Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Pop23]

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?

And marriage licenses say nothing about the couple being required to have sex.

You forget about that?

 

[Skylar]

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.

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

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.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

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.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

 

[Boss]

Do want to throw the baby out with the bathwater

I've got another analogy besides the baby and bathwater... Cutting the head off the snake.

Remove state sanctioning of marriage, take away government benefits of marriage, and let culture take care of the rest. Moral and religious couples will still be married because that is an important aspect of their religious faith. Gay couples will not be as motivated because there is no impetus for being married anymore. In this environment, homosexual marriage becomes obsolete... a curiosity of the past... something that becomes pretty much a joke in social culture within a couple of decades.

Homosexuals represent less than 10% of society, so without this "perception of inequity" you have no support from heterosexuals because there is nothing to support. The reasons for the "perception of inequity" have been removed and no longer exist. Your rights are not being violated, you have the same "equality" as traditional couples, the state is just not a party to your action anymore.

 

[Skylar]

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?

What word salad jibber jabber is this?

Why are marriage records kept at the Department of Health in Alabama? Because that's where Alabama laws says they're stored.

I know you're trying to be clever and make some point about 'tradition'. But its awkward, forced, and worst of all...poorly thought through.

 

[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.

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

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.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

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.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

And the part I don't think you get is, I don't give two shits about what you think.

And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'

Great! Then you are not opposed to SB377 or any bill that is similar to it... correct?

 

[Pop23]

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.

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

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.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

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.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

 

[Boss]

Bzzzz Wrong. It does not say anything about slaves .

LMAO... Bzzz... it also doesn't say anything about marriage, gays or gay marriages.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

Really?

This is like your claim that the ONLY reason for laws against siblings marrying was regarding birth defects.

Just you pulling stuff out of your ass and asking us to believe that crap is a fact.

 

[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?

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?

What word salad jibber jabber is this?

Why are marriage records kept at the Department of Health in Alabama? Because that's where Alabama laws says they're stored.

I know you're trying to be clever and make some point about 'tradition'. But its awkward, forced, and worst of all...poorly thought through.

You stupid putz, there is a reason the department was chosen the depository of this information. That was to maintain records, easily discoverable for health purposes. Originally to insure that potentially incestuous couples could be discovered and denied state License.

You really are stoopid.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

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.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

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.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

And the part I don't think you get is, I don't give two shits about what you think.

And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'

Great! Then you are not opposed to SB377 or any bill that is similar to it... correct?

I am not.

SB377 will probably screw over Alabamans who get married- but if that is what Alabama wants to do- no skin off my back.

 

[Syriusly]

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?

What word salad jibber jabber is this?

Why are marriage records kept at the Department of Health in Alabama? Because that's where Alabama laws says they're stored.

I know you're trying to be clever and make some point about 'tradition'. But its awkward, forced, and worst of all...poorly thought through.

You stupid putz, there is a reason the department was chosen the depository of this information. That was to maintain records, easily discoverable for health purposes. Originally to insure that potentially incestuous couples could be discovered and denied state License.

You really are stoopid.

And you are just pulling crap out of your ass again.

 

[Skylar]

Do want to throw the baby out with the bathwater

I've got another analogy besides the baby and bathwater... Cutting the head off the snake.

Remove state sanctioning of marriage, take away government benefits of marriage, and let culture take care of the rest.

Again, SB377 doesn't do this. Alabama isn't proposing this. And there's little support for this with the public. And of course, its moot....as the Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution will require Alabama (and every other State) to honor marriages from other states.

There's just no plausible path to your proposal. Its a pipe dream.

Moral and religious couples will still be married because that is an important aspect of their religious faith. Gay couples will not be as motivated because there is no impetus for being married anymore. In this environment, homosexual marriage becomes obsolete... a curiosity of the past... something that becomes pretty much a joke in social culture within a couple of decades.

That assumes that gays and lesbians are neither moral nor religious. And that their only reason to get married is the 'perks'. None of which are accurate.

You are working with a series of nested fallacies, each dependant upon the last. And none of them factually accurate.

In a generation we'll look back at people like yourself with the same dumbounded mix of confusion and revulsion that we now experience when discussing folks like Leon Bazille and George Wallace. History is not going to be kind to your ilk.

Homosexuals represent less than 10% of society, so without this "perception of inequity" you have no support from heterosexuals because there is nothing to support. The reasons for the "perception of inequity" have been removed and no longer exist. Your rights are not being violated, you have the same "equality" as traditional couples, the state is just not a party to your action anymore.

Or.....we can just do nothing you propose. And get the same lack of inequality.

Its simpler, quicker and costs less. Which is why we're doing that.

 

[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?

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?

Really?

This is like your claim that the ONLY reason for laws against siblings marrying was regarding birth defects.

Just you pulling stuff out of your ass and asking us to believe that crap is a fact.

Then the other reasons were?

Deflection in 3.....2......1.......

 

[Pop23]

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?

What word salad jibber jabber is this?

Why are marriage records kept at the Department of Health in Alabama? Because that's where Alabama laws says they're stored.

I know you're trying to be clever and make some point about 'tradition'. But its awkward, forced, and worst of all...poorly thought through.

You stupid putz, there is a reason the department was chosen the depository of this information. That was to maintain records, easily discoverable for health purposes. Originally to insure that potentially incestuous couples could be discovered and denied state License.

You really are stoopid.

And you are just pulling crap out of your ass again.

I guess you're well versed at pulling things out of your ass, aren't you.

 

[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.

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

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.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

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.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

 

[Skylar]

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?

Because you've grossly mischaracterized the bill repeatedly and systematically. Insisting it does things it doesn't do, insisting it is based on ideas it never mentions.

Its your misconceptions we're criticizing. Not SB377.

Get it?

 

[Syriusly]

Do want to throw the baby out with the bathwater

I've got another analogy besides the baby and bathwater... Cutting the head off the snake.

Remove state sanctioning of marriage, take away government benefits of marriage, and let culture take care of the rest. Moral and religious couples will still be married because that is an important aspect of their religious faith. Gay couples will not be as motivated because there is no impetus for being married anymore. In this environment, homosexual marriage becomes obsolete... a curiosity of the past... something that becomes pretty much a joke in social culture within a couple of decades.

Heterosexual couples will not be as motivated because there is no impetus for being married anymore. IN this environment marriage becomes obsolete- a curiousity of the past...something that pretty much a joke in social culture within a couple of decades.

Of course it would screw over every married couple in America.

Makes me more and more convinced that you are neither married, nor have ever been married.

 

[Pop23]

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.

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

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.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

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.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

If I am Jewish, I might believe that the only legitimate marriage for me it to a Jewish woman. The State can't tell me that I can't marry a Jewish woman or that I must marry a Catholic woman. Take it completely out of a religious context... the State can't tell me that I have to marry a brunette woman or a fat woman. If I want to marry a blond skinny woman, that's my own criteria and the state is not involved with that.

It's funny how these pinheads think.

 

[Boss]

I am not.

SB377 will probably screw over Alabamans who get married- but if that is what Alabama wants to do- no skin off my back.

GOOD! Then you need to shut your yapper and move on.

 

[Skylar]

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.

And I'm talking about what the law recognizes as marriage. The law isn't based on your opinion. Its based on the criteria of the law within the constraints of constitutional guarantees.

You 'want' marriage to be defined by the individual. But it isn't. Not in any State. Not in Alabama. Not under SB377. Not in any proposed law.

So your 'want' really has nothing to do with the legal status of marriage in this country. Nor is there any significant chance of it being enacted.

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.

But Alabama still recognizes marriage. Under its current law. Under SB377. It makes no mention of 'sanctioning'. Not in the current law. Nor in the proposed bill.

So your again offering us your desires rather than what the law or evidence indicates is likely. And this is one of the major reasons your predictions of future legal outcomes is so consistently bad. As you keep equating what you want to happen...with what will.

They aren't necessarily the same thing. And in this case, are actually opposites.

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.

Obviously I've reject your claim that Alabama won't recognize marriage under SB377. I've repeatedly told you you've misrepresented the bill. And I've explained to you how nothing in the bill or legislation of any state is 'killing homosexual marriage'.

You can hold whatever opinion you'd like about the Alabama bill. It doesn't change based on that opinion. And that's the part I don't think you get.

Sure it's defined by the individuals you pinhead.

Obtaining a marriage licence only requires that the individuals meet a few criteria, which is not defining the marriage, it simply sets minimum standards.

The individuals get to define what the marriage is to them.

Not the State.

Also, the State does not have to meet my criteria for what constitutes a marriage. It doesn't have to sanction it or recognize it, but it can't control my personal opinion of what makes a marriage.

Back in reality, every State does recognize marriage. And they set the critiera for that marriage within the bounds of constitutional guarantees.

Again, nothing you've proposed is happening anywhere. Nor is there any significant public support for any of it. Even Alabama, your poster child, does *nothing* you propose. With SB377 having no relevance to your descriptions.

You have nothing. Not existing law. Not proposed law. Not public support. With doing nothing providing us with all the benefits that you propose. For free and instantly.