Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Syriusly]

SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

Now we have to realize, the bill Alabama will pass to remove the State from sanctioning marriages is not the ONLY bill the State of Alabama can ever pass. Other bills can be passed to remove "marriage" from the lexicon of state business. Benefits or tax breaks afforded to "married" couples can be changed. There is nothing preventing that.

Let us know when anyone in Alabama proposes a law to remove the State from sanctioning marriage.

So far that is all just your imagination.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

Nope, I don't see how that works. I know that if the State of Alabama is not issuing licenses for gay marriages they aren't sanctioning them. I never claimed they could refuse to acknowledge contractual or statutory laws regarding legal instruments from other states.

You keep making up nonsense that is unconstitutional, then claiming that I have said it's in this bill, then waving the bill around to proclaim the stuff I never said isn't in the bill. I really don't know what the point of that is unless you're just trying to intentionally mislead people regarding my position.

Now we have to realize, the bill Alabama will pass to remove the State from sanctioning marriages is not the ONLY bill the State of Alabama can ever pass. Other bills can be passed to remove "marriage" from the lexicon of state business. Benefits or tax breaks afforded to "married" couples can be changed. There is nothing preventing that.

No one is misrepresenting your position. You have made it quite clear that you do not want Alabama or any other state to sanction marriage which would result in the loss of the legal benefits of marriage and result in gay people abandoning their desire to marry. In doing so, you completely ignore the fact -as I have pointed out- that to do so will result in the states being vulnerable to action under the 14th Amendment due to the loss of federal benefits. Like all logical and factual arguments that you can't refute, you simply ignore it.

 

[Montrovant]

SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

Nope, I don't see how that works. I know that if the State of Alabama is not issuing licenses for gay marriages they aren't sanctioning them. I never claimed they could refuse to acknowledge contractual or statutory laws regarding legal instruments from other states.

You keep making up nonsense that is unconstitutional, then claiming that I have said it's in this bill, then waving the bill around to proclaim the stuff I never said isn't in the bill. I really don't know what the point of that is unless you're just trying to intentionally mislead people regarding my position.

Now we have to realize, the bill Alabama will pass to remove the State from sanctioning marriages is not the ONLY bill the State of Alabama can ever pass. Other bills can be passed to remove "marriage" from the lexicon of state business. Benefits or tax breaks afforded to "married" couples can be changed. There is nothing preventing that.

I'd still like to see your definition of 'sanctioning marriage'. From everything you've posted, it appears to be 'requiring a license to obtain a civil marriage'.

Of course Alabama can pass various laws. Is that your argument? It's possible for Alabama to pass multiple laws which will, eventually, remove civil marriages? That Alabama will pass multiple laws so that the state government no longer recognizes or grants any benefits for marriage? And you base this on a bill which did not pass and did none of those things anyway?

'It's possible' and 'Because I say so' are not compelling arguments, but that is what your arguments on this subject boil down to.

 

[Syriusly]

SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

So typical!! When they run out of equine excrement, they accuse others of being "emotional" and therefor think that they can dismiss the very rational argument that is being made. Really pathetic.

The argument you keep presenting is for equality of homosexual couples. That argument has been made before SCOTUS and a ruling issued. If you want to argue philosophically about it, we can do that but the law is a matter of record, I can't do anything about that. We've moved on to a new argument now, but you seem to be stuck like a broken record on the argument that is settled.

Boss's new argument: screw over all legally married couples so that in the end homosexuals will decide not to get married.

Because of course heterosexuals marry only for love- and not for any legal benefits.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

So typical!! When they run out of equine excrement, they accuse others of being "emotional" and therefor think that they can dismiss the very rational argument that is being made. Really pathetic.

The argument you keep presenting is for equality of homosexual couples. That argument has been made before SCOTUS and a ruling issued. If you want to argue philosophically about it, we can do that but the law is a matter of record, I can't do anything about that. We've moved on to a new argument now, but you seem to be stuck like a broken record on the argument that is settled.

And I have moved on also. But, because you can't deal with the facts and the logic that I presented , you pretend that I said something else. The argument that I am now making is for the equality of all people-straight and gay- who have the ability to marry vs. those who would not if any state refused to sanction marriage. You just can't seem to get that.

 

[Skylar]

As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties

A contract of marriage....that is recognized as a record of marriage by the State of Alabama and the Department of Health of Alabama. Says who? Says SB377:

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

Yet you keep ignoring the very bill you claim to be citing. A bill you've never even read. Worse, you're insisting there will be zero laws to accomindate marriage. And of course, you're wrong. Says who? Says SB377 of course!

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

So 'zero laws to accommodate marriage'.....except for every law currently on book, statutory or common law.

Again, you ignore the very bill you claim to cite. And you have nothing save your imagination to back your claims. You're literally making this shit up as you go along. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[Faun]

SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

How do you envision the state verifies the legality of the marriage?

 

[Boss]

SB377 doesn't make the slightest mention of 'sanctioning marriage'. That's you citing you. Which is meaningless gibber-jabber.

And the 14th Amendment doesn't make the slightest mention of Gay Marriage, so how about a big tall glass of STFU?

 

[Boss]

I'd still like to see your definition of 'sanctioning marriage'. From everything you've posted, it appears to be 'requiring a license to obtain a civil marriage'.

When you obtain a driver's license, what does that mean?
When you obtain a hunting license, what does that mean?
When you obtain a business license, what does that mean?

What does your 3rd grade dictionary say is the meaning of "license?"

Are you objecting to the use of the word "sanctioning" or what? Why is this such a problem for your obtuse ass to understand? A "licensing" denotes an approval, endorsement, sanctioning or permission from the issuing authority. A "contract" denotes a legal instrument between parties, of which the administrator of the contract itself, may or may not be a party to. In this case, the State is not a party. You're not marrying the State and the State is not marrying you.

Now, Montro... I really don't know how much simpler I can explain this to you. If you still can't comprehend the difference between issuing a licence and providing a contract, there's not much more I can do. I've patiently explained this several times now, and you keep coming back with the same befuddlement. I am done explaining it.

 

[Boss]

As for State recognition of marriage, we've been through this... very slowly, so you could comprehend. But you want to ignore that and cling to your ignorance. The State issuing a license is not the same as the State making contracts available for interested parties

A contract of marriage....that is recognized as a record of marriage by the State of Alabama and the Department of Health of Alabama. Says who? Says SB377:

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

Yet you keep ignoring the very bill you claim to be citing. A bill you've never even read. Worse, you're insisting there will be zero laws to accomindate marriage. And of course, you're wrong. Says who? Says SB377 of course!

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

So 'zero laws to accommodate marriage'.....except for every law currently on book, statutory or common law.

Again, you ignore the very bill you claim to cite. And you have nothing save your imagination to back your claims. You're literally making this shit up as you go along. And you have no idea what you're talking about.

*sigh* This is getting really boring. All you are doing is citing the parts of the legislation which ensure the bill complies with all aspects of federal law and SCOTUS rulings. There is really not any point in passing some unconstitutional and rebellious defiance of federal law because it obviously couldn't be allowed to stand. So the law covers all the bases of the requirements mandated by SCOTUS and the federal government. Leaving you with absolutely no argument against it.

Most halfway intelligent people should be able to surmise, there is really no point in passing a bill that does nothing and changes nothing. So what does this bill change? As I've explained numerous times to you and others, it removes the state from association with the act. They will not be approving, licensing, sanctioning or otherwise condoning your gay marriage. They will provide the required statutory administration, paperwork and recording of information as they are subject to do by federal law. That is not to be confused with their official recognition of your marriage.

If you want to argue that the State is still "recognizing" gay marriage... that's fine with me, I don't care... sounds like you've found a way to accept the law. So why are we having all this trouble? Why can't you just say, hey, glad you guys worked this out and found a way to resolve your issues with regard to sanctioning of gay marriage? Seems to me this would be a cause to celebrate.

Instead, you want to denigrate, attack, insult, ridicule and mock anything that doesn't march in lockstep with your worldview. Even when there is nothing to fight about, you want to pick a fight. You just can't stand it.

 

[Boss]

SB377 doesn't eliminate a single 'perk' or a change a single marriage law save the method of entering into marriage.

Destroying your entire argument.

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

So typical!! When they run out of equine excrement, they accuse others of being "emotional" and therefor think that they can dismiss the very rational argument that is being made. Really pathetic.

The argument you keep presenting is for equality of homosexual couples. That argument has been made before SCOTUS and a ruling issued. If you want to argue philosophically about it, we can do that but the law is a matter of record, I can't do anything about that. We've moved on to a new argument now, but you seem to be stuck like a broken record on the argument that is settled.

And I have moved on also. But, because you can't deal with the facts and the logic that I presented , you pretend that I said something else. The argument that I am now making is for the equality of all people-straight and gay- who have the ability to marry vs. those who would not if any state refused to sanction marriage. You just can't seem to get that.

Well no you clearly haven't moved on, you are still mewing about equality. There is no requirement in the Constitution for the State to sanction marriages. Just not there. All the statutory requirements and legal contractual instruments will still be administered as they always have been, as others have pointed out, this doesn't change that.

What Alabama is essentially going to do is replace marriage licenses with civil union contracts. Something I have personally been advocating for more than a decade. This resolves the problem for everyone involved. Society, churches, individuals all get to define marriage however they please and the government is not a party to that.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

So typical!! When they run out of equine excrement, they accuse others of being "emotional" and therefor think that they can dismiss the very rational argument that is being made. Really pathetic.

The argument you keep presenting is for equality of homosexual couples. That argument has been made before SCOTUS and a ruling issued. If you want to argue philosophically about it, we can do that but the law is a matter of record, I can't do anything about that. We've moved on to a new argument now, but you seem to be stuck like a broken record on the argument that is settled.

And I have moved on also. But, because you can't deal with the facts and the logic that I presented , you pretend that I said something else. The argument that I am now making is for the equality of all people-straight and gay- who have the ability to marry vs. those who would not if any state refused to sanction marriage. You just can't seem to get that.

Well no you clearly haven't moved on, you are still mewing about equality. There is no requirement in the Constitution for the State to sanction marriages. Just not there. All the statutory requirements and legal contractual instruments will still be administered as they always have been, as others have pointed out, this doesn't change that.

What Alabama is essentially going to do is replace marriage licenses with civil union contracts. Something I have personally been advocating for more than a decade. This resolves the problem for everyone involved. Society, churches, individuals all get to define marriage however they please and the government is not a party to that.

Oh Christ big guy. Is it possible that you really don't understand what is going on here or what I've been saying? I actually agreed with you on the issue of what constitutional law says and does not say about marriage. You're not even going to try to deal with what I had to say about "equal protection" and the conundrum that it presents for the abolition of government sanctioned marriage and the benefits that go with it-UNLESS you can abolish marriage across the board in one swoop everywhere, for everyone-which cannot happen for the reasons that I clearly explained.

See post 635 above! You had nothing to say about it directly. I invited you to try to refute the logic that I presented. You cannot even touch it. Unless you can explain how I'm wrong, this is over. You nonsensical pipe dream about ending marriage is not happening.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

SB377 doesn't make the slightest mention of 'sanctioning marriage'. That's you citing you. Which is meaningless gibber-jabber.

And the 14th Amendment doesn't make the slightest mention of Gay Marriage, so how about a big tall glass of STFU?

Brilliant big guy! Just fucking brilliant. Did you actually think that you had to tell anybody here that the 14th does not mention gay marriage? To think that you did have to- to present that as some sort of profound insight is very telling about your level of functioning and understanding of the constitution.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

I'd still like to see your definition of 'sanctioning marriage'. From everything you've posted, it appears to be 'requiring a license to obtain a civil marriage'.

When you obtain a driver's license, what does that mean?
When you obtain a hunting license, what does that mean?
When you obtain a business license, what does that mean?

What does your 3rd grade dictionary say is the meaning of "license?"

Are you objecting to the use of the word "sanctioning" or what? Why is this such a problem for your obtuse ass to understand? A "licensing" denotes an approval, endorsement, sanctioning or permission from the issuing authority. A "contract" denotes a legal instrument between parties, of which the administrator of the contract itself, may or may not be a party to. In this case, the State is not a party. You're not marrying the State and the State is not marrying you.

Now, Montro... I really don't know how much simpler I can explain this to you. If you still can't comprehend the difference between issuing a licence and providing a contract, there's not much more I can do. I've patiently explained this several times now, and you keep coming back with the same befuddlement. I am done explaining it.

Sweet Home Alabama!! To keep things in perspective.....these are the people who we are dealing with there. I'm not sure who is more bizarre, you or them

Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker: State Courts Must Defy The Supreme Court's Gay Marriage Ruling
Submitted by Kyle Mantyla on Tuesday, 10/6/2015 3:53 pm
On his radio program today, Bryan Fischer interviewed Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker, a former Religious Right activist and aide to Chief Justice Roy Moore who has become a radical justice in his own right, for two segments about the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling earlier this year.

After making the case that the Obergefell decision does not even apply to Alabama, Parker absurdly asserted that the Supreme Court had no grounds upon which to issue the decision in the first place because gays are not being denied equal treatment under the law since everyone is free to marry someone of the opposite sex.

As such, Parker said, it is imperative that state supreme courts stand up to the U.S. Supreme Court in defiance of its ruling in this case in order to foment a "revival" that will return this nation to its founding principles.

- See more at: Alabama Supreme Court Justice Tom Parker: State Courts Must Defy The Supreme Court's Gay Marriage Ruling

 

[Faun]

SB377 doesn't make the slightest mention of 'sanctioning marriage'. That's you citing you. Which is meaningless gibber-jabber.

And the 14th Amendment doesn't make the slightest mention of Gay Marriage, so how about a big tall glass of STFU?

You're fucking deranged.

The 14th Amendment applies to all laws which includes laws pertaining to marriage.

 

[Faun]

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

So typical!! When they run out of equine excrement, they accuse others of being "emotional" and therefor think that they can dismiss the very rational argument that is being made. Really pathetic.

The argument you keep presenting is for equality of homosexual couples. That argument has been made before SCOTUS and a ruling issued. If you want to argue philosophically about it, we can do that but the law is a matter of record, I can't do anything about that. We've moved on to a new argument now, but you seem to be stuck like a broken record on the argument that is settled.

And I have moved on also. But, because you can't deal with the facts and the logic that I presented , you pretend that I said something else. The argument that I am now making is for the equality of all people-straight and gay- who have the ability to marry vs. those who would not if any state refused to sanction marriage. You just can't seem to get that.

Well no you clearly haven't moved on, you are still mewing about equality. There is no requirement in the Constitution for the State to sanction marriages. Just not there. All the statutory requirements and legal contractual instruments will still be administered as they always have been, as others have pointed out, this doesn't change that.

What Alabama is essentially going to do is replace marriage licenses with civil union contracts. Something I have personally been advocating for more than a decade. This resolves the problem for everyone involved. Society, churches, individuals all get to define marriage however they please and the government is not a party to that.

Are you saying Alabama will only recognize civil unions and not marriage?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

So typical!! When they run out of equine excrement, they accuse others of being "emotional" and therefor think that they can dismiss the very rational argument that is being made. Really pathetic.

The argument you keep presenting is for equality of homosexual couples. That argument has been made before SCOTUS and a ruling issued. If you want to argue philosophically about it, we can do that but the law is a matter of record, I can't do anything about that. We've moved on to a new argument now, but you seem to be stuck like a broken record on the argument that is settled.

And I have moved on also. But, because you can't deal with the facts and the logic that I presented , you pretend that I said something else. The argument that I am now making is for the equality of all people-straight and gay- who have the ability to marry vs. those who would not if any state refused to sanction marriage. You just can't seem to get that.

Well no you clearly haven't moved on, you are still mewing about equality. There is no requirement in the Constitution for the State to sanction marriages. Just not there. All the statutory requirements and legal contractual instruments will still be administered as they always have been, as others have pointed out, this doesn't change that.

What Alabama is essentially going to do is replace marriage licenses with civil union contracts. Something I have personally been advocating for more than a decade. This resolves the problem for everyone involved. Society, churches, individuals all get to define marriage however they please and the government is not a party to that.

Civil contracts DO NOT solve the pesky problem of federal recognition as marriage and therefor the loss of federal benefits. I point that out in #535 above which you are still ignoring because you can't get around that. The result of civil unions or contracts will be the unequal treatment -by the federal government between those who have "marriage" and those who do not. That is an actionable violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment. I don't now how many more ways I can explain that to you.

 

[Montrovant]

I'd still like to see your definition of 'sanctioning marriage'. From everything you've posted, it appears to be 'requiring a license to obtain a civil marriage'.

When you obtain a driver's license, what does that mean?
When you obtain a hunting license, what does that mean?
When you obtain a business license, what does that mean?

What does your 3rd grade dictionary say is the meaning of "license?"

Are you objecting to the use of the word "sanctioning" or what? Why is this such a problem for your obtuse ass to understand? A "licensing" denotes an approval, endorsement, sanctioning or permission from the issuing authority. A "contract" denotes a legal instrument between parties, of which the administrator of the contract itself, may or may not be a party to. In this case, the State is not a party. You're not marrying the State and the State is not marrying you.

Now, Montro... I really don't know how much simpler I can explain this to you. If you still can't comprehend the difference between issuing a licence and providing a contract, there's not much more I can do. I've patiently explained this several times now, and you keep coming back with the same befuddlement. I am done explaining it.

I object to your unsubstantiated claim that removing the licensing requirement of marriage means the state no longer sanctions or recognizes marriages. I object to your claim that marriage becomes a contract without a license.

The state of Alabama would still sanction and recognize marriages after the bill as before. The only difference would be in how the marriages are obtained.

Marriage, even with a license, is still a form of contract. So saying that without a license marriage becomes a contract is ridiculous.

You have yet to provide a single shred of evidence other than your own opinion that the issuance of a license is the determining factor in whether the state sanctions something. While getting a license certainly indicates approval by the state, that doesn't preclude the ability to gain state approval through other means. One might obtain a permit or file appropriate paperwork for a state sanctioned activity. What makes you think that a license is the only valid way for something to be state sanctioned?

You can be done explaining if you like. That's pretty easy for you considering your explanations have contained no actual evidence.

 

[Skylar]

Great! Then you should have no problem with it whatsoever!

Why all the emotion?

Emotion? I'm just stating the facts.

SB377 doesn't eliminate Alabama's recognition of marriage. A contract of marriage is a legal record of a marriage under SB377. Its still filed with the Department of Health, just like licenses are now. There's no mention of any refusal to acknowledge marriages from other States in SB377. And SB377 changes no marriage laws save the method of entering a marriage.

None of your imaginary nonsense is actually part of the bill. And your imagination isn't 'killing homosexual marriage'.

See how that works?

So typical!! When they run out of equine excrement, they accuse others of being "emotional" and therefor think that they can dismiss the very rational argument that is being made. Really pathetic.

The argument you keep presenting is for equality of homosexual couples. That argument has been made before SCOTUS and a ruling issued. If you want to argue philosophically about it, we can do that but the law is a matter of record, I can't do anything about that. We've moved on to a new argument now, but you seem to be stuck like a broken record on the argument that is settled.

And I have moved on also. But, because you can't deal with the facts and the logic that I presented , you pretend that I said something else. The argument that I am now making is for the equality of all people-straight and gay- who have the ability to marry vs. those who would not if any state refused to sanction marriage. You just can't seem to get that.

Well no you clearly haven't moved on, you are still mewing about equality. There is no requirement in the Constitution for the State to sanction marriages

Irrelevant. As the law is talking about 'sanctioning' anything. SB377 doesn't even mention the word. You do. Citing you. Making it meaningless to our discussion.

Alabama recognizes marriage, records marriages, has both statutory and common law regarding marriage. None of which changes under SB377. Making your assertion about 'sanctioning' gloriously irrelevant to SB377 or your fantasies about 'killing homosexual marriage'.

Remember, and this point is fundamental: you you have no idea what you're talking about.

Just not there. All the statutory requirements and legal contractual instruments will still be administered as they always have been, as others have pointed out, this doesn't change that.

You're not one of those 'others'. You're the poor, confused soul who insisted that there would be NO law accomidating marriage.

LOL... And now, there will be ZERO laws to accommodate ZERO kinds of marriage. Subsequently, ZERO discrimination or inequity. --Game Over!

Post 11
Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 2 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I'm glad that you've finally admitted that no laws changes save how marriage is entered into, that you didn't know what you were talking about, and that you've based your entire pseudo-legal argument on your own misconceptions.

Gay marriage is fine. And SB377 does nothing to it. Nor even mentions it.

 

[Skylar]

I'd still like to see your definition of 'sanctioning marriage'. From everything you've posted, it appears to be 'requiring a license to obtain a civil marriage'.

When you obtain a driver's license, what does that mean?
When you obtain a hunting license, what does that mean?
When you obtain a business license, what does that mean?

What does your 3rd grade dictionary say is the meaning of "license?"

Are you objecting to the use of the word "sanctioning" or what? Why is this such a problem for your obtuse ass to understand? A "licensing" denotes an approval, endorsement, sanctioning or permission from the issuing authority. A "contract" denotes a legal instrument between parties, of which the administrator of the contract itself, may or may not be a party to. In this case, the State is not a party. You're not marrying the State and the State is not marrying you.

Now, Montro... I really don't know how much simpler I can explain this to you. If you still can't comprehend the difference between issuing a licence and providing a contract, there's not much more I can do. I've patiently explained this several times now, and you keep coming back with the same befuddlement. I am done explaining it.

I object to your unsubstantiated claim that removing the licensing requirement of marriage means the state no longer sanctions or recognizes marriages. I object to your claim that marriage becomes a contract without a license.

Of course you do. As both claims are blithering idiocy. The contract of marriage is a legal record of marriage, held at the Department of Health of Alabama. Just like licenses are now. No marriage laws change save how marriage is entered into. With that lone exception every law regarding marriage that exists today exists after SB377.

Which even Boss has admitted. This after insisting that there would be NO laws accomdinating marriage. Simply destroying his entire argument.

Boss, as is so tedious typical, doesn't have the slightest idea what he's talking about. Nor can he, even hypothetically, explain how SB377 would 'kill homosexual marriage'. Making the entire OP little more than a demonstration of Shakespeare's more memorable quotes:

"It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."