because it would always be a male sibling marrying a female sibling. Now we know that would not be the case in a large number of these cases and the threat of defective bloodlines would be impossible.

Citizens are being denied equal protection under the law because off the possibility that another group, far different then these individual might have sex?

Again, what is the compelling state interest that denies those citizens the same rights afforded any same sex couple?

Seems you're interested in constitutionality issues, then not.

Seems like you always drag out that same straw man.

But as always you aren't interested in an answer- you just want to attack anyone who supports Americans who are gay getting married.

Not interested in an answer?

Try me for a change Sally

Tell us why you want incest marriage. Make your case.

Incest is an act which I prefer stay out of marriage entirely.

Then why do you keep advocating incestuous marriage?

I don't.

Never have, but I'm trying to find a sound legal reason to deny non incestuous couples a marriage license, which seem to be having trouble with.

 

[Skylar]

Seems like you always drag out that same straw man.

But as always you aren't interested in an answer- you just want to attack anyone who supports Americans who are gay getting married.

Not interested in an answer?

Try me for a change Sally

Tell us why you want incest marriage. Make your case.

Incest is an act which I prefer stay out of marriage entirely.

Then why do you keep advocating incestuous marriage?

I don't.

Then you didn't cite sibling marriage repeatedly? Because distinctly remember you doing exactly that.

 

[Pop23]

No, idiot, the SCOTUS has now taken upon themselves the right to redefine words like 'marriage' to also mean what it has never before meant. With that power and authority, they can also redefine any other word they please, stupid ass.

They've taken upon themselves the authority to intepret the constitution as it relates to how the STATE must treat marriage under the law.

You're more than welcome to whatever definition of marriage pleases you. The law however is bound by constitutional guarantees.

And one of those guarantees is equal protection.

Prior to SSM being recognized siblings could not marry because it would always be a male sibling marrying a female sibling. Now we know that would not be the case in a large number of these cases and the threat of defective bloodlines would be impossible.

Citizens are being denied equal protection under the law because off the possibility that another group, far different then these individual might have sex?

Again, what is the compelling state interest that denies those citizens the same rights afforded any same sex couple?

Seems you're interested in constitutionality issues, then not.

Seems like you always drag out that same straw man.

But as always you aren't interested in an answer- you just want to attack anyone who supports Americans who are gay getting married.

Not interested in an answer?

Try me for a change Sally

I don't swing your way Pops.

You do enjoy dancing with your straw man though.

I doubt you swing my way too. I'm normal. Youre plain ass weird.

 

[Boss]

What part of the SCOTUS rulings did you miss? They've said states have to recognize /all/ forms of legal marriage, including SSM's. Pretty much every form of federal aid, tax, inheritance, birth, death, hospital visit, etc. "recognizes" marriage in some form or another. ALL of those things must be "recognized" by the state, and when the constitutional ruling is that SSM is equal to OSM, the state has to follow that. They cant' just say well, this couple has an SSM so their Medicaid income qualifications, state taxes, etc. are based on single, but the OSM couple goes off of "married" qualifications. That's part of why the SCOTUS had to step in, because it's discrimination.

SCOTUS will rule, yet again, that it is discrimination if Alabama attempts to declare SSM not legal marriage, it's impossible for a state not to recognize marriage because of the various legal ramifications of it all over the place.

I find it amusing that you think I'm a lefty, even though my shits right there in my sig. I'm actually pretty damn republican, except I'm a /real/ republican in that I don't use the bible to color my beliefs in equality.

Anyway, I don't want the Fed's to have any more power, in fact I'd like them to have less and states more, but ya'll bigots keep pushing shit until it becomes a national (aka a FED) issue, and "proving" to the entire country's swath of socialist pushers that states are not able to rule themselves without being bigots - which means they vote in more fed power. You don't think they'd push for a constitutional measure? You mean like deleting the 2nd amendment? Nooo they'd never pine to do that would they? lol

The Alabama bill itself says that it doesn't effect marriage laws. And no where does it say the State won't recognize marriage. It merely says that marriage is accessed via contract rather than license.

Which Boss in yet another fit of glorious ignorance has interpreted as the State not longer recognizing marriage.

Boss's comments are much easier to interpret when you realize that he's never read SB377, has no idea what it says, cares even less, and has no clue what he's talking about.

Come on people. What Alabama is doing makes sense. It is doing away with the gays and lesbians dragging some pastor, justice of the peace, judge, notary, clerk, or any other person before another federal judge in order to force that person to perform a wedding ceremony for them. The form they fill out is a legal agreement. They are legally married. They just no longer need a marriage ceremony.

Would the proposal have a direct effect on wedding ceremonies? I thought getting a license happened before a ceremony. Did I miss something in the bill?

This isn't a license. It's the actual wedding contract. Once you have this document probated, you are married. There is no need for a ceremony. Certainly you can go and have a ceremony but you have no grounds to force anyone to perform one since you are already legally married.

There's no need for a ceremony under the license methodology either. Just go in and get your license.

The difference is for the benefit of the probate judges and clerks. They were catching shit for refusing to issue or record the licenses. Now neither are necessary. Just submit your marriage 'contract', confirmed by a notary, and you're done.

All the same laws still apply. Section 1, Paragraph f of SB377 says as much.

Boss genuinely has no fucking idea what he's talking about.

Again, a CONTRACT is NOT a LICENSE! There is no implication of state sanction with a contract between private parties, they can have contracts for anything they please, the state is no longer a party to any action. They are merely going to fulfill a statutory requirement of contract law, which they have already been doing for centuries. What they won't be doing anymore is sanctioning marriages.

But again.. thank you for pointing out you have no problem with this and it doesn't change anything as far as you are concerned. If that's the case, we've solved this issue and can move on.

 

[Syriusly]

If some of you would like to pretend there is no difference between issuing a license and offering a contract (which has always existed) then that's fine too. I don't mind you telling yourself it's all the same difference because that's what I've been trying to tell you for about ten years. I hope that you will continue to point out that this idea doesn't change things for you and you're completely alright with it.. .the sooner we can pass this in all 50 states the better.

You are the one who declared to us that Alabama was getting out of the marriage business.

As usual- you were ignorant and wrong- and now are trying to spin your false statements into something less than just BS.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Who says they have no restraint? You do, citing yourself. Your argument is again subjective opinion. And you're more than welcome to it. But why should I give a shit?

No, idiot, the SCOTUS has now taken upon themselves the right to redefine words like 'marriage' to also mean what it has never before meant. With that power and authority, they can also redefine any other word they please, stupid ass.

They've taken upon themselves the authority to intepret the constitution as it relates to how the STATE must treat marriage under the law.

You're more than welcome to whatever definition of marriage pleases you. The law however is bound by constitutional guarantees.

Its fascinating though. Unless we're talking about guns, conservatives almost always side with State Power over the rights of the individual. What about being a conservative makes you think that the power of the government is so much more important than individual rights?

They are supposed to stay within the confines of the actual words written into the laws, but now they have redefined a word with the fag marriage decision and they decided to completely ignore Congressional specifications on who can get federal subsidies in exchanges at the state level.

The SCOTUS has take upon itself the authority to simply rewrite the law if the don't like it, to ignore the text of the law or redefine whatever words allow them to bring about a decision that they prefer.

We are no longer a nation of laws, but are a nation of men now.

 

[the_human_being]

Well, I read somewhere that they made up only about 7% of the population anyways. They're almost insignificant.

Which is what makes opposition to same sex marriage so absurd. It genuinely doesn't effect you.

No because I am so very very married and have been for 51 years. LOL! Now the polygamists can go forward and pick up a few of these forms and fill them out and have their marriages to multiple partners as well.

Except that they can't.

Why not? The Supreme Court ruling does not forbid it.

Ask the States that do.

I asked you. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place. There is already one case before the court now where one man is trying to marry his two common-law wives. Of course the married filing jointly deduction will need to be looked at again.

 

[Pop23]

Not interested in an answer?

Try me for a change Sally

Tell us why you want incest marriage. Make your case.

Incest is an act which I prefer stay out of marriage entirely.

Then why do you keep advocating incestuous marriage?

I don't.

Then you didn't cite sibling marriage repeatedly? Because distinctly remember you doing exactly that.

Sure, many siblings are heterosexuals of the same sex, wishing to marry for the benefits it brings.

Of course a pervert like you would think otherwise. That's what perverts do.

Have you come up with that law yet that makes sex a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license?

You can't Sally?

 

[Syriusly]

What part of the SCOTUS rulings did you miss? They've said states have to recognize /all/ forms of legal marriage, including SSM's.

Nope. Not what they said. Sorry. They ruled that states can't discriminate, that was the issue at hand. They can't offer marriage licenses to traditional couples and deny them to same-sex couples.

The supreme court found that same sex couples are afforded the same terms in marriage as opposite sex couples.

The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the
same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Change it from marriage 'licenses' to marriage 'contracts'....and same sex couples are still accorded the same terms as opposite sex couples.

Simply obliterating your entire line of pseudo-legal gibberish.

However, there is nothing in the Constitution that mandates the state recognize or sanction ANY marriages. And that's what Alabama is going to adopt. A measure that removes the State from sanctioning ALL marriages. No discrimination.

Alabama still recognizes marriage under SB377. Remember, you've never actually read it. All it does is change the method of entering marriage from license to a contract.

As for the constitution requiring states to recognize marriages from other states, you run head first into the Full Faith and Credit clause:

"Full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts, records, and judicial proceedings of every other state. And the Congress may by general laws prescribe the manner in which such acts, records, and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Yes the States are required to recognize marriages from other States. As the USSC makes ludicrously clear.

It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to
refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.

Remember.....you don't actually have the slightest clue what you're talking about. And that tends to rob your arguments of much of their persuasive power.

What Skylar said.

 

[the_human_being]

Seems like you always drag out that same straw man.

But as always you aren't interested in an answer- you just want to attack anyone who supports Americans who are gay getting married.

Not interested in an answer?

Try me for a change Sally

Tell us why you want incest marriage. Make your case.

Incest is an act which I prefer stay out of marriage entirely.

Then why do you keep advocating incestuous marriage?

I don't.

Never have, but I'm trying to find a sound legal reason to deny non incestuous couples a marriage license, which seem to be having trouble with.

What does the Supreme Court's ruling have to do with forbidding incestuous marriages?

 

[Syriusly]

Which is what makes opposition to same sex marriage so absurd. It genuinely doesn't effect you.

No because I am so very very married and have been for 51 years. LOL! Now the polygamists can go forward and pick up a few of these forms and fill them out and have their marriages to multiple partners as well.

Except that they can't.

Why not? The Supreme Court ruling does not forbid it.

Ask the States that do.

I asked you. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place..

Says who?

The Supreme Court has overturned unconstitutional marriage laws 3 times before Obergefel- and it may do so again. And none of them opens the door to any other form of marriage.

Americans have a right to marry. States can restrict marriage- but they need to be able to establish a specific benefit that the restriction accomplishes.

If the State cannot make a compelling interest why polygamy should be restricted they will likely lose in court.

Now- do you support or oppose polygamous marriage?

If you oppose it- why?

 

[the_human_being]

This isn't a license. It's the actual wedding contract. Once you have this document probated, you are married. There is no need for a ceremony. Certainly you can go and have a ceremony but you have no grounds to force anyone to perform one since you are already legally married.

There's no need for a ceremony under the license methodology either. Just go in and get your license.

The difference is for the benefit of the probate judges and clerks. They were catching shit for refusing to issue or record the licenses. Now neither are necessary. Just submit your marriage 'contract', confirmed by a notary, and you're done.

All the same laws still apply. Section 1, Paragraph f of SB377 says as much.

Boss genuinely has no fucking idea what he's talking about.

Actually, I look for the numbers of gay and lesbian marriages to drop a mite once all the states adopt this or something similar. Once these gays and lesbians realize they have no day in the limelight and tv publicity forcing someone to participate in their depraved unions and that they are now open to divorce and community property laws, etc., then some may opt out of entering into a marriage contract altogether.

As long as their are social and financial benefits from marriage, gays and lesbians will engage in it. Its plain old self interest.

There will inevitably be a massive surge as all the gays and lesbians that wanted to get married do. But after that, it will settle into a predictable pattern. In Massechussets, 10 years after the same sex marriage was legalized....about 6% of all marriages are for same sex couples. Which is actually a bit higher than you'd expect.

Well, I read somewhere that they made up only about 7% of the population anyways. They're almost insignificant.

Yeah- hardly worth treating them equally.

Same thing with Jews and Mormons.

Almost insignificant.

Who treated them equally? The Supreme Court nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselves the rights of the states and their own citizens to determine in a democratic election the definition and legality of marriage among themselves. It was a huge power grab by the Supreme Court.

 

[Syriusly]

Tell us why you want incest marriage. Make your case.

Incest is an act which I prefer stay out of marriage entirely.

Then why do you keep advocating incestuous marriage?

I don't.

Then you didn't cite sibling marriage repeatedly? Because distinctly remember you doing exactly that.

Sure, many siblings are heterosexuals of the same sex, wishing to marry for the benefits it brings.

Of course a pervert like you would think otherwise. That's what perverts do.

Have you come up with that law yet that makes sex a prerequisite to obtaining a marriage license?

You can't Sally?

Poor Pop.

He wants everyone else to explain to him why he is against sibling marriage.

 

[Skylar]

The Alabama bill itself says that it doesn't effect marriage laws. And no where does it say the State won't recognize marriage. It merely says that marriage is accessed via contract rather than license.

Which Boss in yet another fit of glorious ignorance has interpreted as the State not longer recognizing marriage.

Boss's comments are much easier to interpret when you realize that he's never read SB377, has no idea what it says, cares even less, and has no clue what he's talking about.

Come on people. What Alabama is doing makes sense. It is doing away with the gays and lesbians dragging some pastor, justice of the peace, judge, notary, clerk, or any other person before another federal judge in order to force that person to perform a wedding ceremony for them. The form they fill out is a legal agreement. They are legally married. They just no longer need a marriage ceremony.

Would the proposal have a direct effect on wedding ceremonies? I thought getting a license happened before a ceremony. Did I miss something in the bill?

This isn't a license. It's the actual wedding contract. Once you have this document probated, you are married. There is no need for a ceremony. Certainly you can go and have a ceremony but you have no grounds to force anyone to perform one since you are already legally married.

There's no need for a ceremony under the license methodology either. Just go in and get your license.

The difference is for the benefit of the probate judges and clerks. They were catching shit for refusing to issue or record the licenses. Now neither are necessary. Just submit your marriage 'contract', confirmed by a notary, and you're done.

All the same laws still apply. Section 1, Paragraph f of SB377 says as much.

Boss genuinely has no fucking idea what he's talking about.

Again, a CONTRACT is NOT a LICENSE!

Again, it doesn't matter. As the terms of marriage are the same for opposite sex couples as for same sex couples. Says who?

Says the Supreme Court:

The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the
same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex.

Obergefell v. Hodges

License or contract, same sex couples and opposite sex couples are accorded the same terms.

Killing your entire argument. And preserving same sex marriage.

There is no implication of state sanction with a contract between private parties, they can have contracts for anything they please, the state is no longer a party to any action.

Entering marriage via contract however has very specific requirements. Which SB377 lays out in detail. You should actually read the law rather than commenting on it ignorantly.

Remember, other than changing the method of entering marriage from a license to a contract, none of the marriage laws change.

This section shall not affect any other legalaspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.

Alabama SB377 | 2015 | Regular Session

See, I've actually read the bill. You never have. Which is why I know so much more about the bill than you do.

They are merely going to fulfill a statutory requirement of contract law, which they have already been doing for centuries. What they won't be doing anymore is sanctioning marriages.

And same sex couples will be able to enter into marriage via contract the same as opposite sex couples. As both are accorded the same terms.

Alabama still recognizes marriage. And still recognizes marriages from other states. Again, just read the bill. It will help you with so many of your misconceptions.

 

[the_human_being]

No because I am so very very married and have been for 51 years. LOL! Now the polygamists can go forward and pick up a few of these forms and fill them out and have their marriages to multiple partners as well.

Except that they can't.

Why not? The Supreme Court ruling does not forbid it.

Ask the States that do.

I asked you. The Supreme Court's ruling opened the door for almost any marriage to take place..

Says who?

The Supreme Court has overturned unconstitutional marriage laws 3 times before Obergefel- and it may do so again. And none of them opens the door to any other form of marriage.

Americans have a right to marry. States can restrict marriage- but they need to be able to establish a specific benefit that the restriction accomplishes.

If the State cannot make a compelling interest why polygamy should be restricted they will likely lose in court.

Now- do you support or oppose polygamous marriage?

If you oppose it- why?

No, I don't oppose it. Personally, I had rather see a man with more than one female wife or a woman with more than one male husband than I had to see the total depravity of gay and lesbian unions.

 

[Syriusly]

There's no need for a ceremony under the license methodology either. Just go in and get your license.

The difference is for the benefit of the probate judges and clerks. They were catching shit for refusing to issue or record the licenses. Now neither are necessary. Just submit your marriage 'contract', confirmed by a notary, and you're done.

All the same laws still apply. Section 1, Paragraph f of SB377 says as much.

Boss genuinely has no fucking idea what he's talking about.

Actually, I look for the numbers of gay and lesbian marriages to drop a mite once all the states adopt this or something similar. Once these gays and lesbians realize they have no day in the limelight and tv publicity forcing someone to participate in their depraved unions and that they are now open to divorce and community property laws, etc., then some may opt out of entering into a marriage contract altogether.

As long as their are social and financial benefits from marriage, gays and lesbians will engage in it. Its plain old self interest.

There will inevitably be a massive surge as all the gays and lesbians that wanted to get married do. But after that, it will settle into a predictable pattern. In Massechussets, 10 years after the same sex marriage was legalized....about 6% of all marriages are for same sex couples. Which is actually a bit higher than you'd expect.

Well, I read somewhere that they made up only about 7% of the population anyways. They're almost insignificant.

Yeah- hardly worth treating them equally.

Same thing with Jews and Mormons.

Almost insignificant.

Who treated them equally? The Supreme Court nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselves the rights of the states and their own citizens to determine in a democratic election the definition and legality of marriage among themselves. It was a huge power grab by the Supreme Court.

Which case are you referring to?

Loving v. Virginia?

Zablocki v. Rehail?

Turner v. Safley?

Or Obergefel?

All cases where the Supreme Court 'nullified the votes and will of the people and took upon themselvs the rights of their states'- i.e. ruled a State law unconstitutional.

If you think this was a 'huge power' grab- you are about 50 years behind the ball.

 

[Skylar]

Who says they have no restraint? You do, citing yourself. Your argument is again subjective opinion. And you're more than welcome to it. But why should I give a shit?

No, idiot, the SCOTUS has now taken upon themselves the right to redefine words like 'marriage' to also mean what it has never before meant. With that power and authority, they can also redefine any other word they please, stupid ass.

They've taken upon themselves the authority to intepret the constitution as it relates to how the STATE must treat marriage under the law.

You're more than welcome to whatever definition of marriage pleases you. The law however is bound by constitutional guarantees.

Its fascinating though. Unless we're talking about guns, conservatives almost always side with State Power over the rights of the individual. What about being a conservative makes you think that the power of the government is so much more important than individual rights?

They are supposed to stay within the confines of the actual words written into the laws, but now they have redefined a word with the fag marriage decision and they decided to completely ignore Congressional specifications on who can get federal subsidies in exchanges at the state level.

They are supposed to stay within the confines of individual rights and the constitution. When a law abrogates rights and violates the constitution, the supreme court is supposed to strike it down.

Which, of course, they did.

The SCOTUS has take upon itself the authority to simply rewrite the law if the don't like it, to ignore the text of the law or redefine whatever words allow them to bring about a decision that they prefer.

We are no longer a nation of laws, but are a nation of men now.

They've taken it upon themselves to strike down portions of the law that violate individual rights. As they should have.