Alabama weighs eliminating all marriage licenses

[roho76]

I hate that this is how the religious right is getting their way but I support the shit out of it. I feel kinda dirty. Ultimately, this is the right solution.

 

[euphemia]

How on earth will they recoup the tax revenue they lose by doing this? That fee you pay at the registry office? It's a tax.

And will they trust people to file their taxes correctly? It's more expensive if you're married because you both own stuff.

 

[William Tell]

It isn't a conservative school of thought. It is slowly catching on, but not doing well. Liberty folks came up with the idea. Republicans in NH were the first legislators to talk about it. Then in OK. Nothing much happened in either state, except for some news coverage and minor debating. Now the idea has spread to AL, though perhaps with not so nice intentions. Still, that's good news. Whenever conservatives thing about an issue like this, I'm hopefully that the Republican Party isn't as close-minded as most young people think it is.

It is a conservative school of thought now. Ron Paul was the first one I heard talk about it. Someone I know who is very socially conservative was saying we should get the government out of marriage. I'm not sure if he got that from Ron, but he's the one who popularized the position among conservatives. It might not be the most popular conservative view on marriage, but its definitely a growing one.

 

[William Tell]

I'm conflicted... doing the correct thing for the wrong reason.....

I hate that this is how the religious right is getting their way but I support the shit out of it. I feel kinda dirty. Ultimately, this is the right solution.

Hee hee. Its funny, I've seen a lot of socially liberal libertarians on other sites angry about this. They want the left and center to change their position on marriage, not the conservatives.

 

[DFF]

Eliminating licensing is good .

I support doing away with licences as well.

 

[Henry Rogue]

Divorce attorneys will be pissed.

 

[Henry Rogue]

It isn't a conservative school of thought. It is slowly catching on, but not doing well. Liberty folks came up with the idea. Republicans in NH were the first legislators to talk about it. Then in OK. Nothing much happened in either state, except for some news coverage and minor debating. Now the idea has spread to AL, though perhaps with not so nice intentions. Still, that's good news. Whenever conservatives thing about an issue like this, I'm hopefully that the Republican Party isn't as close-minded as most young people think it is.

The surest way to get people to accept an idea is to get them to think it was their own.

 

[JohnGalt1225]

I applaud Alabama here.

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[mosquitobite]

No need for the government to be involved with permission.

But what about recording it? Unless they tackle the state sanctioned benefits at the same time, this doesn't solve much.

I say make people file their CONTRACT with the state and part of that contract should be the terms in the event of dissolution. Make people talk about these things while they are in LUV and then the divorce racket will really hate it!

 

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

 

[euphemia]

In an ideal world, marriage is an exclusive sexual relationship that defines property ownership, and legitimizes children. If that relationship should break up, the State has a vested interest to ensure a fair division of property and the determined custody of minor children.

 

[Feeding the Abscess]

In an ideal world, marriage is an exclusive sexual relationship that defines property ownership, and legitimizes children. If that relationship should break up, the State has a vested interest to ensure a fair division of property and the determined custody of minor children.

Why should the State have a vested interest in that arrangement?

 

[osan]

Bob and weave, my ass. It would be a strong upper-cut, leaving the feds on the mat, cold.

I hope they do it. What a complete wrench that would throw into the works. I'd pay to see that happen.

 

[osan]

I'm conflicted... doing the correct thing for the wrong reason.....

Please elucidate. I see no issue here.

 

[mosquitobite]

In an ideal world, marriage is an exclusive sexual relationship that defines property ownership, and legitimizes children. If that relationship should break up, the State has a vested interest to ensure a fair division of property and the determined custody of minor children.

IMO, if someone wants the state involved in dissolution, they should be required to file a CONTRACT: specify the terms, the agreement, and spell out the division of assets and custody arrangements in the event of dissolution.

If you force people to tackle these issues up front, half the racket that is divorce court would be eliminated.

The other option is to force religious marriages to go through their churches to get the divorce.

Church marriage = church divorce
Contract/secular marriage would be recorded with the state and terms spelled out to be valid.

 

[euphemia]

But not everyone who gets married in the church actually has a relationship with the church. Sometimes the people move away or drop out. The church is not an authority to many.

 

[DevilsAdvocate]

Marriage contracts should be privatized. How assets are split in the event of a divorce, penalties for cheating, visitation rights...etc. All of this should drawn up in a private contract. Contracts can be individualized to the circumstances of each couple.

Certain contracts will probably become more mainstream and popular, and solidified as a brand. Such as Coke or Pepsi, a mainline standard contract everybody recognizes by name.

Some possible examples:

"The Alpha Male"
The man is expected to do all the work, and financially support the women and children. In return, the woman must treat him with respect, do the housework, spend lots of time with the kids, etc... The man entirely controls financial decisions. This union reinforces traditional family roles where the man, although dominant, has great burdens placed upon him.

"The Christian Standard"
The contract is recognized as a religious union, and is mediated by the church as a third party. The church holds a special court to decide who gets custody and how much child support is owed. Infidelity is punished most harshly and results in an immediate loss of custody.

"The White Knight"
The woman is entirely dominant in the marriage. She can leave whenever she wants, and take the kids and the house with her if he doesn't measure up to her satisfaction. In a divorce scenario, he will be entirely cast aside, forced to pay a large portion of his income with meager visitation rights if any. Meanwhile while the woman finds a new husband to act as a father figure for her children.


In my opinion, the state should still enforce a ban on bizzare unions. Such as marriages with 5 people, 7 people and a dolphin, 10 people and 2 horses, with any combination of male/female, gay, straight, bisexual...etc. These shouldn't be banned in general, only if they expect to raise kids in that scenario. It is my personal belief based on human evolution and biology that gay unions are extremely harmful to the psychology of children, almost as bad as single motherhood or single fatherhood. And I think they should be prevented from raising children through artificial insemination (adoption is fine).

 

[CJLauderdale4]

And this makes me proud to be living in Alabama!!

The issue with marriage isn't about gay rights, gays wanting to visit loved ones in the hospital, or gays wanting to ride on their lovers health insurance...

It's about the government using an ecclesiastical institution as marriage to dictate all of those things! Insurance companies, hospitals, and the IRS should all be basing their policies on something else, NOT marriage. I can just as easily call an attorney and sign a "power of attorney" or other contractual document that allows anyone to claim me as dependent on their insurance or tax forms (i.e. disabled grandma, etc).

It's the fact that the Federal Government uses marriage to divide and control people.

In the end, WHO THE HELL IS THE GOVERNMENT TO TELL ME WHO I CAN MARRY!!

Look up the history of marriage licensing, and you'll be enlightened as to why it is even around (especially in the South).

 

[georgiaboy]

Roll Tide!