United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Alabama Senate Votes to End State Marriage Licenses
Source:
FEE
URL Source: http://fee.org/anythingpeaceful/det ... to-end-state-marriage-licenses
Published: Jun 2, 2015
Author: Jeffery Tucker
Post Date: 2015-06-02 12:08:07 by cranko
Keywords: None
Views: 11788
Comments: 69
Why are there marriage “licenses” – a permission slip granted or denied by the state – rather than just contracts like any other? Why does government stand in the position to veto the choices of two people who want to commit to each other? These are questions that the Alabama Senate considered in May this year. The result was the passage of Senate Bill 377, supported by 22 senators and opposed by only 3. Under this legislation, licenses would no longer exist for marriage. Marriage would become a plain contract filed with the Probate offices. In effect, this would restore the traditional role of law in marriage as it has existed in most times and places, before the racially motivated and eugenically inspired idea of “marriage licenses” came along in the early part of the 20th century. Governments embraced them as part of a larger effort to stop race mixing and to reduce procreation among undesirables. They were later entrenched as a standard of proof for government benefits claimants. The conception of marriage as a legal contract, in contrast, exists as the private decision of the parties involved, along with a legal representative (and/or clergy) and witnesses. Just as anyone can make a contract for goods and services, marriage would become purely a matter of individual choice, not government decree. This step would go a long way toward ending the division and confusion over marriage that has taken over the state, pitting one group against another and leading to a tug-of-war between the federal government and a politically ambitious judge in the state who speaks for religious fundamentalists. It would bring about a nearly complete ceasefire in this front of the trumped-up culture war. Surprisingly, the moved has been welcomed by most, if only as an answer to the legal confusions that have come about from conflicting court orders. In January, a federal court ruled that Alabama must grant licenses to same- sex couples. In response, the fundamentalist state Supreme Court Justice Roy Moore (of the 10 Commandments Monument fame) issued a directive telling probate justices to ignore the rule. In March, the Supreme Court issued an edict stopping judges from issuing any licenses to same-sex couples. Moreover, following the Senate passage of this bill, a US District Court ordered the state to comply with federal mandates. As a result, no one knows for sure what to do, and thousands of same-sex couples, driven out of the state in order to marry, are unclear whether their unions are recognized by the state. How such a dramatic shift would affect the thousands of legal benefits and privileges afforded to those with licenses is unclear. Regardless, it will be worth the test because the current system is outdated, anachronistic, and deeply divisive. As long as government is the decision maker, the voting citizenry imagines itself to have a stake in the shape of decisions that should only involve those party to the exchange. It would also end the dispute over finding a legal definition of marriage that applies to all. Keep in mind that this is not only about same-sex couples. Many religious traditions have strict rules concerning what is and is not a valid marriage. The Catholic Church, for example, will not codify a second marriage if the first one remains not annulled by Church courts. Their conceptions are not the same as the states’. The search for a single definition for everyone, created and enforced by the state, is untenable, and threatens actual damage to the institution and to millions of people who, for whatever private reason, happen to disagree. The move from licenses to contracts would leave the terms and conditions entirely up to the couple. The civic order as such has no role whatsoever in intervening. What is driving this change? Some people speculate that conservative Alabama politicians and judges anticipate being forced by courts to accept same-sex marriage and want nothing to do with it. By getting rid of licenses completely, they remove their own moral (or electoral) culpability for legally approving something they find offensive. Perhaps that's right, but ulterior motives aside, it seems like a step in the right direction. To be sure, this is not a perfect solution. The best answer would leave marriage entirely up to private parties. In my own case, in 2014, I officiated at a wedding in which the couple filed their vows and promises on the Blockchain, a distributed ledger that provides an immutable record. Though it has no legal standing now, the couple was anticipating a time when marriage is completely taken out of the realm of public policy altogether. Nonetheless, the end of the license and its replacement with a plain contract would take us a long way in the direction of the goal: a complete wall of separation between the state and marriage. Otherwise, the culture war will continue without end, and everyone will lose.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
State governments first started requiring marriage licenses during the Progressive Era to prevent whites from marrying people of other races. So, government marriage licenses have been a corrupt enterprise from the very beginning. It's time to end them.
OKLAHOMA HOUSE VOTES TO END MARRIAGE LICENSES ...
So, government marriage licenses have been a corrupt enterprise from the very beginning. It's time to end them. That is very true and it was also done to do blood tests to prevent people from being married that would produce a bad result like sickle cell. That is why in movies from the 40s there is always this "blood test" that has to be performed before a license is granted. It is a left over from the eugenics movement. I tried to explain this to social conservatives who wanted to prevent gay marriage and my recommendation (proposed by libertarians which I agreed with) was to get the govt out of granting marriage licenses and tax credits for marriage (not fair to single people anyway). The reason marriage is an equal rights issue is because married couples get benefits and non married couples don't. But the social conservatives refused to hear this. They actively want the govt enforcing marriage codes and licenses as long as it meets their version of marriage. Sadly, that is not possible any longer.
Social "Conservatives" have been trying to win at the Progressive's game -- control big government for their own ends. But they can't win at this game. So, we need to change the game. The libertarians are right -- the only way to prevent Progressives from shoving their views down our throats is to take away the power of big government. Unfortunately, some people aren't too bright.
Unfortunately, some people aren't too bright. I think it is too late though to introduce privatized marriage as an alternative.
Finally..... Great to see this. It should/could spread to other states.
So, government marriage licenses have been a corrupt enterprise from the very beginning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_license A requirement for banns of marriage was introduced to England and Wales by the Church in 1215. This required a public announcement of a forthcoming marriage, in the couple's parish church, for three Sundays prior to the wedding and gave an opportunity for any objections to the marriage to be voiced (for example, that one of the parties was already married or that the couple was related within a prohibited degree), but a failure to call banns did not affect the validity of the marriage. Marriage licences were introduced in the 14th century, to allow the usual notice period under banns to be waived, on payment of a fee and accompanied by a sworn declaration, that there was no canonical impediment to the marriage. Licences were usually granted by an archbishop, bishop or archdeacon. There could be a number of reasons for a couple to obtain a licence: they might wish to marry quickly (and avoid the three weeks' delay by the calling of banns); they might wish to marry in a parish away from their home parish; or, because a licence required a higher payment than banns, they might choose to obtain one as a status symbol. [...] In the United States, until the mid-19th century, common-law marriages were recognized as valid, but thereafter some states began to invalidate common-law marriages. Common-law marriages, if recognized, are valid, notwithstanding the absence of a marriage license. North Carolina and Tennessee (which originally was western North Carolina) never recognized marriage at the common law as valid without a license - if the marriage was entered into in North Carolina or Tennessee. They have always recognized otherwise valid marriages (except bigamous) entered into in conformity with the law of other states, territories and nations.
Hmm...So that means the state would not be setting up Justices of the Peace to 'marry' folks. Very interesting. A way for the state to not sanction gay 'marriage.' If some gay couple wanted to get 'married' they would have to find a church to do it or one of those 'hitching posts.' The dews of grace fall heavily in the night of sorrow. The stars of promise shine forth gloriously amid the darkness of grief. Continue thy service under all changes. (C.H. Spurgeon)
Not exactly. Most Christians who are social conservatives don't want government to take a stand one way or the other. It was when homosexuals et al. started legislating their latest habit or hobby that Christians used the ballot box and courts to fight government from endorsing or taking sides in the culture war. The dews of grace fall heavily in the night of sorrow. The stars of promise shine forth gloriously amid the darkness of grief. Continue thy service under all changes. (C.H. Spurgeon)
Do you think that the Supreme Court will force states that don't have marriage licenses to issue them??? Perhaps. We'll see.
Agreed. We need to unwind the ENTIRE Progressive Era -- marriage licenses, federal income tax, direct election of Senators, prohibition, etc. -- end it all. We'll do it one state at a time. Let's see how the feds try to stop it.
I didn't know that England and Wales were U.S. States. I learn something new everyday.
Yep, 2 states. 38 state invalidated common law marriage during the 1910's and 1920's to prevent whites from marry people of other races. My assertion that government marriage licenses were a corrupt enterprise from the beginning stands because it is very broadly true.
Please tell that to Rick Santorum, Mike Huckleberry and their supporters.
Why not end ALL state licensing? It's not fair that some people get to do things that I can't.
All / NONE -- I guess you are an extremist.
England had marriage licenses and the colonies fell under English law until after the revolution. After the Constitution, all the former colonies adopted the common law of England by their constitution or by statute.
Do you think that the Supreme Court will force states that don't have marriage licenses to issue them??? Perhaps. We'll see. Depends - is the Alabama proposal to only recognize religiously sanctioned marriages? If so what of Jews and Protestants who carry out gay marriages? What about secular justice of the peace kind of marriages? Marriage is also tied into a host of tax breaks. Will those be done away with? If no one is getting a marriage benefit then gays can't claim discrimination but who will deny this benefit? The benefits in marriage that the govt hands out in Social Security, etc is almost the entire basis for giving gays the same right since they claim they are denied the same benefits for living the exact same kind of life but just with the same sex partner.
If you are a conservative why would you want to hand back the power of the vote to the state in total? Either leave it alone as is now or just tweak it. It does seem to me the reason Republicans want to eliminate direct election of senators is for demographic reasons - fear of not being able to win at the ballot box as a party. As a compromise, I would like a system where one senator is elected directly by the state's voters and have another appointed by the State's legislature.
If we do go to privatize marriage - then we have to accept polygamous marriage - many wives or even many husbands. But if no tax dollars are involved then it would only be an issue with child custodies - and again I must state I don't see anyone removing govt benefits to marriage.
Are you also for removing tax benefits for dependent children? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Well yes. They are involved. In some cases rightfully so. How can a Christian stand by and watch our government allow innocent children getting slaughtered in the name of convenience when Christians have a right to vote and freedom of speech? Christians involved in social issues is a reactionary response to wholesale government endorsement of satanic practices and endorsements. The dews of grace fall heavily in the night of sorrow. The stars of promise shine forth gloriously amid the darkness of grief. Continue thy service under all changes. (C.H. Spurgeon)
If "fairness" and "equality" are the criteria, then ALL licensing should be eliminated. My point being, this is NOT about "fairness" and "equality".
I always thought it was to prevent Alabamans (and West Virginians) from marrying their twelve-year-old kissin' cousins... but I guess it shouldn't surprise me that the Tea Party wants to return to the traditional shotgun enforced marriage "contract" Some people march to a different drummer - and some people POLKA.
If you support fags pretending to be married. Then trying to force people to say they are married. People who support that need to have a baseball bat shoved up their ass. Large side.
Are you also for removing tax benefits for dependent children? I am playing at analyst - I don't see anyone removing tax benefits. It is interesting that the legal argument for gay marriage is based on tax benefits and pension/SS benefits/insurance benefits. In other words it is an economics issue. I recall about 8 years ago some conservatives coming out with the idea of social contract or whatever the term was for giving gays marriage in all but the name marriage and conservatives on forums HATED the idea because of ideology rather than smarts so the GOP did not push that - and social contracts would apply to brothers and sisters or freinds, etc who wished to gain benefits (in other words it would not be based on sexual acts but mutual support relationships - getting the gay out of it). But social conservatives are the stupidest of conservatives.
"In other words it is an economics issue." Nope. It's still only a "lifestyle acceptance" issue. Gay "marriage" has been legal over ten years now, and only about 2% of gays choose to get married. Given the weeping and gnashing of teeth by gays for legalization, you'd think that number would be more like 98%. Nope. Gays could give a FF about "marriage". First, limiting a homosexual to one partner is an anathema to the gay lifestyle. Second, it's merely a ploy to acceptance -- like gays in the military or gay Boy Scouts. They only want the right to sign up, not actually sign up.
Then it evolved to help prevent marrying cousins which was still prevalent at the time in the South, a prominent example being Pat Robertson whose parents were first cousins. I know there were a few other famous examples but can't recall them at the moment. Sickle cell anemia was not as well-known at the time nor was testing widely available. The blood testing was also used as cover for testing for venereal diseases and for rH blood factor in offspring. Nearly every state has abolished the blood test requirement. http://usmarriagelaws.com/search/united_states/blood_test_requirements/index.shtml Why the "Marriage Blood Test"? Some people believe that the premarital blood test is to check blood types to be sure you and your future spouse are biologically compatible. (So far, there is no test to determine whether you are otherwise compatible!) While checking the blood type may be helpful in the event of pregnancy — and it is routinely checked then in case a transfusion is needed and to check the Rh type — it is not part of the routine premarital blood test. It is perfectly safe and acceptable for a person of one blood type to marry another with the same or a different blood type. Another myth is that the required blood testing is to make sure you and your betrothed are not related. In fact, in most locations, the standard premarital blood tests check for evidence of syphilis (now or in the past) and rubella (German measles). Screening for other diseases in future newlyweds has in some cases included tuberculosis, gonorrhea, and HIV; of these, only HIV can be detected by blood tests. Only two states have passed legislation requiring HIV testing before marriage, but those laws did not last long at least in part because of very low detection rates.
Where the Hell have you been? lol
Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
How about playing at answering the question. Are you also for removing tax benefits for dependent children? потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Since you see everything as simply a matter of all opinions being equal, then you don't have a problem With marriage between hogs and humans, correct? And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined* in a furnace of clay, purified seven times. Psalm 12:6
Some people march to a different drummer - and some people POLKA.
Out of town for 10 days and away from the internet. I recommend it. Try it sometime.
Many of these are illusory or are subsidies for state-desired consumer behavior like buying houses. Yes, they should be abolished. After all, the more we have increased these subsidies to marriage, the more marriage has declined as a social institution so you can hardly argue that the benefits have done anything to stabilize and increase the numbers of married couples. Once you admit that the benefits do not aid in larger numbers of people marrying and avoiding divorce, the benefits are just another Big Gov giveaway for loathsome pols to buy votes with and to get donations from outfits like Home Depot and other lobbyists in the housing sector.
Are you also for removing tax benefits for dependent children?
потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Certainly ....in conjunction with a flat tax where all subsidies and benefits are eliminated . I see a lot of merit in getting the State out of the marriage game. Their concern is with the contractual end of it .By licensing "marriage" they ventured into an area they don't belong ... the spiritual. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
No, the legal rulings were based on ss/tax/insuarance equality.
How about you suck a cow's teat?
Yes, they should be abolished. After all, the more we have increased these subsidies to marriage, the more marriage has declined as a social institution so you can hardly argue that the benefits have done anything to stabilize and increase the numbers of married couples. Once you admit that the benefits do not aid in larger numbers of people marrying and avoiding divorce, the benefits are just another Big Gov giveaway for loathsome pols to buy votes with and to get donations from outfits like Home Depot and other lobbyists in the housing sector. That is all true - but I don't see that happening. I would love to move onto a VAT or flat tax system of taxes or even a federal sales tax (it is not as bad as it sounds and would reward thrift) and no deductions allowed - churches and religions would then also be "taxed" that way. But good luck with that also.
Provide a list of these various tax benefits for dependent children and I will tell you which ones I would remove.
Out of town for 10 days and away from the internet. I recommend it. Try it sometime. I was away for over 3 years when Goldi put her foot across my ass. Welcome back. Every society gets the kind of criminal it deserves. What is equally true is that every community gets the kind of law enforcement it insists on. Robert Kennedy
Comments (42 - 69) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: cranko (#0)
#3. To: cranko (#1)
(Edited)
State governments first started requiring marriage licenses during the Progressive Era to prevent whites from marrying people of other races.
#4. To: Pericles (#3)
#5. To: cranko (#4)
The libertarians are right -- the only way to prevent Progressives from shoving their views down our throats is to take away the power of big government.
#6. To: cranko (#0)
Alabama Senate Votes to End State Marriage Licenses
#7. To: cranko (#1)
State governments first started requiring marriage licenses during the Progressive Era to prevent whites from marrying people of other races.
England & Wales
United States
#8. To: cranko, TooConservative (#0)
These are questions that the Alabama Senate considered in May this year. The result was the passage of Senate Bill 377, supported by 22 senators and opposed by only 3. Under this legislation, licenses would no longer exist for marriage. Marriage would become a plain contract filed with the Probate offices.
#9. To: cranko, TooConservative, GarySpFc, Liberator (#4)
Social "Conservatives" have been trying to win at the Progressive's game -- control big government for their own ends.
#10. To: Pericles (#5)
I think it is too late though to introduce privatized marriage as an alternative.
#11. To: Pinguinite (#6)
Finally..... Great to see this. It should/could spread to other states.
#12. To: nolu chan (#7)
England & Wales
#13. To: nolu chan (#7)
(Edited)
North Carolina and Tennessee...
#14. To: redleghunter (#9)
Most Christians who are social conservatives don't want government to take a stand one way or the other.
#15. To: cranko (#0)
#16. To: misterwhite (#15)
Why not end ALL state licensing? It's not fair that some people get to do things that I can't.
#17. To: cranko (#12)
I didn't know that England and Wales were U.S. States.
#18. To: cranko (#10)
I think it is too late though to introduce privatized marriage as an alternative.
#19. To: cranko (#11)
greed. We need to unwind the ENTIRE Progressive Era -- marriage licenses, federal income tax, direct election of Senators, prohibition, etc. -- end it all. We'll do it one state at a time. Let's see how the feds try to stop it.
#20. To: nolu chan, cranko (#7)
#21. To: Pericles, nolu chan, cranko (#20)
- and again I must state I don't see anyone removing govt benefits to marriage.
#22. To: cranko, GarySpFc (#14)
#23. To: cranko (#16)
"All / NONE -- I guess you are an extremist."
#24. To: cranko (#1)
State governments first started requiring marriage licenses during the Progressive Era to prevent whites from marrying people of other races.
#25. To: Willie Green (#24)
#26. To: SOSO, nolu chan, cranko (#21)
and again I must state I don't see anyone removing govt benefits to marriage.
#27. To: Pericles (#26)
"It is interesting that the legal argument for gay marriage is based on tax benefits and pension/SS benefits/insurance benefits."
#28. To: cranko, Pericles (#1)
State governments first started requiring marriage licenses during the Progressive Era to prevent whites from marrying people of other races.
As if finding the perfect mate and planning the perfect wedding were not hard enough, some people discover only days before their wedding that they must have a blood test before a marriage license will be issued. Then again, a blood test may be unnecessary. It depends where you live, and, in some states, whether you are a man or a woman. The laws vary from state to state, and in recent years more and more states have dropped the requirement altogether. Is this a good idea? Can your marriage be delayed by the results of these tests? What are the tests for, anyway? Read on to learn about the myths and facts behind premarital blood testing.
#29. To: TooConservative (#28)
#30. To: Pericles, nolu chan, cranko (#26)
I am playing at analyst -
#31. To: Willie Green (#24)
Some people march to a different drummer - and some people POLKA.
#32. To: GarySpFC (#31)
Since you see everything as simply a matter of all opinions being equal, then you don't have a problem With marriage between hogs and humans, correct?
#33. To: GrandIsland (#29)
Where the Hell have you been? lol
#34. To: Pericles, SOSO (#18)
Marriage is also tied into a host of tax breaks. Will those be done away with? If no one is getting a marriage benefit then gays can't claim discrimination but who will deny this benefit?
#35. To: TooConservative (#34)
#36. To: SOSO (#35)
Are you also for removing tax benefits for dependent children?
#37. To: misterwhite (#27)
Nope. It's still only a "lifestyle acceptance" issue.
#38. To: SOSO (#30)
I am playing at analyst - How about playing at answering the question.
#39. To: TooConservative (#34)
(Edited)
Many of these are illusory or are subsidies for state-desired consumer behavior like buying houses.
#40. To: SOSO (#35)
Are you also for removing tax benefits for dependent children?
#41. To: TooConservative (#33)
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]