Killing Homosexual Marriage

[Boss]

Nope. Not even close. SB377 never even mentions 'sanctioning marriage'.

AAAAnd... the Constitution and 14th Amendment doesn't even mention marriage, homosexuals or gay marriage.... so we are back to square one.

 

[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.

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.

And by 'obtuse meandering', you mean we agreed that you didn't know what the fuck you were talking about?

The State of Alabama obviously recognizes marriage under SB377. As they still have marriage, they still have requirements of marriage, they still require people be legally authorized, they still recognize contracts of marriage as legal records of marriage, and they hold those records with the State Health Department.

With every other marriage law, including common law marriage, upheld and unchanged.

Yeah, I don't think 'recognized' means what you think it means. Especially when none of the distinctions you've offered have a thing to do with 'Killing Homosexual Marriage'.

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.

In terms of any of the 'perks' of marriage or any of the laws surrounding marriage...its irrelevant.

Even you can't explain how switching to a contract does anything to foward your silly 'Killing Gay Marriage'. Or removing the State from marriage.

Remember, under SB377.....the State HAS to be involved. A marriage isn't valid until its recorded with the State. Worse of all for you is Section 1, Paragraph 2B:

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

"Legally authorized to be married." So now your 'significant distinction' is down to 'Authorized' and 'Authorized'.

With no loss of perks for anyone, no change in legal status for anyone, the State still intregally involved in marriage, all marriage laws still in effect, the State still recognizing marriage, still recording marriage, common law marriage still on the books...

.....and not a damn thing toward your 'Killing Homosexual Marriage' gibberish.

As I said....SB377 includes none of your claims. As you demonstrate for us each time you ignore it.

 

[Skylar]

Nope. Not even close. SB377 never even mentions 'sanctioning marriage'.

AAAAnd... the Constitution and 14th Amendment doesn't even mention marriage, homosexuals or gay marriage.... so we are back to square one.

AAAAnd... its still a strawman. As the courts citation of the 14th amendment was on the basis of the equal protection clause. Which is absolutely mentioned.

While none of your 'sanctioning' jibber jabber is EVER mentioned anywhere in all of SB377. You made it up. Do you see the difference? The courts cited an actual quotation. You cited an imaginary quote.

And can I take it from your complete abandonment of every other point you raised and I just refuted....that you concede those points:

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

If so, that was easy.

 

[Skylar]

Oh, I'm still waiting for you to show me the 'Alabama legislators' that disagree with me.

Or can I add it to your 'sanctioned' babble as just more childish nonsense that you imagined?

 

[Faun]

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.

If you required Payment Manning to submit legal documentation to you that he is an outstanding football player for him to be considered an outstanding football player; and you accept said documentation that he's an outstanding football player, then yes, you would be recognizing he is an outstanding football player.

Much like the way my state recognizes my legal authority to drive my car on public roads because I submit auto registration to them and they accept it.

 

[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.

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.

This bill would abolish the requirement to obtain a marriage license from the judge of probate. This bill would provide that marriage would be entered into by simple contract, would specify the information required to be included in the contract of marriage, would specify that each party entering into a contract of marriage would submit a properly executed contract to the judge of probate for recording, and would require the judge of probate to forward a copy of the contract of marriage to the Office of Vital Statistics.

Section 1. (a) Effective July 1, 2015, the only requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein.
(b) A contract to be married shall contain the
following minimum information:
(1) The names of the parties.
(2) A statement that the parties are legally
authorized to be married.
(3) A statement that the parties voluntarily and
based on each parties' own freewill enter into a marriage.
(4) The signatures of the parties.

Again... the purpose of the bill is NOT to infringe on any person's constitutional rights or defy the recent SCOTUS ruling. IF you believe that is what I have argued or what I have claimed this bill will do, then you are either being dishonest or you've misinterpreted what I've posted.

I have repeatedly (about 50 times now) said that this is about the official state sanctioning of marriage through the process of licensing... (Licensing being the official authorization to do something, as the dictionary will confirm.) Replacing that process with one of CONTRACT between parties, of which the State is not associated or affiliated in any way, nor a party to the reason for said contract between private parties.

A-GAin.... ALL of you are essentially claiming this doesn't change a thing and doesn't matter with regard to "gay marriage" at all... I say GREAT! We've obviously found a solution we can all live with! But that doesn't seem to be satisfactory because the thread continues to be a constant fight with me having to correct your inaccurate interpretations of what I have said and your incessant ranting that this does nothing to effect gay marriages.

I really am curious as to your explanation on why you are all so hot on this topic if it doesn't matter?

I mean... it makes no sense... isn't there something more compelling you need to be spending your time arguing about with right-wingers? Why bother wasting this much time on something that matters so little and is so insignificant? Just go to the top of the thread and check "unfollow this thread" have a laugh and move on! Isn't your time more valuable than to waste it on something that doesn't mean anything and won't matter?

 

[Pop23]

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.

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

Not very consistent with what you believe the state can enforce on you, are you?

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

No, I have advocated for civil unions at least the past 10 years, maybe longer. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I define as marriage or what you define as marriage. I also don't think the government should allow any benefit or advantage to those who are married or in a domestic partnership.

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.

Wow....in charge, and on point.

Do you drive a huge 4-wheel drive?

At any rate...it sounds like the only thing you'll accomplish, and it also sounds like it's what you want...

If gays change the definition of marriage, you won't care about marriage anymore.

If so....what does it matter what's rattling around in your psyche?

Gay will still fall in love, have sex, and since natural selection hasn't resulted in their elimination...absolutely nothing reslts form you being in charge, and on point, wit your anti gay marriage crusade

You really think natural selection can weed out OCD?

Really?

I may regret asking this, because you're probably just trolling...

But, you don't think being gay is somehow linked to OCD.....do you?

(crossing fingers)

Indeed dude

 

[Boss]

Oh, I'm still waiting for you to show me the 'Alabama legislators' that disagree with me.

Or can I add it to your 'sanctioned' babble as just more childish nonsense that you imagined?

Well Skylar... since Alabama legislators don't generally construct legislation just for the sake of nothingness... I have to assume they had some justification and reasoning behind this. Unless they all just went bat-shit crazy one day and decided to start writing up absolute meaningless bills for no reason. Since most of them are up for re-election, I can't see them doing such a stupid thing.

I don't need to prove anything to you. If you want to think they crafted this rather long and arduous bill because they were bored and didn't have anything else to do... so be it! I don't care what you think to be honest, it doesn't matter to me. You keep acting like it should, but I don't know why... it's like a riddle or something.

If you don't think this bill does anything to violate the rights of gay couples or interfere with the recent SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage... I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing. I agree... I don't see anything wrong with the bill whatsoever. If you don't think it changes the nature of the state's association with marriage, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.. I disagree. But if you want to believe that, it's fine with me too. I don't have a problem with you having a wrong opinion.

 

[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?

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.

Except, of course, that under the proposed bill Alabama would still recognize marriages exactly as they did before. The only difference would be how those marriages are obtained. Your entire premise in this is based on the idea that only through licensing can the state sanction or recognize something. You provide no reason or evidence for why this is true, simply claim it and expect it to be believed.

Alabama would do more than 'acknowledge the existence of' marriage under the bill. The state would do everything it had done previously, including all marriage related laws, taxes, rights and responsibilities. The only thing that would change would be that instead of obtaining a license the parties involved would submit the proper paperwork to the appropriate government office. This prevents those opposed to same sex marriage from having to 'sanction' or 'recognize' those marriages as individuals while still allowing the government to do so.

Can you show anywhere, through definition or example or statute, that licensing is required for a government to sanction or recognize something? I can give you a definition, such as 'Official permission or approval' for sanction sanction | an action that is taken or an order that is given to force a country to obey international laws by limiting or stopping trade with that country, by not allowing economic aid for that country, etc. which indicates otherwise, as marriages would still require official permission/approval under the bill. Marriage would still be granted by the state.

You also still haven't answered one of my previous questions : do you think that two unrelated people can enter into a non-marital, non-adoption contract and the state will recognize them as immediate family?

 

[Pop23]

But you think the state can tell you, you have to marry a woman if you want to get married.

No, I have advocated for civil unions at least the past 10 years, maybe longer. I don't think it's any of the government's business what I define as marriage or what you define as marriage. I also don't think the government should allow any benefit or advantage to those who are married or in a domestic partnership.

Furthermore, I believe the Gay Marriage movement will ultimately result in government removing itself from association with marriage in general and that's a good thing. It's certainly what I have advocated all along. YOU are the one who seems to have a problem here, not me.

I have no problem. Folks who love each other can marry anywhere in the U.S. and their gender is no longer a roadblock.

Unless their siblings, right?

As he said- gender is no longer a roadblock.

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?

And up until a few weeks ago, neither could same sex.

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?

I do object, but objecting and.........

Finding a compelling state interest to deny these individuals the rights and benefits to of the licence, one that does not have sex as a requirement are, once again........

Two different things entirely

 

[Montrovant]

Oh, I'm still waiting for you to show me the 'Alabama legislators' that disagree with me.

Or can I add it to your 'sanctioned' babble as just more childish nonsense that you imagined?

Well Skylar... since Alabama legislators don't generally construct legislation just for the sake of nothingness... I have to assume they had some justification and reasoning behind this. Unless they all just went bat-shit crazy one day and decided to start writing up absolute meaningless bills for no reason. Since most of them are up for re-election, I can't see them doing such a stupid thing.

I don't need to prove anything to you. If you want to think they crafted this rather long and arduous bill because they were bored and didn't have anything else to do... so be it! I don't care what you think to be honest, it doesn't matter to me. You keep acting like it should, but I don't know why... it's like a riddle or something.

If you don't think this bill does anything to violate the rights of gay couples or interfere with the recent SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage... I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing. I agree... I don't see anything wrong with the bill whatsoever. If you don't think it changes the nature of the state's association with marriage, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.. I disagree. But if you want to believe that, it's fine with me too. I don't have a problem with you having a wrong opinion.

It's been brought up to you multiple times that the bill would avoid problems of same sex marriage opponents having to put their name to marriage licenses ala Kim Davis. No one has said the bill had no purpose but you.

 

[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?

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.

This bill would abolish the requirement to obtain a marriage license from the judge of probate. This bill would provide that marriage would be entered into by simple contract, would specify the information required to be included in the contract of marriage, would specify that each party entering into a contract of marriage would submit a properly executed contract to the judge of probate for recording, and would require the judge of probate to forward a copy of the contract of marriage to the Office of Vital Statistics.

Section 1. (a) Effective July 1, 2015, the only requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein.
(b) A contract to be married shall contain the
following minimum information:
(1) The names of the parties.
(2) A statement that the parties are legally
authorized to be married.
(3) A statement that the parties voluntarily and
based on each parties' own freewill enter into a marriage.
(4) The signatures of the parties.

Again... the purpose of the bill is NOT to infringe on any person's constitutional rights or defy the recent SCOTUS ruling. IF you believe that is what I have argued or what I have claimed this bill will do, then you are either being dishonest or you've misinterpreted what I've posted.

I have repeatedly (about 50 times now) said that this is about the official state sanctioning of marriage through the process of licensing... (Licensing being the official authorization to do something, as the dictionary will confirm.) Replacing that process with one of CONTRACT between parties, of which the State is not associated or affiliated in any way, nor a party to the reason for said contract between private parties.

A-GAin.... ALL of you are essentially claiming this doesn't change a thing and doesn't matter with regard to "gay marriage" at all... I say GREAT! We've obviously found a solution we can all live with! But that doesn't seem to be satisfactory because the thread continues to be a constant fight with me having to correct your inaccurate interpretations of what I have said and your incessant ranting that this does nothing to effect gay marriages.

I really am curious as to your explanation on why you are all so hot on this topic if it doesn't matter?

I mean... it makes no sense... isn't there something more compelling you need to be spending your time arguing about with right-wingers? Why bother wasting this much time on something that matters so little and is so insignificant? Just go to the top of the thread and check "unfollow this thread" have a laugh and move on! Isn't your time more valuable than to waste it on something that doesn't mean anything and won't matter?

Is there any reason you would think that licensing is the only way for the state to officially authorize something?

Is there a reason you think licensed marriage is not a form of contract?

How is the state not associated nor affiliated in marriage if there are numerous laws regarding marriage, civil marriages can only be obtained through state authorization, civil marriages must be recorded by the state, etc.?

Do you think that under the bill marriage would be subject to changes not available with licenses?

Why do you think licensing is the only way the state is involved in something? It boggles the mind. If every other law and regulation regarding marriage remains the same, every marriage is authorized, granted and recorded by the state, unlicensed marriages are already recognized by the state, there are other forms of sanctioning or authorization already in use by the state (ever heard of a permit?), how can the state be not sanctioning, not recognizing, not associated with and not affiliated in any way with marriage? Please, show the definition of license in which it is the sole measure by which government sanctions or recognizes or is associated with or affiliated with marriage. Or give an example of something gaining or losing a licensing requirement which changed state recognition. Or any evidence, at all, to bolster your claim.

Once again, it is not your 'solution' in contention here but your claims that the Alabama bill divorces the state from the institution of marriage (pun intended ).

 

[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.

If you required Payment Manning to submit legal documentation to you that he is an outstanding football player for him to be considered an outstanding football player; and you accept said documentation that he's an outstanding football player, then yes, you would be recognizing he is an outstanding football player.

Much like the way my state recognizes my legal authority to drive my car on public roads because I submit auto registration to them and they accept it.

Your state LICENSES you to drive your car on public roads.

The Peyton Manning example was regarding the usage of the word "recognize" or "recognition" in context. Manning wouldn't have to submit documentation to me that he is an outstanding player for me to consider him one. That is a determination I am free to make with or without the documentation from Manning. I certainly couldn't be compelled to give him an award for being an outstanding player if I didn't believe he was. Even if I believe he IS an outstanding player, I am not compelled to give him any recognition for it. The Constitution does not require me to give Peyton an award for being an outstanding player. It doesn't require me to give any player any awards... whether they deserve them or don't deserve them... whether it's fair or not fair... doesn't matter. Now... SCOTUS may have a 5-4 insane and lawless ruling that if I am going to hand out awards to outstanding players, I must recognize Peyton Manning equally. And I may decide that I don't want to hand out awards anymore. And that's where we are now.

 

[Montrovant]

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!

But I am sorry, you don't get to tell me to sit down and shut up

Hypocrite much?

 

[Boss]

Oh, I'm still waiting for you to show me the 'Alabama legislators' that disagree with me.

Or can I add it to your 'sanctioned' babble as just more childish nonsense that you imagined?

Well Skylar... since Alabama legislators don't generally construct legislation just for the sake of nothingness... I have to assume they had some justification and reasoning behind this. Unless they all just went bat-shit crazy one day and decided to start writing up absolute meaningless bills for no reason. Since most of them are up for re-election, I can't see them doing such a stupid thing.

I don't need to prove anything to you. If you want to think they crafted this rather long and arduous bill because they were bored and didn't have anything else to do... so be it! I don't care what you think to be honest, it doesn't matter to me. You keep acting like it should, but I don't know why... it's like a riddle or something.

If you don't think this bill does anything to violate the rights of gay couples or interfere with the recent SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage... I think that's a good thing, not a bad thing. I agree... I don't see anything wrong with the bill whatsoever. If you don't think it changes the nature of the state's association with marriage, that's your opinion and you're entitled to it.. I disagree. But if you want to believe that, it's fine with me too. I don't have a problem with you having a wrong opinion.

It's been brought up to you multiple times that the bill would avoid problems of same sex marriage opponents having to put their name to marriage licenses ala Kim Davis. No one has said the bill had no purpose but you.

LMAO... when did I say the bill had no purpose? That has been YOUR argument, Skylar's argument, Syriusly's argument, PatriotQueer's argument... not MY argument.

But now it seems you are coming around... you are right... it remedies the Kim Davis problem. People in Alabama don't want to sanction same-sex marriages and they're not gunna! We are going to ultimately adopt what I have advocated all along, civil unions by contract. "Marriage" will be retained by the people and their clergy as it should be, and everyone is happy, happy, happy!

Except you retards... who just seem to want to be in perpetual fight mode.

 

[Montrovant]

LMAO... when did I say the bill had no purpose? That has been YOUR argument, Skylar's argument, Syriusly's argument, PatriotQueer's argument... not MY argument.

But now it seems you are coming around... you are right... it remedies the Kim Davis problem. People in Alabama don't want to sanction same-sex marriages and they're not gunna! We are going to ultimately adopt what I have advocated all along, civil unions by contract. "Marriage" will be retained by the people and their clergy as it should be, and everyone is happy, happy, happy!

Except you retards... who just seem to want to be in perpetual fight mode.

No, nitwit. No one has made that argument, you have decided that argument was made on your own. You say it was my argument, but the post you just quoted where I give you the likely reason for the bill is not the first time I've explained that, nor am I the only one to have said it. You can feel free to show where someone has claimed the bill was created for the sake of nothingness or because legislators were bored, have at it! I'll happily admit I am wrong. However, the only person I can remember making such statements is you.

Maybe one day the phrase civil unions will replace marriage.....I very seriously doubt it will be any time soon. Heterosexual, homosexual, or other, I don't see anything vaguely like strong support for the notion anywhere.

 

[Faun]

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.

If you required Payment Manning to submit legal documentation to you that he is an outstanding football player for him to be considered an outstanding football player; and you accept said documentation that he's an outstanding football player, then yes, you would be recognizing he is an outstanding football player.

Much like the way my state recognizes my legal authority to drive my car on public roads because I submit auto registration to them and they accept it.

Your state LICENSES you to drive your car on public roads.

The Peyton Manning example was regarding the usage of the word "recognize" or "recognition" in context. Manning wouldn't have to submit documentation to me that he is an outstanding player for me to consider him one. That is a determination I am free to make with or without the documentation from Manning. I certainly couldn't be compelled to give him an award for being an outstanding player if I didn't believe he was. Even if I believe he IS an outstanding player, I am not compelled to give him any recognition for it. The Constitution does not require me to give Peyton an award for being an outstanding player. It doesn't require me to give any player any awards... whether they deserve them or don't deserve them... whether it's fair or not fair... doesn't matter. Now... SCOTUS may have a 5-4 insane and lawless ruling that if I am going to hand out awards to outstanding players, I must recognize Peyton Manning equally. And I may decide that I don't want to hand out awards anymore. And that's where we are now.

You're fucking deranged.

My license to drive has nothing to do with my car.

I have to register my car for the state to recognize my legal authority for that car to be driven on public roads.

As far as your Manning analogy, your acceptance of such a letter is you recognizing the content. If you don't accept the content, you don't accept the letter. That is akin to someone submitting a marriage contract to the state. If the state accepts it, they recognize the couple is legally married. If for some reason the couple does not qualify to be married, the state does not accept the contract and does not recognize their marriage.

So simple, even a simp like you should be able to grasp that.

 

[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.

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.

This bill would abolish the requirement to obtain a marriage license from the judge of probate. This bill would provide that marriage would be entered into by simple contract, would specify the information required to be included in the contract of marriage, would specify that each party entering into a contract of marriage would submit a properly executed contract to the judge of probate for recording, and would require the judge of probate to forward a copy of the contract of marriage to the Office of Vital Statistics.

Section 1. (a) Effective July 1, 2015, the only requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein.
(b) A contract to be married shall contain the
following minimum information:
(1) The names of the parties.
(2) A statement that the parties are legally
authorized to be married.
(3) A statement that the parties voluntarily and
based on each parties' own freewill enter into a marriage.
(4) The signatures of the parties.

Again... the purpose of the bill is NOT to infringe on any person's constitutional rights or defy the recent SCOTUS ruling. IF you believe that is what I have argued or what I have claimed this bill will do, then you are either being dishonest or you've misinterpreted what I've posted.

I have repeatedly (about 50 times now) said that this is about the official state sanctioning of marriage through the process of licensing... (Licensing being the official authorization to do something, as the dictionary will confirm.) Replacing that process with one of CONTRACT between parties, of which the State is not associated or affiliated in any way, nor a party to the reason for said contract between private parties.

A-GAin.... ALL of you are essentially claiming this doesn't change a thing and doesn't matter with regard to "gay marriage" at all... I say GREAT! We've obviously found a solution we can all live with! But that doesn't seem to be satisfactory because the thread continues to be a constant fight with me having to correct your inaccurate interpretations of what I have said and your incessant ranting that this does nothing to effect gay marriages.

I really am curious as to your explanation on why you are all so hot on this topic if it doesn't matter?

I mean... it makes no sense... isn't there something more compelling you need to be spending your time arguing about with right-wingers? Why bother wasting this much time on something that matters so little and is so insignificant? Just go to the top of the thread and check "unfollow this thread" have a laugh and move on! Isn't your time more valuable than to waste it on something that doesn't mean anything and won't matter?

Is there any reason you would think that licensing is the only way for the state to officially authorize something?

Is there a reason you think licensed marriage is not a form of contract?

How is the state not associated nor affiliated in marriage if there are numerous laws regarding marriage, civil marriages can only be obtained through state authorization, civil marriages must be recorded by the state, etc.?

Do you think that under the bill marriage would be subject to changes not available with licenses?

Why do you think licensing is the only way the state is involved in something? It boggles the mind. If every other law and regulation regarding marriage remains the same, every marriage is authorized, granted and recorded by the state, unlicensed marriages are already recognized by the state, there are other forms of sanctioning or authorization already in use by the state (ever heard of a permit?), how can the state be not sanctioning, not recognizing, not associated with and not affiliated in any way with marriage? Please, show the definition of license in which it is the sole measure by which government sanctions or recognizes or is associated with or affiliated with marriage. Or give an example of something gaining or losing a licensing requirement which changed state recognition. Or any evidence, at all, to bolster your claim.

Once again, it is not your 'solution' in contention here but your claims that the Alabama bill divorces the state from the institution of marriage (pun intended ).

Again... I am not obligated to "prove" something to you. If you want to believe the Alabama law doesn't change or effect anything at all... that's fine by me! I don't care what you believe. It's not up to me to convince you that you're wrong.... it really doesn't make a bit of difference to me.

 

[Montrovant]

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.

This bill would abolish the requirement to obtain a marriage license from the judge of probate. This bill would provide that marriage would be entered into by simple contract, would specify the information required to be included in the contract of marriage, would specify that each party entering into a contract of marriage would submit a properly executed contract to the judge of probate for recording, and would require the judge of probate to forward a copy of the contract of marriage to the Office of Vital Statistics.

Section 1. (a) Effective July 1, 2015, the only requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein.
(b) A contract to be married shall contain the
following minimum information:
(1) The names of the parties.
(2) A statement that the parties are legally
authorized to be married.
(3) A statement that the parties voluntarily and
based on each parties' own freewill enter into a marriage.
(4) The signatures of the parties.

Again... the purpose of the bill is NOT to infringe on any person's constitutional rights or defy the recent SCOTUS ruling. IF you believe that is what I have argued or what I have claimed this bill will do, then you are either being dishonest or you've misinterpreted what I've posted.

I have repeatedly (about 50 times now) said that this is about the official state sanctioning of marriage through the process of licensing... (Licensing being the official authorization to do something, as the dictionary will confirm.) Replacing that process with one of CONTRACT between parties, of which the State is not associated or affiliated in any way, nor a party to the reason for said contract between private parties.

A-GAin.... ALL of you are essentially claiming this doesn't change a thing and doesn't matter with regard to "gay marriage" at all... I say GREAT! We've obviously found a solution we can all live with! But that doesn't seem to be satisfactory because the thread continues to be a constant fight with me having to correct your inaccurate interpretations of what I have said and your incessant ranting that this does nothing to effect gay marriages.

I really am curious as to your explanation on why you are all so hot on this topic if it doesn't matter?

I mean... it makes no sense... isn't there something more compelling you need to be spending your time arguing about with right-wingers? Why bother wasting this much time on something that matters so little and is so insignificant? Just go to the top of the thread and check "unfollow this thread" have a laugh and move on! Isn't your time more valuable than to waste it on something that doesn't mean anything and won't matter?

Is there any reason you would think that licensing is the only way for the state to officially authorize something?

Is there a reason you think licensed marriage is not a form of contract?

How is the state not associated nor affiliated in marriage if there are numerous laws regarding marriage, civil marriages can only be obtained through state authorization, civil marriages must be recorded by the state, etc.?

Do you think that under the bill marriage would be subject to changes not available with licenses?

Why do you think licensing is the only way the state is involved in something? It boggles the mind. If every other law and regulation regarding marriage remains the same, every marriage is authorized, granted and recorded by the state, unlicensed marriages are already recognized by the state, there are other forms of sanctioning or authorization already in use by the state (ever heard of a permit?), how can the state be not sanctioning, not recognizing, not associated with and not affiliated in any way with marriage? Please, show the definition of license in which it is the sole measure by which government sanctions or recognizes or is associated with or affiliated with marriage. Or give an example of something gaining or losing a licensing requirement which changed state recognition. Or any evidence, at all, to bolster your claim.

Once again, it is not your 'solution' in contention here but your claims that the Alabama bill divorces the state from the institution of marriage (pun intended ).

Again... I am not obligated to "prove" something to you. If you want to believe the Alabama law doesn't change or effect anything at all... that's fine by me! I don't care what you believe. It's not up to me to convince you that you're wrong.... it really doesn't make a bit of difference to me.

No one here is obligated to do anything for any other poster. So what? Should I not ask for evidence because you don't have to give it?

If you don't care what I believe, it doesn't make a bit of difference, why on Earth do you continue to respond? Why not just be happy with your delusions and ignore this?

 

[Boss]

You can feel free to show where someone has claimed the bill was created for the sake of nothingness or because legislators were bored, have at it! I'll happily admit I am wrong. However, the only person I can remember making such statements is you.

Well that's all any of you pro-gay tards have been saying through over 900 posts now... suddenly it's NOT what you've been saying and what you are now saying is exactly what I said from Post #1.

You just posted: Once again, it is not your 'solution' in contention here but your claims that the Alabama bill divorces the state from the institution of marriage.

Either the bill removes the state from officially sanctioning marriages or it doesn't. It can't do both.

You keep trying to interject all kinds of inflammatory claims that I have never made. I never said a damn thing about "divorcing the state from the institution of marriage" and I don't know where you derived such a thing. The State still has statutory requirements to uphold... I've given you that point... wayyyyy back, about 20 pages ago. I've explained the very clear difference between licensing an act and administering a contract to two individual parties. You don't seem to comprehend there is a difference. You went merrily skipping off into la-la-land on a serendipitous obsession with the word "recognize" like you're retarded and don't understand the context.

So this really comes down to you, with your infantile comprehension of context, trying to debate something intelligently and failing all over the place.. then, resorting to your usual myopic focus on some minutia that you think you've got nailed down. When that doesn't work out, you try to twist my argument around and pretend that your making MY argument to ME. That's the real gut buster!