Toronto Escorts

Alabama lawmakers pass bill to end marriage licenses

canada-man

Well-known member
Jun 16, 2007
31,152
2,605
113
Toronto, Ontario
canadianmale.wordpress.com
the road to get the government out of the marriage business!



The Alabama House of Representatives gave final passage today to a bill that would end the issuance of marriage licenses by probate judges and instead have them record documents that would serve as the official records of marriage.

The bill goes to Gov. Kay Ivey, who could sign it into law.

The legislation came in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015. In Alabama, some probate judges stopped issuing marriage licenses four years ago because they did not want to sign same-sex marriage licenses.

Under the bill that passed today, couples wanting to get married would submit to the probate judge a form that includes an affidavit saying they meet the legal requirements of marriage and the probate judge would record that as the official marriage document.

The House passed the bill, by Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Range, by a vote of 67-26. It had already passed the Senate.

Probate judges in some counties are still not issuing marriage licenses. The current law does not require them to issue licenses, but says they “may.”

Under Albritton’s bill, probate judges would be required to accept and record the official marriage documents.

“It allows everybody in the state now to go to their local courthouse, or wherever, to accomplish this without traveling somewhere else, which is the intent of the law,” Albritton said.

The bill also would end the requirement that a marriage be “solemnized” by a minister or another person qualified to do so. Albritton said he thought it was appropriate to separate that religious component of marriage from the state law.

Among those voting against the bill today was Rep. Neil Rafferty, D-Birmingham, who is gay and married his partner of 15 years in December.

“I feel like while in and of itself it is not prejudiced, I feel like it was born out of prejudice though," Rafferty said. "That’s just kind of my ultimate feelings, why I ultimately couldn’t support the bill, even though in and of itself it does create a system that treats everyone equal before the state.”

Rafferty said he believes the bill would allow probate judges who are not issuing marriage licenses because of their personal beliefs to skirt their responsibilities.

“I think it’s far less about good governance and more about protecting folks that don’t want to do their jobs," Rafferty said.

Rep. Wes Allen, R-Troy, was among those voting for the bill today. Allen is the former probate judge in Pike County and stopped issuing marriage licenses in 2015.

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, as do a lot of Alabamians,” Allen said. He noted that about 80 percent of Alabama voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a unique relationship between a man and a woman in 2006.

“The probate judge has to sign the marriage license,” Allen said. "And effectively, by your signature going on that marriage license, basically in my opinion, you’re endorsing it. Because it’s your signature, just like you’re signing a check, you’re endorsing it. And that was one of the objections that I had back in 2015."

Albritton’s bill had passed the Senate in previous years but never made it through the House. The senator, who is an attorney, said he’s been working on the issue since 2015.

“I’m trying to find a path that’s legal and has the least effect with the greatest amount of benefit," Albritton said. "And I think I found that.”

https://www.al.com/news/2019/05/alabama-lawmakers-pass-bill-to-end-marriage-licenses.html

....

a fun fact did you all know that U.S enact marriage liscences to stop whites from marrying blacks and vice a versa?


 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
Alabama is ahead of its time. The bills opposing abortion and now this. Progress is being made.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
0
How is a bill opposing abortion showing any progress?
Opposing abortion in cases other than rape, incest, and harm to the mother should always be the default position in the kind of loving humane world that we want to live in.

He’s one of those nosy types who think it’s his business what other people are doing with their own bodies. Just ignore him.
Not at all. One of the few purposes of government is to protect its people (e.g. the reason we have police forces), and this would include those carried by their mothers. That's a minimum standard for a properly functioning government. It's a human right!
 
Last edited:

Grimnul

Well-known member
May 15, 2018
1,482
28
48
We’ve been over this. Fetuses are not people, thus not citizens, and thus do not have rights. The only rights being infringed are the mother’s right to have an abortion if she chooses.

If you want to shitpost about politics and religion, take it to the politics and religion section.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
We’ve been over this. Fetuses are not people, thus not citizens, and thus do not have rights. The only rights being infringed are the mother’s right to have an abortion if she chooses.

If you want to shitpost about politics and religion, take it to the politics and religion section.
We did go over this and you lost the argument when you admitted that you would be ok with killing a 21-week old viable human being. Your semantics game - "fetus/people/citizen" - is illogical, unhelpful, and cruel.

My advice to you is to grow your capacity for compassion. Become humane.
 

Grimnul

Well-known member
May 15, 2018
1,482
28
48
It’s perfectly logical, you just don’t understand what the legal system is supposed to do. The law is not concerned with whether something is “moral” or not, because morals are relative. The law is concerned with protecting people from each other. The law deals with objective harm, not relative harm depending upon your personal viewpoint. The fact that abortion is legal, if anything, supports my stance that fetuses aren’t people.

Also, as I said, a 23 weeks old is not viable in 99% of cases. That’s why that article you posted existed. It’s an extremely rare occurrence. If babies were usually viable at 23 weeks, there would be no reason to write an article about it happening. It’s not worth considering something that happens so rarely as an argument for something. It’s like saying a few dozen people die from slipping in the shower every year, so we should ban showers.

What’s immoral is trying to make everyone else conform to your morals and values.
 

Mr Deeds

Muff Diver Extraordinaire
Mar 10, 2013
6,018
3,070
113
Here
In all honesty Im not sure what is right when it comes to the abortion issue and I would hate to be the person or persons who have to make laws regarding it. But I do think that a woman has the right to do what she thinks best for her life and her body. My other issue is that most of the politicians making these laws are men who are so out of touch with reality its laughable. Thank god I live in Canada
 

Grimnul

Well-known member
May 15, 2018
1,482
28
48
In all honesty Im not sure what is right when it comes to the abortion issue and I would hate to be the person or persons who have to make laws regarding it. But I do think that a woman has the right to do what she thinks best for her life and her body. My other issue is that most of the politicians making these laws are men who are so out of touch with reality its laughable. Thank god I live in Canada
That’s exactly the point. Abortion can’t be a moral issue, it has to be a legal one, and that’s why the law needs to be objective. Abortion is obviously controversial and there is much debate over what does and does not constitute a human being (and therefore whether or not a fetus should have rights). What is objective, though, is that adults are human beings and thus have legal rights. Thus, an adult’s rights need to take precedence over a fetus’ rights.

The whole problem with this issue is that people, for whatever reason, are unable to separate their own biases and feelings from the objective legal issues.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
The fact that abortion is legal, if anything, supports my stance that fetuses aren’t people.
Not in Alabama. So, now my view is right because the law their supports it (according to you).

It's a tough issue so let's leave it up to the people to decide in each of their respective States. They vote in politicians with views that reflect their own. and make laws around them. According to you, this approach is entirely legitimate.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
But I do think that a woman has the right to do what she thinks best for her life and her body. My other issue is that most of the politicians making these laws are men who are so out of touch with reality its laughable. Thank god I live in Canada
It's male and female politicians making these laws. It was men who created pro-abortion laws, too.
 

Grimnul

Well-known member
May 15, 2018
1,482
28
48
No, the entire point is that morality and law should be separate. That’s the only way for law to be objective and moral. If you leave it up to the states, a statistically significant percentage of people living in those states are having their rights violated because of moral issues they don’t agree with.
 

hamermill

Senior Member
Oct 2, 2001
4,352
2,319
113
In a place far, far away
So now in Alabama cousins, brothers and sisters can marry each other without telling anyone. Welcome to Trump’s world; a world which is racist, backwards, misogynistic, and corrupt.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
No, the entire point is that morality and law should be separate. That’s the only way for law to be objective and moral. If you leave it up to the states, a statistically significant percentage of people living in those states are having their rights violated because of moral issues they don’t agree with.
Morality informs law. Your biases only allow you to see "violations" in one context and not the other. Your biases tells you that a 21-week old fetus is not a viable human being, even when you were proven wrong by medical science.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38

Grimnul

Well-known member
May 15, 2018
1,482
28
48
You’re just further confirming that you have no idea how the law and the legal system work at this point.
 

Smallcock

Active member
Jun 5, 2009
13,703
21
38
You’re just further confirming that you have no idea how the law and the legal system work at this point.
Rightttttt....

Not an argument.
 

Grimnul

Well-known member
May 15, 2018
1,482
28
48
I don’t need an argument. You keep trying to apply a subjective value to an objective issue. You literally don’t understand what you keep doing wrong.

Anyway, I’m done with this now. You’re not going to listen to anyone anyway, so it’s a waste of time continuing this.
 
Toronto Escorts