Alabama lawmakers unanimously voted to stop issuing marriage licenses so gay couples can't get one
Source: LGBTQ Nation
By Alex Bollinger · Friday, March 22, 2019
The Alabama senate just unanimously voted for a bill that would get rid of marriage licenses because some judges in the state dont want to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
If the bill is signed into law, Alabama would be the only state where a marriage license would not generally be required to get married.
Instead, couples would get a form to fill out from the state and present that form or an affidavit to a probate judge, who would then record the marriage.
Proponents of the bill say that thats different because the state is no longer giving permission to the couple to get married, its just recording a marriage that happened completely separate from the state.
Read more: https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2019/03/alabama-lawmakers-unanimously-voted-stop-issuing-marriage-licenses-gay-couples-cant-get-one/
LonePirate
(13,431 posts)Joe Nation
(963 posts)n/t
The Mouth
(3,165 posts)Bookmarking. It's hard to believe that there is any beneficent intent in this. Interesting
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Legislature is just now catching up to make it lawful.
Actually, there are many like me who feel the state has no business dictating marriages, Glad to see that happening, glad to see there is a less complicated way.
In fact, I want to disclose that after 18 years of unwedded bliss together, Mr. dixie and I got paper hitched about a week after they removed the state from the process 2 years ago.
The Mouth
(3,165 posts)I really agree. And it's a win/win for both right and left. Get the State out of the business of marriage. It's a legal and economic contract, period.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)Knuckleheads down here thought they had killed gay marriage by what they did, because the Probate Judge would not marry people, and it was left to the church to do it. Naturally they figured no church would do it.
but...they forgot one lil ole thing....
You can be married by any recognized church.
Our dear friend who is gay got herself ordained by a legal on-line church, and married us at home.
The courthouse accepted all the paperwork, declared it is legal. And I loved giving the finger to the state.
The Mouth
(3,165 posts)Let them practice their bronze age bullshit; may it make them happy. Just don't make us normal humans regard it with any more legal respect than astrology or tarot.
niyad
(113,625 posts)Shut Up, and Do Your Motherf&%*ing Job (Sandy and Richard Riccardi)
keithbvadu2
(36,962 posts)The sanctity of Holy matrimony for conservative Christians - Kim Davis
alwaysinasnit
(5,075 posts)keithbvadu2
(36,962 posts)They don't seem to mention the parts of the Bible that go against their 'beliefs'.
alwaysinasnit
(5,075 posts)jmowreader
(50,567 posts)Without pig pickins and oyster roasts, half the churches in the South would have gone broke by now. The Bible is a wonderful book if you ignore the parts you dont like.
Vacuous Virgina
(10 posts)Speaking of which ... 😎😎😎
LiberalArkie
(15,730 posts)keithbvadu2
(36,962 posts)LiberalArkie
(15,730 posts)cstanleytech
(26,334 posts)TwilightZone
(25,499 posts)JI7
(89,279 posts)becsuse if the dixiecrat types that never switched.
keithbvadu2
(36,962 posts)Too much cussing to post on some websites.
Great theme but cannot post it on many other sites.
alwaysinasnit
(5,075 posts)some pretty expensive consequences.
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-kim-davis-kentucky-clerk-bill-20190131-story.html
Collimator
(1,639 posts). . . So I am not even going to bother being angry about this. Instead, I will shake my head in wry amusement over how stupidly miserable some people can be.
I will also take comfort in knowing that the future is coming for us all, not a one of us can turn it back. And as MLK quoted, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards Justice."
Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)During the debate over gay marriage. Get the government out of marriage and just let the various parties involved decide who gets married. A step beyond civil unions and beneath state sanctioned gay marriage.
Too late now though. That rainbow has left the bridal registry and closing the door part way won't do.
A marriage that is not formally acknowledged by the state might be ignored by other states and might not be recognized by individuals.
Bigots would argue that because a marrige is merely registered and not formally sanctioned it doesn't have the same protections.
I can't see this withstanding a court challenge.
keithbvadu2
(36,962 posts)"Instead, couples would get a form to fill out from the state and present that form or an affidavit to a probate judge, who would then record the marriage. "
That would make it formally recognized by the state.
Buzz cook
(2,474 posts)As a license. The former is null the latter has a civil blessing. There is a judgement made in a marriage license and not in a recorded document.
Perhaps a lawyer can argue it better, that's just my impression.
keithbvadu2
(36,962 posts)They will probably fight over it in court. I think if it is written into the law, it would mean recognition.
Girard442
(6,086 posts)Assuming, of course, that those Alabama marriages are not somehow legally deficient (as another poster mentioned).
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)The Supreme Court has decided Obergefell v. Hodges. It is settled law. National law. Federal law. Call it what you like. It is THE LAW.
What if Alabama (or any other state) starts to decide which laws they will and will not uphold ? We are a nation of laws. Just because some bigot doesn't like this law or that law does NOT mean THEY get to decide for themselves which is LAW. THAT is what SCOTUS is all about.
Follow the laws or be faced with Federal funds being withheld.
WHERE DOES THIS BS END ???
Jedi Guy
(3,262 posts)Pot is, after all, still illegal at the federal level.
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)I live in a state where it is legal. And I not only support that, I signed petitions to get it on the ballot, initially to get the ball rolling for medical benefits. Now it is legal for recreational usage. All things in moderation . . . makes sense to me.
Though I don't imbibe myself (due to medical complications), I continue to support people who find it beneficial for treating medical issues, especially when ALL else has failed. The hypocrisy of the government is mind-boggling -- there was a government funded program (I think it started under Carter, sunsetted under GHWB.) for medical usage by a select group of people, for whom all other meds had failed, that PROVED its benefits. The National Academy of Science documented their work in detail, validating the success of using pot as treatment options.
Prohibition - of anything - has never worked, as we all know. I find it hilarious that Alaska is considering legalization. When I was graduating from HS, a large number of boys were going there to work on the pipeline (1970s). It was legal there then. An added incentive to thousands of young men, living far from home, in a place with no nightlife and few women. Then, in the RR era, it was banned. Short-sighted. Now, they want to make it legal again.
Jedi Guy
(3,262 posts)I recognize that using pot and marriage rights are not the same thing. But it's somewhat hypocritical to support state laws that conflict with federal laws when you like the state law in question, and to then turn around and invoke federal law as a cudgel against state laws that you dislike. Either federal law supersedes state law in all cases, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
That said, I too support pot legalization. It's far less harmful than other substances which are legal, and has many medicinal benefits, as you rightly point out. It's only a matter of time until it's legalized nationwide, in my opinion. Canada legalized it, and the country hasn't collapsed. It's a great source of tax revenue, and it cuts into the illicit market to an extent.
Obviously, I also support marriage equality, and any attempt by a state to restrict marriage rights should be opposed on moral, as well as legal, grounds. For all the hyperventilating and doom-crying from the (primarily religious) right, marriage quality hasn't caused societal collapse, either.
Haggis for Breakfast
(6,831 posts)You were right, it was inconsistent. But we do have this fractured system, where the feds are supreme but state sovereignty determines much of our local political landscape. And the two cases are a good example of that divide. Marriage equality is federal, but pot laws are a minefield, with the feds on one side and the states on the other. This sets up a serious problem for us veterans who live in states where pot is legal, but obtain our health care through the VA. Get flagged on a UA, and you could find yourself in real trouble. It's insane.
riversedge
(70,350 posts)+
............Alabama has had a problem with judges refusing to follow the Supreme Courts Obergefell v. Hodges decision and issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
In the wake of the decision, Roy Moore, who was the chief justice of the Alabama supreme court, told state judges to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples calling the Supreme Court decision illegitimate. He eventually lost his job for this.
One-third of counties either refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples or stopped issuing the licenses at all in the wake of the decision.
Today, Albritton said that he knows of at least seven judges who have stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether in Alabama and three others may have stopped as well. There are 68 probate judges who can issue marriage licenses in the state.
He said that his bill is an attempt at a compromise.
SWBTATTReg
(22,176 posts)appropriate marriage license per their state they were married in, can present such paperwork if required in AL which would then be accepted (perhaps for life insurance, health insurance purposes, and/or other purposes that a license would have to be shown)? Just curious.
lark
(23,166 posts)Forewarned is forearmed.
irisblue
(33,036 posts)1-what will this do for inheritance & survivorship medical-legal rights?
2-what will this do to Social Security survivor benefits?
KY_EnviroGuy
(14,496 posts)having rate adjustments for married/filing jointly?
One would assume a state-issued license would be required to make those claims.
..........
cstanleytech
(26,334 posts)other supporting paperwork to prove they were married.
As for inheritance and medical rights I would think it would be the same as well though in all honesty its always best to have a will drawn up beforehand regardless just to stop some douche relative from trying to start shit.
irisblue
(33,036 posts)From screwing over the surviving partner or create durable medical power of attorneys to keep access and decision rights in medical settings. This seems like a very stupid poorly thought decision.
cstanleytech
(26,334 posts)if not prevent them to lessen the odds of a douchebag causing many problems.
Miigwech
(3,741 posts)when you have cousins? LOL
Xolodno
(6,406 posts)....The State of Alabama would record it?
It the Soviet Union, marriages became simple agreements...that didn't work out so well.
BlueFlorida
(1,532 posts)They know it will be struck down by the courts. Just wasting taxpayers' money for a bunch of biblethumpers.
PoindexterOglethorpe
(25,914 posts)some probate judge signs off on? What about those who get married in a religious ceremony, and the license is signed by a priest, minister, rabbi, imam, whatever? Will those no longer be legal in that state?
I found it interesting that after I got married I never had to show documented proof of that marriage. Only years later, after I'd been divorced and was filing for Social Security did I need to do that. And the divorce, of course. But in all the years inbetween, nope. Plus, I never changed my name the whole time, so I was always "Poindexter Oglethorpe" and never had a stitch of trouble about the different last names.
EveHammond13
(2,855 posts)TwilightZone
(25,499 posts)It took some overt bigotry to get there, but the end result isn't half bad.
The Mouth
(3,165 posts)Even the cons were smart enough to know this battle is lost completely. At least that's a happy take on it.
eppur_se_muova
(36,305 posts)BlueJac
(7,838 posts)what the hell is wrong with people, leave others alone with their own lives! I know Alabama does not want to be judged by the rest of America!
Whiskeytide
(4,463 posts)... understand it, the state will simply no longer require that you get a license to get married. Now you just get married and then send in the form so they have a record of it. It seems to solve the problem of LGBT being refused a license, and also lets off the hook a probate judge who objects on principle or - more accurately - on the fact that its an elected office and his constituency objects. It had unanimous bipartisan support - though for different reasons.
Sneederbunk
(14,314 posts)what about the money. If the county does not get the license fee is there a fee for the form and/or a fee to record with probate judge?
patricia92243
(12,605 posts)piece of paper yourself makes a difference???
Just change the name of the piece of paper the person gives you if that makes them happy.
LuvNewcastle
(16,860 posts)fill out a form, sign it, and the court clerk could put it in the computer. Notarize the form and give it back to the couple. Should take 15 minutes at the most.
BigDemVoter
(4,157 posts)Stupid fucking assholes.
sinkingfeeling
(51,482 posts)were forbidden to marry. The license wasn't issued until those items were considered. So, now I guess there's nothing to stop a father marrying is daughter?
bluestarone
(17,067 posts)Is This bill only for gay partners only? Or for anybody getting married?
Jake Stern
(3,145 posts)Let two consenting adults fill out a simple affidavit and record it.
Easy peasy. Get a certified copy of that document similar to the way people used to get a certified copy of a marriage license and you're good to go for things like name changes, Social Security, etc. If the DMV won't accept it, follow the advice of that great legal mind, Doug Llewellyn: "You take 'em to court!"
From reading the bill it appears nothing really changes except you don't have to seek an imprimatur from stodgy officialdom and get some Preacher/Rabbi/Judge to utter some spooky magical incantation to make you married.
It doesn't differentiate between two people signing the document in front of a notary and two people who get married at Our Lady of the Blessed Tortilla by a priest. Both are considered married by Alabama under this law.
I actually see this as kind of progressive.
Wabbajack_
(1,300 posts)You shouldn't need the state's permission to marry
briv1016
(1,570 posts)Thomas Hurt
(13,903 posts)The whole giving permission thing is bee ess. Marriage licenses are for record keeping and revenue generation.
petronius
(26,606 posts)be allowed to exercise their 'conscience?' Because if they're allowed to pick and choose, it doesn't seem that different...
bitterross
(4,066 posts)If I'm guessing correctly they expect the probate judges to file the paperwork. The act of filing the paperwork doesn't imply "granting permission or authority" to GET married the way issuing a license does. It just acknowledges an action has taken place.
I'm sure some will refuse to do even that and we'll see new court cases.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)they couldn't do it on their own, too few.
All who did not vote Democrat to protect the civil rights of those and everyone else on election day 2016 and last November are responsible for this. In future either the Republicans will get the SCOTUS majority they need to reestablish legal persecution around the nation, or we'll fix it.
590 days to November 3, 2020.
Polybius
(15,510 posts)What was the reason that both parties voted for this?
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)when SCOTUS struck down state bans on same-sex marriage. And note the work-around they created in the last paragraph. It doesn't mention legal rights, but recorded before a probate judge probably means it is a legally full civil union.
All government-performed "marriages" are civil unions, of course, not religious, even if the Christian right is anxious to insist they're more.
But this whole issue would have been settled permanently in favor of equality had Democrats gotten control of the senate in 2016 and made the last one or two SCOTUS appointments. Now we're one away from reversing Obergefell, possibly less.
During a brief floor debate, Albritton said the measure aimed to resolve an issue with probate judges in the state who stopped issuing marriage licenses after the U.S. Supreme Court struck down state bans on same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015. The senator said at least seven and possibly as many 10 of the 68 probate judges in Alabama had stopped issuing marriage licenses.
A license is a granting of permission or authority for people to take actions, he said. Thats the same thing with marriage licenses.
Instead of issuing marriage licenses, two people getting married would submit affidavits or forms to a probate judge, who would then record the marriage. The marriage would be considered to take place the day the individuals signed the affidavit. It would also eliminate the requirement for a ceremony for nuptials.
https://www.montgomeryadvertiser.com/story/news/2019/03/21/alabama-senate-approves-bill-end-marriage-licenses/3235747002/