Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Boss]

You keep ignoring the fact that Alabama recognizes common law marriages and those are marriages without license. You keep ignoring that licensed marriage is a form of contract law.

When did I ignore that?

 

[Skylar]

Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?

Maybe YOU should explain why we can deny a constitutional right to one couple and not another?

I mean, I see you saying that fathers can't marry daughters "cuz it ain't right" but I'm not seeing how that is any different from the argument made against homosexuals marrying. And I don't see you explaining that, other than to say "t'aint normal!"

I asked before, what is the compelling reason for the state to deny a marriage license to two homosexual brothers? Previously, sibling marriage wasn't allowed because of the humanitarian concerns regarding procreation but that was when marriage was male-female and it's not that anymore. So that same concern no longer exists as a reason to exclude certain siblings from marriage. On what basis are you now discriminating?

There are several problems with you post.

• You keep saying that I am saying "I see you saying that fathers can't marry daughters "cuz it ain't right" - but that of course is to be charitable- false. I haven't said that at all.
  
• I have explained repeatedly why a constitutional right can be denied to one couple and not to another- for the same reason a state can deny the right to legally own a gun to one person- but not another. Why should I explain it again- when you will ignore it again?
• But I will anyway- the State can deny a right when there is a compelling benefit- a legitimate interest- to the State- quoting from Wisconsin again:.

but if the state is going to deprive an entire class of citizens of a right as fundamental as
marriage, then it must do more than say “this is the way it has always been” or “we’re not
ready yet.” At the very least it must make a showing that the deprivation furthers a
legitimate interest separate from a wish to maintain the status quo
...
Accordingly, this interest, like all the others asserted by defendants and amici, does not provide a legitimate
basis for discriminating against same-sex couples.

• And what is that 'compelling state interest'? Well an interest most people can figure out- but not you?
  
• Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?

LMFAooo... A-GAIN.... you tear off on a long-winded rant that simply dodges the question!

"Most people can figure out why it's wrong" is NOT answering the question!

In fact, it is the very SAME ARGUMENT made by those who once opposed gay marriages.

SUDDENLY... it seems to be a valid argument!

'Dodging the question"? Here's one that you run screaming from every time I ask it:

How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage under SB377.....when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377?

Gee, I wonder what your excuse for refusing to answer will be this time?

 

[Montrovant]

Reason, on your part, is to claim that removing licensing is removing state sanction and recognition of marriage.....while providing no evidence or reason why this is the case.

Again... pretend I am a State...

I hand you an official license that says: I hereby officially authorize you to enter into a gay marriage with the same-sex partner of your choice by the power vested to me by the people. This clearly signifies that I am an authority giving you explicit permission to do a particular thing and I am sanctioning that thing by law.

As opposed to:

I hand you a form you can fill out and submit which will establish a private contract between you and another party and serve as a statutory legal apparatus of contract law.

To the contract of marriage....which is a legal record of marriage. A record submitted to the State Health Department and held by the State Health Department. With no other marriage laws changing.

How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage......when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377?

This is the part where your argument always breaks. You insist that the State no longer recognizes marriage.....when they obviously do. They've merely changed the way marriage is entered into. This is why you can't find any support for your claims in SB377.....because SB377 does nothing you claim it does.

It doesn't mention 'sanctioning' marriage. Killing your silly argument yet again.

Then you should have absolutely no opposition to this and it wouldn't even concern you enough to comment. If you were compelled to take ANY position it should be that of absolute support for this... how can you possibly condone a state issuing a license for a constitutional right? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Again, I think you've done an outstanding job of pointing out how nothing in the Alabama law will change the constitutional rights of any couple. We both agree on that! Now we are going to pass this bill in the next session and I think other states will follow.

Don't some firearms require a license to own? The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right, yet can require a license.

Alabama may well pass the bill. Unfortunately it will not end the state's recognition of marriage, merely change the way those marriages are entered into, presumably to prevent those with an objection to same sex marriages from having to put their name to any such unions.

 

[Skylar]

You keep ignoring the fact that Alabama recognizes common law marriages and those are marriages without license. You keep ignoring that licensed marriage is a form of contract law.

When did I ignore that?

Right now. You refuse to address it, and have consistently this entire thread.

If Alabama doesn't recognize marriage under SB377.....why do they recognize common law marriage under SB377?

 

[Montrovant]

You keep ignoring the fact that Alabama recognizes common law marriages and those are marriages without license. You keep ignoring that licensed marriage is a form of contract law.

When did I ignore that?

When you claimed that removing the licensing requirement for marriage would end state sanctioning and recognition of marriage and instead turn it into just another contract. How does that work if the state already recognizes marriages without contracts (common law)? In fact, only a small number of states recognize common law marriages and Alabama is one of them. Strange that a state which goes against the majority in recognizing non-licensed marriages would somehow end recognition of non-licensed marriages while, in the same bill, state that nothing would change regarding common law (non-licensed) marriages.....

 

[Skylar]

You keep ignoring the fact that Alabama recognizes common law marriages and those are marriages without license. You keep ignoring that licensed marriage is a form of contract law.

When did I ignore that?

When you claimed that removing the licensing requirement for marriage would end state sanctioning and recognition of marriage and instead turn it into just another contract. How does that work if the state already recognizes marriages without contracts (common law)? In fact, only a small number of states recognize common law marriages and Alabama is one of them. Strange that a state which goes against the majority in recognizing non-licensed marriages would somehow end recognition of non-licensed marriages while, in the same bill, state that nothing would change regarding common law (non-licensed) marriages.....

Good luck. I've asked him about SB377's recognition of contracts of marriage as legal records of marriage with the State health Department. And he has run like my question had a hockey mask and a machete.

 

[Syriusly]

Just as before- siblings- and mother and sons- and fathers and daughters still cannot legally marry.

Do you have a problem with that? Do you object to bans on a father marrying his daughter?

Maybe YOU should explain why we can deny a constitutional right to one couple and not another?

I mean, I see you saying that fathers can't marry daughters "cuz it ain't right" but I'm not seeing how that is any different from the argument made against homosexuals marrying. And I don't see you explaining that, other than to say "t'aint normal!"

I asked before, what is the compelling reason for the state to deny a marriage license to two homosexual brothers? Previously, sibling marriage wasn't allowed because of the humanitarian concerns regarding procreation but that was when marriage was male-female and it's not that anymore. So that same concern no longer exists as a reason to exclude certain siblings from marriage. On what basis are you now discriminating?

There are several problems with you post.

• You keep saying that I am saying "I see you saying that fathers can't marry daughters "cuz it ain't right" - but that of course is to be charitable- false. I haven't said that at all.
  
• I have explained repeatedly why a constitutional right can be denied to one couple and not to another- for the same reason a state can deny the right to legally own a gun to one person- but not another. Why should I explain it again- when you will ignore it again?
• But I will anyway- the State can deny a right when there is a compelling benefit- a legitimate interest- to the State- quoting from Wisconsin again:.

but if the state is going to deprive an entire class of citizens of a right as fundamental as
marriage, then it must do more than say “this is the way it has always been” or “we’re not
ready yet.” At the very least it must make a showing that the deprivation furthers a
legitimate interest separate from a wish to maintain the status quo
...
Accordingly, this interest, like all the others asserted by defendants and amici, does not provide a legitimate
basis for discriminating against same-sex couples.

• And what is that 'compelling state interest'? Well an interest most people can figure out- but not you?
  
• Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?

LMFAooo... A-GAIN.... you tear off on a long-winded rant that simply dodges the question!

"Most people can figure out why it's wrong" is NOT answering the question!

In fact, it is the very SAME ARGUMENT made by those who once opposed gay marriages.

SUDDENLY... it seems to be a valid argument!

You just ignored everything in my post.

Let me repeat.

First I pointed out that you lied about what I said.
Then I pointed out how you ignored what i had said.
Then I answered one of your questions- which you ignored again.
And then I asked you a question- which you dodged- so once again:

• Why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

Really- why can't you think of any compelling reason why a son cannot marry his infertile mother?

IF you can't think of one- why do you demand everyone else tell you why?

 

[Boss]

Strawman. For the 7th time...its not SB377 that I object to.

Good, then shut the fuck up and move on.

Its your characterizations of SB377 that I object to:

And I don't give a shit what you object to.

None of your claims are true.

Good, that's your opinion... now shut the fuck up and move on.

All of which I've already disproven with citations from the actual bill.

You've not disproved anything, you've presented your opinion and I've acknowledged it. I disagree with your opinion. The legislators who crafted SB377 disagree with your opinion. But what difference does it make if the legislation (admittedly by you) changes nothing?

It seems to me, if your opponent has found some way to accept your victory, you should be thankful for that. Especially if that way doesn't interfere with any rights or change anything. That should be cause to celebrate. But it seems like you don't feel like celebrating with me... seems like you want to be as belligerent as you can and keep on arguing for gay marriage and equality as if those issue are still unsettled.

It's almost feeling like you are angry and mad at me because I am not trying to defiantly reject the SCOTUS ruling or denounce gay marriage as unconstitutional. You are livid that the State of Alabama aren't acting like a bunch of 50s era segregationists and trying to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling. It pisses you off that the rednecks aren't standing in the schoolhouse door so you can protest and work people into a frenzy. Our SB377 is simply denying you all of that and you can't hardly stand it... it's too much to bear. How DARE we pass a law that doesn't violate your rights in any way or fail to uphold the statutory requirements of your gay marriages! We could have AT LEAST included some homophobic language for you to attack!

 

[Skylar]

You've not disproved anything, you've presented your opinion and I've acknowledged it.

You're confusing us. YOU have presented nothing but your opinion. I've quoted SB377 explicitly refuting you. And the USSC refuting you. And the 14th amendment. And the Constitution.

Our sources aren't equal.

I disagree with your opinion. The legislators who crafted SB377 disagree with your opinion.

Says you, pretending to be those legislators.See how at no point do you ever quote anyone but yourself?

You pretending to be a legislator in Alabama isn't evidence. Quote Alabama legislators disagreeing with me. Or admit you can't.

But what difference does it make if the legislation (admittedly by you) changes nothing?

It seems to me, if your opponent has found some way to accept your victory, you should be thankful for that. Especially if that way doesn't interfere with any rights or change anything. That should be cause to celebrate. But it seems like you don't feel like celebrating with me... seems like you want to be as belligerent as you can and keep on arguing for gay marriage and equality as if those issue are still unsettled.

It's almost feeling like you are angry and mad at me because I am not trying to defiantly reject the SCOTUS ruling or denounce gay marriage as unconstitutional. You are livid that the State of Alabama aren't acting like a bunch of 50s era segregationists and trying to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling. It pisses you off that the rednecks aren't standing in the schoolhouse door so you can protest and work people into a frenzy. Our SB377 is simply denying you all of that and you can't hardly stand it... it's too much to bear. How DARE we pass a law that doesn't violate your rights in any way or fail to uphold the statutory requirements of your gay marriages! We could have AT LEAST included some homophobic language for you to attack!

Wow. How many desperate attempts at changing the topic was that? I lost count at 11. Meanwhile, I've perfectly relayed your position:

1. You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
2. You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage.
3. You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'
4. You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind.
   
5. You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage

You don't deny any of these claims. As you know I can quote you making them all. And I've already refuted every single one of your batshit allegations with direct quotations from SB377.

Which is why you refuse to discuss any of them. If even you are going to abandon your own batshit....surely you can understand why none of us take it seriously.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, and you were babbling earlier about 'dodging questions'. I want you to demonstrate it for us. Now please:

How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage under SB377.....when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377?

Keep running. It makes me giggle.

 

[Boss]

How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage under SB377.....when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377?

Well, I have answered this several times but I can answer again if you like...

It's because "licensing" is a legal authorization on behalf of the authority to do something and administering or documenting legal and statutory contractual arrangements between private parties is not.

 

[Boss]

You've not disproved anything, you've presented your opinion and I've acknowledged it.

You're confusing us. YOU have presented nothing but your opinion. I've quoted SB377 explicitly refuting you. And the USSC refuting you. And the 14th amendment. And the Constitution.

Our sources aren't equal.

I disagree with your opinion. The legislators who crafted SB377 disagree with your opinion.

Says you, pretending to be those legislators.See how at no point do you ever quote anyone but yourself?

You pretending to be a legislator in Alabama isn't evidence. Quote Alabama legislators disagreeing with me. Or admit you can't.

But what difference does it make if the legislation (admittedly by you) changes nothing?

It seems to me, if your opponent has found some way to accept your victory, you should be thankful for that. Especially if that way doesn't interfere with any rights or change anything. That should be cause to celebrate. But it seems like you don't feel like celebrating with me... seems like you want to be as belligerent as you can and keep on arguing for gay marriage and equality as if those issue are still unsettled.

It's almost feeling like you are angry and mad at me because I am not trying to defiantly reject the SCOTUS ruling or denounce gay marriage as unconstitutional. You are livid that the State of Alabama aren't acting like a bunch of 50s era segregationists and trying to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling. It pisses you off that the rednecks aren't standing in the schoolhouse door so you can protest and work people into a frenzy. Our SB377 is simply denying you all of that and you can't hardly stand it... it's too much to bear. How DARE we pass a law that doesn't violate your rights in any way or fail to uphold the statutory requirements of your gay marriages! We could have AT LEAST included some homophobic language for you to attack!

Wow. How many desperate attempts at changing the topic was that? I lost count at 11. Meanwhile, I've perfectly relayed your position:

1. You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
2. You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage.
3. You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'
4. You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind.
   
5. You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage

You don't deny any of these claims. As you know I can quote you making them all. And I've already refuted every single one of your batshit allegations with direct quotations from SB377.

Which is why you refuse to discuss any of them. If even you are going to abandon your own batshit....surely you can understand why none of us take it seriously.

So now, apparently what you've decided to do is flood the thread with repeats of what you've already posted.

The moderators should ban you from USMB for this... they won't but they should.

This tactic is used often by pinheads who are losing their argument badly. You just flood the board like a cat in a cat box trying to cover it's turds... page after page of the same thing over and over again, so that any point I may have made is lost in your kitty litter.

 

[Skylar]

How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage under SB377.....when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377?

Well, I have answered this several times but I can answer again if you like...

It's because "licensing" is a legal authorization on behalf of the authority to do something and administering or documenting legal and statutory contractual arrangements between private parties is not.

So Alabama doesn't recognize marriage...except for every legal record of marriage, common law marriage, and all laws pertaining to marriage on their books.

I don't think 'recognize' means what you think it means.

 

[Skylar]

You've not disproved anything, you've presented your opinion and I've acknowledged it.

You're confusing us. YOU have presented nothing but your opinion. I've quoted SB377 explicitly refuting you. And the USSC refuting you. And the 14th amendment. And the Constitution.

Our sources aren't equal.

I disagree with your opinion. The legislators who crafted SB377 disagree with your opinion.

Says you, pretending to be those legislators.See how at no point do you ever quote anyone but yourself?

You pretending to be a legislator in Alabama isn't evidence. Quote Alabama legislators disagreeing with me. Or admit you can't.

But what difference does it make if the legislation (admittedly by you) changes nothing?

It seems to me, if your opponent has found some way to accept your victory, you should be thankful for that. Especially if that way doesn't interfere with any rights or change anything. That should be cause to celebrate. But it seems like you don't feel like celebrating with me... seems like you want to be as belligerent as you can and keep on arguing for gay marriage and equality as if those issue are still unsettled.

It's almost feeling like you are angry and mad at me because I am not trying to defiantly reject the SCOTUS ruling or denounce gay marriage as unconstitutional. You are livid that the State of Alabama aren't acting like a bunch of 50s era segregationists and trying to circumvent the SCOTUS ruling. It pisses you off that the rednecks aren't standing in the schoolhouse door so you can protest and work people into a frenzy. Our SB377 is simply denying you all of that and you can't hardly stand it... it's too much to bear. How DARE we pass a law that doesn't violate your rights in any way or fail to uphold the statutory requirements of your gay marriages! We could have AT LEAST included some homophobic language for you to attack!

Wow. How many desperate attempts at changing the topic was that? I lost count at 11. Meanwhile, I've perfectly relayed your position:

1. You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
2. You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage.
3. You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'
4. You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind.
   
5. You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage

You don't deny any of these claims. As you know I can quote you making them all. And I've already refuted every single one of your batshit allegations with direct quotations from SB377.

Which is why you refuse to discuss any of them. If even you are going to abandon your own batshit....surely you can understand why none of us take it seriously.

So now, apparently what you've decided to do is flood the thread with repeats of what you've already posted.

What I've decided to do is challenge you to show me a single 'lie or manipulation' in the positions I've attributed to you.

1. You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
2. You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage.
3. You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'
4. You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind.
   
5. You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage

Just highlight the one that is a 'lie or manipulation'. And I'll quote you saying it. You know and I know that I've perfectly relayed your position.

You were just wrong. And I can prove you're wrong with citations from SB377. And have repeatedly. Which is why you won't discuss any of those positions, refuse to show me which of the positions I've attributed to you is a 'lie', and are desperately trying to change the topic.

Its your tell.

The moderators should ban you from USMB for this... they won't but they should.

Obvious nonsense. As I'm discussing your claims specifically and directly. You're the one going on personal tangents. You're trying to change the topic to *anything* but your debunked nonsense.

Smiling.....no thank you. I like this topic. You've got nothing to back your claims about SB377. Jack shit. While I have SB377 explicitly contradicting you.

 

[Boss]

Meanwhile, I've perfectly relayed your position:

1. You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
2. You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage.
3. You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'
4. You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind.
   
5. You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage

1. It eliminates official state recognition and sanction of marriages. It does not seek to defy statutory requirements or obligations to record vital statistics. Nor does it seek to deny recognition of any other contractual domestic relationship. I've never claimed otherwise.

2. The Constitution doesn't require any state to sanction any kind of marriage.

3. It is. Otherwise, there is no purpose to the bill... it's pointless.

4. Nonsense, I didn't say that. The State is not going to sanction marriages. They will still HAVE marriages.

5. No, I claimed that under the 1st Amendment, Americans have the right to call whatever they want marriage. The state doesn't have to recognize it, you don't have to agree with it and we don't have to bestow benefits to it... but you can call anything you want marriage and no one can stop you.

 

[Montrovant]

Meanwhile, I've perfectly relayed your position:

1. You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
2. You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage.
3. You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'
4. You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind.
   
5. You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage

1. It eliminates official state recognition and sanction of marriages. It does not seek to defy statutory requirements or obligations to record vital statistics. Nor does it seek to deny recognition of any other contractual domestic relationship. I've never claimed otherwise.

2. The Constitution doesn't require any state to sanction any kind of marriage.

3. It is. Otherwise, there is no purpose to the bill... it's pointless.

4. Nonsense, I didn't say that. The State is not going to sanction marriages. They will still HAVE marriages.

5. No, I claimed that under the 1st Amendment, Americans have the right to call whatever they want marriage. The state doesn't have to recognize it, you don't have to agree with it and we don't have to bestow benefits to it... but you can call anything you want marriage and no one can stop you.

If a license is required for official state recognition of marriages, how is it that multiple states, including Alabama, officially recognize unlicensed common-law marriages?

 

[Montrovant]

How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage under SB377.....when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377?

Well, I have answered this several times but I can answer again if you like...

It's because "licensing" is a legal authorization on behalf of the authority to do something and administering or documenting legal and statutory contractual arrangements between private parties is not.

Do you believe that licensing is the only means by which the government can legally authorize someone to do something?

 

[Skylar]

Meanwhile, I've perfectly relayed your position:

1. You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
2. You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage.
3. You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'
4. You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind.
   
5. You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage

1. It eliminates official state recognition and sanction of marriages. It does not seek to defy statutory requirements or obligations to record vital statistics. Nor does it seek to deny recognition of any other contractual domestic relationship. I've never claimed otherwise.

Nope. Not even close. SB377 never even mentions 'sanctioning marriage'. That's just you citing yourself. Which is meaningless jibberjabber.

Back in reality, Alabama stilll recognizes marriage, despite your claim that it doesn't recognize marriage of any kind, it still recognizes common law marriage. Contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage, held at the Department of Health of the State of Alabama. Just like licenses are now.

Every marriage that's legal now...is recognized under SB377. Common law, statutory, out of state or otherwise. Says who. Says SB377, of course!

Alabama recognizing contracts of marriage as legal records of marriage in Alabama:

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

And no other changes to marriage, including common law marriage:

(f) 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.

Nothing you've described regarding 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' is happening under SB377. Not a single perk is stripped from anyone. Not a single marriage is not recognized.

There is nothing in SB377 to back any of your imaginary nonsense.

Next Fallacy please!

2. The Constitution doesn't require any state to sanction any kind of marriage.

The Full Faith and Credit clause of the constitution says otherwise.

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

Even if Alabama no longer had marriage (which it obviously does under SB377), other states will. And Alabama is constitutionally obligated to honor them.

Next fallacy please!

3. It is. Otherwise, there is no purpose to the bill... it's pointless.

What's pointless is offering us your personal opinion as SB377. You citing you is legally meaningless.

SB377 makes no mention of 'sanctioning' anything. You made that up, pulled sideways out of your ass. Making the term legally meaningless. So ends your legal argument.

As for opinions on its purpose, it removing judges from the process both saves money and shields Alabama from lawsuits when an Alabama judge tries to Kim Davis up and refuse to respect the Obergefell ruling. Especially when your chief Justice Moore is telling Alabama judges to violate Federal Court orders on the matter.

There's your purpose. And it makes a hell of a lot more sense than your imagination narrative. Which of course, you can't back up with anything.

Next Fallacy please!

4. Nonsense, I didn't say that. The State is not going to sanction marriages. They will still HAVE marriages.

Of course you did:

The State isn't going to have any kind of marriages, the State doesn't need to get married.
Post 135

Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 14 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

SB377 never mentions 'sanctioning' anything. You made that up. So any argument using the term is legally meaningless. Alabama most definitely has marriages under SB377, marriages recognized by the State, marriages recorded by the State, marriages whose records are held by the State in their Department of Health.

In fact, the marriages of SB377 aren't valid...until the State records them.

With every law pertaining to marriage still fully enforced and honored. Save.....licenses are then contracts. Read SB377 above and weep, buddy.

5. No, I claimed that under the 1st Amendment, Americans have the right to call whatever they want marriage.

No, you cited the Alabama law. See your post #155.

Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 16 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Where you insisted this had 'already happened in Alabama and it passed'"

Where there was once State sanctioning of marriages gay and straight, there would be no marriages gay or straight. At least not sanctioned by the state. Individuals can call whatever they like "marriage" and it's not anyone's business.

And you were obviously wrong. Alabama law has very specific criteria on what marriages it will valid

(2) A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married.

So how can the state eliminate recognition of marriage......but legally authorize people to be married?

"Legally authorize' explicitly contradicts your entire narrative. As it demonstrates BOTH legal recognition of marriage by the State and permission by the State. As how can they 'legally authorize' something over which they have no control nor say?

You yourself made it clear that the state could only eliminate recognition if they got rid of tax regulation:

People would still be married. The State wouldn't sanction it or license it. The don't really even need to recognize it if we do away with taxation regulations.

Post 84
Killing Homosexual Marriage | Page 9 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But SB377 doesn't even mention taxation, let alone do away with it. Meaning that by your own standards the State would still need to recognize marriage under SB377.

Another piece of Bossy Batshit puddles into a little puddle of brown goo.

 

[Skylar]

How can Alabama no longer recognize marriage under SB377.....when contracts of marriage are legal records of marriage in Alabama under SB377?

Well, I have answered this several times but I can answer again if you like...

It's because "licensing" is a legal authorization on behalf of the authority to do something and administering or documenting legal and statutory contractual arrangements between private parties is not.

Do you believe that licensing is the only means by which the government can legally authorize someone to do something?

Obviously SB377 doesn't. As Section, Paragraph 2B makes ludicriously clear:

(2) A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married.

And there you have it. Legally authorized. So how can the state eliminate recognition of marriage......but legally authorize people to be married?

Sigh.....Silly Bossy. He really didn't think this through.

 

[Boss]

Meanwhile, I've perfectly relayed your position:

1. You've claimed that the Alabama bill eliminates state recognition of marriage.
2. You've insisted that Alabama isn't required to recognize marriage.
3. You've said that SB377 is about 'sanctioning marriage'
4. You said that under SB377 the State isn't going to have any marriages of any kind.
   
5. You claimed that under SB377 that citizens can call whatever they want marriage

1. It eliminates official state recognition and sanction of marriages. It does not seek to defy statutory requirements or obligations to record vital statistics. Nor does it seek to deny recognition of any other contractual domestic relationship. I've never claimed otherwise.

2. The Constitution doesn't require any state to sanction any kind of marriage.

3. It is. Otherwise, there is no purpose to the bill... it's pointless.

4. Nonsense, I didn't say that. The State is not going to sanction marriages. They will still HAVE marriages.

5. No, I claimed that under the 1st Amendment, Americans have the right to call whatever they want marriage. The state doesn't have to recognize it, you don't have to agree with it and we don't have to bestow benefits to it... but you can call anything you want marriage and no one can stop you.

If a license is required for official state recognition of marriages, how is it that multiple states, including Alabama, officially recognize unlicensed common-law marriages?

I think you just answered your own question.

We've already gone through this obtuse meandering over the word "recognize" and what we are talking about in context of state authorization versus statutory requirement. It's a pretty significant difference between "recognition" in the context of authorizing and sanctioning as opposed to "recognizing" in the context of acknowledging the existence of.

I recognize Peyton Manning is a football player. It doesn't mean that I am bestowing an award of recognition on Peyton Manning for being an outstanding football player... those are two completely different concepts and contexts for the word "recognize" and most non-retarded people comprehend that sort of nuance in definition and context... you apparently are missing that gene.

Even though, I have patiently explained it to you several times already, you still seem to want to cling to your obtuse reasoning which is very simple-minded and devoid of contextual understanding.