TheProgressivePatriot
Gold Member
Yea we know ...not workable, not possible, not happeningYes, Iāve heard that said beforeā¦.mostly by people who have not really thought it through, who have not really considered what that would look like.
I've thought it through and I agree with myself.
It will look like this... ____________________________________.
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.
Yep... workable, possible, already happening.
What you propose could be workable- but won't be. It is possible- but it won't happen. And it isn't happening anywhere in the United States- not now- not in the forseeable future.
It already happened in Alabama and it passed. Due to a really stupid Wallace-era law, the bill required a super majority because it wasn't on conservative governor Bentley's agenda. Rest assured, it will be on the governor's agenda next session and it will again pass and become state law. Other states are also preparing legislation similar in nature and it doesn't matter if you are in denial of this.
Sounds like you should take contentment lessons from worldwatcher on this. Just keep telling yourself it will not harm your gay marriage for the State of Alabama not to sanction or issue a license for it. Because that is what is about to happen and not only in Alabama.
The Alabama law was first proposed prior to Obergefell, it was recently reintroduced and failed again.
Bill to abolish marriage licenses dies in Alabama House 9.15.15 http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/09/bill_to_abolish_marriage_licen.html
It was a stupid idea that would solve nothing and result in a myriad of problems and unintended consequences.
Rep. Patricia Todd, D-Birmingham, the Alabama Legislature's first openly gay member, questioned whether the change would matter to probate judges who claim religious objections to same-sex marriage.
"What is the difference between handing me a piece of paper for a license vs. accepting a piece of paper from me for a marriage contract?" Todd asked.
Rep. Marcel Black, D-Tuscumbia, said he thought the law would be challenged in court if the bill passed, resulting in legal costs for taxpayers.
Rep. Juandalynn Givan, D-Birmingham, said Alabamians who married under a contract might run into problems when they had to provide proof of marriage in other states.
"This bill makes absolutely no sense," Givan said. "There is no rhyme or reason for this bill."
They also tried it in Oklahoma where it was a disasterā¦..
This is a great example of the stupidity and chaos that will ensue when trying to get government out of marriage in order to thwart same sex marriage:
Weird Bill Intended To Block Marriage Equality In Oklahoma May Totally Backfirehttp://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/03/13/3633556/is-this-real-life/
Earlier this week, Oklahoma lawmakers took the first step in passing a bill that was originally poised to hinder marriage equality. But after a wave of criticism pressured lawmakers to tweak the measure, it now might actually end up supporting LGBT people ā assuming it doesnāt send the stateās marriage system into chaos first.
On Wednesday, the Oklahoma state house passed H.B. 1125, a Republican-backed bill which has raised concerns for potentially violating the U.S. Constitution. The sponsor of the bill, state Rep. Todd Russ (R), said the proposed law was designed with two goals in mind: remove government from the business of issuing marriage licenses by requiring clergy who officiate weddings to file ācertificates of marriageā on their own, and preventing judges who disapprove of marriage equality from having to officiate same-sex weddings, which are legal in the state.
He went on to say:
ā
The point of my legislation is to take the state out of the process and leave marriage in the hands of the clergy,ā Russ told the Oklahoman.
Russ openly admitted in an interview with ThinkProgress that the bill stemmed from his opposition to marriage equality, saying that he wrote it after the Supreme Court ācrammedā same-sex marriage ādown our throatsā when it upheld a decision by a federal judge to strike down the stateās same-sex marriage ban last October ā something Russ contends is an example of government āoverreach.ā
Actually, the supreme court did not uphold the decision. They just refused to hear the appeal from the state on the decision of the 10th circuit. A minor point perhaps but it also exposes a sloppy thought process and inattention to detail.
The initial bill waswidelycriticized for being unconstitutional, with LGBT advocates, Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, and news outlets blasting its requirement that only āan ordained or authorized preacher or minister of the Gospel, priest or other ecclesiastical dignitary of any denominationā or a rabbi be allowed to contract a formal marriage.
The really stupid thing about the initial version of the bill was that while violating the constitution, it would not prevent gays from marrying:
Oddly, if the billās goal was to inhibit same-sex couples from getting married, it failed out of the gate. Troy Stevenson, head of the LGBT advocacy group Freedom Oklahoma, noted that Russ may not have realized that āthere are ā¦ 160 members of clergy who have publicly declared their willingness to marry LGBT people,ā and that several major Christian denominations already allow clergy to officiate same-sex marriages, many of which already have a presence in Oklahoma.
Perhaps the sponsors didnāt know this , or they thought that opponents of same sex marriage would be appeased because it was not state sponsored. I donāt think so, it would still be āmarriageā
As pressure mounted on Russ to kill the legislation, however, something strange happened: instead of pulling the bill, Russ simply amended it, re-inserting a clause that allowed judges to officiate weddings. The change was initially welcomed by LGBT advocates such as Stevenson, but also caused confusion, because it defeated the billās aim of fully removing government officials from marriages services. In fact, without the clergy-only provision, some Democrats noted that the bill was arguably pro-LGBT, since it does not define marriage specifically as a union between a man and a woman, effectively re-affirming the legitimacy of same-sex unions in the state.
In addition
Other lawmakers also pointed out that, since Russā bill requires the government to simply file marriage certificates, it removes the stateās ability to prevent instances bigamy or polygamy.
Well maybe not because other laws cover those things, but you can see how confusion can arise
Clearly the Supreme Court [said] that it cannot be constitutionally appropriate to have an opposite sex stated in the language, so that was struck,ā he told ThinkProgress. āMy objective here today is not to overthrow the [Supreme Court] ruling. My bill is basically an attempt to sidestep what is basically the claim by the Supreme Court ā¦ [The bill] doesnāt condone same-sex marriage, and it doesnāt disallow same-sex marriage ā my bill is silent on that matter.ā
So then what the hell is the point of all of this? They might as well just accept marriage equality and be done with it.
But as the vote neared Wednesday, Republicans doubled down on what many were now calling the āMarriage Chaos Billā ā even if they werenāt exactly sure what they were voting for.
Indeed, Russā claim that the law allows government to āexit the [marriage] gameā appears incomplete at best. True, while judges are able to officiate marriages under the law, they are not required to, and whereas previously clerks issued marriage licenses, they are now asked simply to file āmarriage certificatesā (or common law affidavits) created elsewhere. But this only tweaks some aspects of how government interacts with the beginning of the marriage process ā it doesnāt change the fact that marriages are still legal entities recognized by the state.
And it gets even crazier
Also, while the most offensive parts of the bill appear to be corrected, there remain several legal concerns.groups who also lack Christian-style clergy but which have communities in the state. There are also lingering questions over whether or not same-sex marriages ā or really any marriage performed under this system ā would still be recognized if people moved out-of-state.The measure, for instance, might expose a violation of the establishment clause already existent in Oklahoma law. In its current form, the bill makes concessions for accepting marriage certificates from Quakers, Bahaāis, and Mormons who do not have traditional clergy, but it does not outline similar explanations for Muslims, Hindus, or Buddhists,