Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Sally Vater]

It's time for civil disobedience. Time to ignore the bureaucrats and their pawns who are shoving their agenda down our throats. They can't put us all in jail.

 

[Boss]

So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?

By itself, it doesn't. That's why you'd need to read the entire OP to comprehend.

Killing homosexual marriage is about cultural change not legal change. We all know the only way to kill homosexual marriage legally now is through a constitutional amendment. That could happen but it's not likely to succeed. So our option of legally killing it is gone. My solution is mainly cultural. It starts with removing state association and affiliation with all marriage. As we remove the government benefits and perks to "marriage" the motivation to marry will decline among groups whom marriage isn't a religious tenet. If it makes no difference regarding benefits and there is no compelling religious reason, then it simply becomes matter of decorum. Some gay couples may still wish to go through with that but I surmise that most will not bother. And, we're talking about less than 10% of the population who are gay to begin with, so now we're talking about a very minute rarity.

Your solution will 'kill marriage' equally for all Alabaman's which to be fair- is equitable. Some heterosexual couples may still wish to go through with it, but most will not bother. Just like most gay couples will not bother.

Of course your solution screws all Americans who want to be legally married- like my wife and myself.

But that is okay to you- because it would 'kill homosexual marriage'

It is also the reason why your 'proposal' will go nowhere.

Okay, so now you've swung back to an argument that your rights are being denied somehow.

I have not said that I want to kill marriage for everyone. If you want to marry your mailbox, I believe you have that right... I don't have to agree with your opinion of what constitutes marriage. Although, when it comes to benefits and sanctioning, I don't believe I should be forced to sanction your opinion and disregard my own. I want "marriage" to be defined by the individual and not government. I want the government to offer NO benefits to married couples, gay or otherwise. There is no Constitutional requirement to force States to endorse or sanction any marriage.... the SCOTUS ruling is about equal application but if there is no application it is equal.

 

[Skylar]

So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?

By itself, it doesn't. That's why you'd need to read the entire OP to comprehend.

Killing homosexual marriage is about cultural change not legal change. We all know the only way to kill homosexual marriage legally now is through a constitutional amendment. That could happen but it's not likely to succeed. So our option of legally killing it is gone. My solution is mainly cultural. It starts with removing state association and affiliation with all marriage. As we remove the government benefits and perks to "marriage" the motivation to marry will decline among groups whom marriage isn't a religious tenet. If it makes no difference regarding benefits and there is no compelling religious reason, then it simply becomes matter of decorum. Some gay couples may still wish to go through with that but I surmise that most will not bother. And, we're talking about less than 10% of the population who are gay to begin with, so now we're talking about a very minute rarity.

Your solution will 'kill marriage' equally for all Alabaman's which to be fair- is equitable. Some heterosexual couples may still wish to go through with it, but most will not bother. Just like most gay couples will not bother.

Of course your solution screws all Americans who want to be legally married- like my wife and myself.

But that is okay to you- because it would 'kill homosexual marriage'

It is also the reason why your 'proposal' will go nowhere.

Okay, so now you've swung back to an argument that your rights are being denied somehow.

I have not said that I want to kill marriage for everyone. If you want to marry your mailbox, I believe you have that right... I don't have to agree with your opinion of what constitutes marriage.

Yeah, SB377 doesn't recognize marriage between a person and a mailbox. Most likely because a mail box is inanimate and lacks the capacity for consent necessary to enter into any legal agreement.

SB377 does however recognize marriage. And it isn't on the basis of your 'opinion'. Its on the basis of the criteria of the law. With contracts of marriage being legal records of marriage in Alabama.

Although, when it comes to benefits and sanctioning, I don't believe I should be forced to sanction your opinion and disregard my own.

Again, the standard of the law isn't 'what you believe'. Nor does SB377 make any mention of 'sanctioning'. In any capacity. The arguments you're making aren't part of Alabama law, or SB377. Neither of which contain the changes that you propose.

Nor does any State. Nor does any bill with any significant support. Nor is there significant support among the public of eliminating state recognition of marriage, repealing all marriage laws, or removing the 'perks' of marriage.

So your proposal lacks any legal foundation in existing law. It lacks any legal foundation in proposed law. And the people don't want it.

Making it nothing more than an imaginary wish list.

I want "marriage" to be defined by the individual and not government. I want the government to offer NO benefits to married couples, gay or otherwise. There is no Constitutional requirement to force States to endorse or sanction any marriage.... the SCOTUS ruling is about equal application but if there is no application it is equal.

There's no support for that among the people. Especially the married ones. And no one is proposing that. Not Alabama, not SB377.

Just you. And you aren't nearly enough.

 

[Syriusly]

So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?

By itself, it doesn't. That's why you'd need to read the entire OP to comprehend.

Killing homosexual marriage is about cultural change not legal change. We all know the only way to kill homosexual marriage legally now is through a constitutional amendment. That could happen but it's not likely to succeed. So our option of legally killing it is gone. My solution is mainly cultural. It starts with removing state association and affiliation with all marriage. As we remove the government benefits and perks to "marriage" the motivation to marry will decline among groups whom marriage isn't a religious tenet. If it makes no difference regarding benefits and there is no compelling religious reason, then it simply becomes matter of decorum. Some gay couples may still wish to go through with that but I surmise that most will not bother. And, we're talking about less than 10% of the population who are gay to begin with, so now we're talking about a very minute rarity.

Your solution will 'kill marriage' equally for all Alabaman's which to be fair- is equitable. Some heterosexual couples may still wish to go through with it, but most will not bother. Just like most gay couples will not bother.

Of course your solution screws all Americans who want to be legally married- like my wife and myself.

But that is okay to you- because it would 'kill homosexual marriage'

It is also the reason why your 'proposal' will go nowhere.

Okay, so now you've swung back to an argument that your rights are being denied somehow.
.

And where did I say anything about my rights being denied?

Just provide that quote.

 

[Syriusly]

It's time for civil disobedience. Time to ignore the bureaucrats and their pawns who are shoving their agenda down our throats. They can't put us all in jail.

I agree- go to courthouses everywhere- and openly refuse to get married to homosexuals.

They can't put you all in jail!

LOL

 

[Faun]

It's time for civil disobedience. Time to ignore the bureaucrats and their pawns who are shoving their agenda down our throats. They can't put us all in jail.

Why can't they?

 

[Syriusly]

So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?

By itself, it doesn't. That's why you'd need to read the entire OP to comprehend.

Killing homosexual marriage is about cultural change not legal change. We all know the only way to kill homosexual marriage legally now is through a constitutional amendment. That could happen but it's not likely to succeed. So our option of legally killing it is gone. My solution is mainly cultural. It starts with removing state association and affiliation with all marriage. As we remove the government benefits and perks to "marriage" the motivation to marry will decline among groups whom marriage isn't a religious tenet. If it makes no difference regarding benefits and there is no compelling religious reason, then it simply becomes matter of decorum. Some gay couples may still wish to go through with that but I surmise that most will not bother. And, we're talking about less than 10% of the population who are gay to begin with, so now we're talking about a very minute rarity.

You're fucking deranged.

The vast majority of people, straight and gay, marry to make a life long commitment to the person they love, not for government benefits.

Eliminating those benefits, even if you could, would not dissuade many from getting married.

But you do reveal how enormously butthurt you are over same-sex marriage; and dayam! Those fags sure kicked your ass, huh? There was a time folks like you were suggesting straight folks get to marry but gays would have to settle for civil unions.... they fucked you so hard, you're now eager to take away marriage from straight folks.

But he is willing to fuck over all married couples- just so he can 'kill homosexual' marriage.

Because of course eliminating legal marriage would fuck over every legally married couple in the United States.

But maybe he is willing to just limit it to fucking over married couples in Alabama?

 

[Boss]

Yeah, SB377 doesn't recognize marriage between a person and a mailbox.

It doesn't recognize ANY marriage from an official state standpoint... that is the point.

 

[Boss]

So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?

By itself, it doesn't. That's why you'd need to read the entire OP to comprehend.

Killing homosexual marriage is about cultural change not legal change. We all know the only way to kill homosexual marriage legally now is through a constitutional amendment. That could happen but it's not likely to succeed. So our option of legally killing it is gone. My solution is mainly cultural. It starts with removing state association and affiliation with all marriage. As we remove the government benefits and perks to "marriage" the motivation to marry will decline among groups whom marriage isn't a religious tenet. If it makes no difference regarding benefits and there is no compelling religious reason, then it simply becomes matter of decorum. Some gay couples may still wish to go through with that but I surmise that most will not bother. And, we're talking about less than 10% of the population who are gay to begin with, so now we're talking about a very minute rarity.

Your solution will 'kill marriage' equally for all Alabaman's which to be fair- is equitable. Some heterosexual couples may still wish to go through with it, but most will not bother. Just like most gay couples will not bother.

Of course your solution screws all Americans who want to be legally married- like my wife and myself.

But that is okay to you- because it would 'kill homosexual marriage'

It is also the reason why your 'proposal' will go nowhere.

Okay, so now you've swung back to an argument that your rights are being denied somehow.
.

And where did I say anything about my rights being denied?

Just provide that quote.

Well, when you say it "screws you" then it implies a damage to something you think you are entitled to. You've not explained how removing state sanctioning of marriage "screws" anyone. It is your opinion which seem to be that you are screwed if the state doesn't sanction what you're doing.

It's certainly not "screwing" you to treat you equally to everyone else.

 

[Faun]

So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?

By itself, it doesn't. That's why you'd need to read the entire OP to comprehend.

Killing homosexual marriage is about cultural change not legal change. We all know the only way to kill homosexual marriage legally now is through a constitutional amendment. That could happen but it's not likely to succeed. So our option of legally killing it is gone. My solution is mainly cultural. It starts with removing state association and affiliation with all marriage. As we remove the government benefits and perks to "marriage" the motivation to marry will decline among groups whom marriage isn't a religious tenet. If it makes no difference regarding benefits and there is no compelling religious reason, then it simply becomes matter of decorum. Some gay couples may still wish to go through with that but I surmise that most will not bother. And, we're talking about less than 10% of the population who are gay to begin with, so now we're talking about a very minute rarity.

You're fucking deranged.

The vast majority of people, straight and gay, marry to make a life long commitment to the person they love, not for government benefits.

Eliminating those benefits, even if you could, would not dissuade many from getting married.

But you do reveal how enormously butthurt you are over same-sex marriage; and dayam! Those fags sure kicked your ass, huh? There was a time folks like you were suggesting straight folks get to marry but gays would have to settle for civil unions.... they fucked you so hard, you're now eager to take away marriage from straight folks.

But he is willing to fuck over all married couples- just so he can 'kill homosexual' marriage.

Because of course eliminating legal marriage would fuck over every legally married couple in the United States.

But maybe he is willing to just limit it to fucking over married couples in Alabama?

Nah, he's just fucking deranged. For his insidious plan to work, all fifty states would have to pass similar legislation. Otherwise, Alabamian who still want a state-issued marriage license will simply cross the border to a state which issues them. Alabama, of course, will still have to recognize them as legally binding marriages.

But if such lunacy were to occurr in some states, I can see a time when Democrats control the Congress where they give states additional federal funding to states which still issue marriage licenses. Blue states will get that whereas all non-participating red states will not.

 

[Skylar]

Yeah, SB377 doesn't recognize marriage between a person and a mailbox.

It doesn't recognize ANY marriage from an official state standpoint... that is the point.

Except that Alabama does, recognizing the contract of marriage as a legal record of marriage and holding these records with 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.

Exactly as they do with marriage licenses. Nor are there the slightest changes to any marriage law save the method of entering a marriage:

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.

You claim that Alabama doesn't recognize any marriage under SB377. Alabama never says this. SB377 never says this. But instead, explicitly contradicts you.

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

 

[Skylar]

So how would this be 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'?

By itself, it doesn't. That's why you'd need to read the entire OP to comprehend.

Killing homosexual marriage is about cultural change not legal change. We all know the only way to kill homosexual marriage legally now is through a constitutional amendment. That could happen but it's not likely to succeed. So our option of legally killing it is gone. My solution is mainly cultural. It starts with removing state association and affiliation with all marriage. As we remove the government benefits and perks to "marriage" the motivation to marry will decline among groups whom marriage isn't a religious tenet. If it makes no difference regarding benefits and there is no compelling religious reason, then it simply becomes matter of decorum. Some gay couples may still wish to go through with that but I surmise that most will not bother. And, we're talking about less than 10% of the population who are gay to begin with, so now we're talking about a very minute rarity.

You're fucking deranged.

The vast majority of people, straight and gay, marry to make a life long commitment to the person they love, not for government benefits.

Eliminating those benefits, even if you could, would not dissuade many from getting married.

But you do reveal how enormously butthurt you are over same-sex marriage; and dayam! Those fags sure kicked your ass, huh? There was a time folks like you were suggesting straight folks get to marry but gays would have to settle for civil unions.... they fucked you so hard, you're now eager to take away marriage from straight folks.

But he is willing to fuck over all married couples- just so he can 'kill homosexual' marriage.

Because of course eliminating legal marriage would fuck over every legally married couple in the United States.

But maybe he is willing to just limit it to fucking over married couples in Alabama?

Nah, he's just fucking deranged. For his insidious plan to work, all fifty states would have to pass similar legislation. Otherwise, Alabamian who still want a state-issued marriage license will simply cross the border to a state which issues them. Alabama, of course, will still have to recognize them as legally binding marriages.

Precisely. And the exact point I made when I joined the thread. The Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution negates Boss' entire premise.

 

[Faun]

Yeah, SB377 doesn't recognize marriage between a person and a mailbox.

It doesn't recognize ANY marriage from an official state standpoint... that is the point.

It still recognizes the marriage as legally binding and married couples will still receive all of the same benefits as they do now. All it changes is that judges in the state no longer preside over the marriage and clerks no longer would have to issue licenses. It enables judges and clerks in their state who may be opposed to gay marriage from having to participate in such marriages.

But every other aspect of marriage remains the same.

 

[Boss]

Most likely because a mail box is inanimate and lacks the capacity for consent necessary to enter into any legal agreement.

But I wasn't talking about the law. I was talking about your opinion of what constitutes marriage. The law doesn't say that you and I must agree on the definition of marriage. It simply states that (according to SCOTUS) we have to treat traditional marriage the same as gay marriage. So, if we no longer sanction ANY marriage, both are treated equally. You can have your definition, I can have my definition and the law doesn't endorse either definition or treat them unequally and unconstitutionally.

Again... what is your complaint? You don't seem to really have one here, other than you seem to just want to reject my opinion and cram your own opinion down my throat against my will... and that ain't happening.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's time for civil disobedience. Time to ignore the bureaucrats and their pawns who are shoving their agenda down our throats. They can't put us all in jail.

Ah! A new zombie troll bot in town. Welcome! Things were getting tedious around here. So Sally, what do you think about all of this? Do want to throw the baby out with the bathwater also, and if so how would you do it?

 

[Boss]

It still recognizes the marriage as legally binding and married couples will still receive all of the same benefits as they do now. All it changes is that judges in the state no longer preside over the marriage and clerks no longer would have to issue licenses. It enables judges and clerks in their state who may be opposed to gay marriage from having to participate in such marriages.

Right... so you have absolutely NO objects or complaints... Why are you complaining?

 

[Sally Vater]

It's time for civil disobedience. Time to ignore the bureaucrats and their pawns who are shoving their agenda down our throats. They can't put us all in jail.

Ah! A new zombie troll bot in town. Welcome! Things were getting tedious around here. So Sally, what do you think about all of this? Do want to throw the baby out with the bathwater also, and if so how would you do it?

I want constitutional government. The 14th amendment dealt exclusively with ex slaves and their children, period.

 

[Pop23]

Why are they held at the Health a department in the first place?

Presumably because they are vital records of the type the Heath Department keeps. Births, deaths, marriages, divorces, health statistics and the like. None of which fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But hey, its not like we expected you to know what the fuck you were talking about.

I wasn't aware that one needed to be married to give birth? Seems everything in your list is simply assumed as part of marriage with the exception of divorce, which is not unlike the dissolution of an s-corp or LLC and can easily be accounted for outside the health department.

Yet- all of those records are listed in the Health Department together.

Any records could be kept anywhere.

Why do you think that all of those records are typically maintained by Health Departments?

Tradition?

But traditions are horseshit to progressives

Well you have never been able to think of many reasons for anything other than 'tradition'.

Shows in the stunning failure by your ilk in the courts.

Oh my

Yet you still haven't come up with a compelling state reason to deny same sex siblings the right to marriage other than tradition.

Your "Ilk" cracks me up!

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

It's time for civil disobedience. Time to ignore the bureaucrats and their pawns who are shoving their agenda down our throats. They can't put us all in jail.

Ah! A new zombie troll bot in town. Welcome! Things were getting tedious around here. So Sally, what do you think about all of this? Do want to throw the baby out with the bathwater also, and if so how would you do it?

I want constitutional government. The 14th amendment dealt exclusively with ex slaves and their children, period.

Bzzzz Wrong. It does not say anything about slaves . Apparently you are not happy with Obergefell. Do you also disapprove of Loving?

 

[Pop23]

It actually makes a world of sense. Let's make clear what a marriage licence actually is. It's simply a contract between two individuals and should be treated no differently than an LLC or S-Corp.

LLCs and S-Corps aren't held with the Heath Department as a legal record of marriage. Nor do you have to go to court to end them. Nor do they involve child support, divorce, etc. Nor are they limited to two participants. Nor can only enter into one at a time. Nor are marriages limited in name to those that haven't been taken yet. Nor does a marriage require a registering agent. Nor does a marriage require articles of organization, an operating agreement, or any of the other self defined documents that an LLC needs. Nor does a marriage require a unique Employer Indentification number. Nor would marriages require a license under the contract model. Nor does a marriage fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But other than that laundry list of fundamental differences, oh, they're treated identically.

Why are they held at the Health a department in the first place?

Presumably because they are vital records of the type the Heath Department keeps. Births, deaths, marriages, divorces, health statistics and the like. None of which fall under the Uniform Commercial Code.

But hey, its not like we expected you to know what the fuck you were talking about.

I wasn't aware that one needed to be married to give birth? Seems everything in your list is simply assumed as part of marriage with the exception of divorce, which is not unlike the dissolution of an s-corp or LLC and can easily be accounted for outside the health department.

Yet- all of those records are listed in the Health Department together.

Any records could be kept anywhere.

Why do you think that all of those records are typically maintained by Health Departments?

marriage licenses were TRADITIONALLY tracked by health departments as a way to maintain healthy bloodlines.

So why now since same sex coupling can't produce children?