NationStates

The Alma Mater wrote:No, that's a wedding. Marriage is the legal civil contract bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_(Catholic_Church)

No, that is why people have a wedding. They marry for the benefits and paperwork.

That might be your Atheist interpretation, but that is neither the original interpretation, the only interpretation, nor the majority interpretation.

Chessmistress wrote:I'm not an expert of American laws, I'm aware that Alabama is likely to be a very conservative state and against homosexuals' rights. Also, English it's not my native laguage, so I can miss some nuances.
Still, after reading the link, it seems to me you're right: it seems they aren't banning marriage but they're making it more easy and without the involvement of the State. It seems a progress, not a step back.

No, you didn't miss anything.

Chessmistress wrote:

Celsuis wrote:Regardless of its motives, this legislation was probably one of the most enlightening of the 21st century. It doesn't ban marriage, that's completely false. It simply makes marriage a contract between two consenting people, like it should've always been. Why should government be involved in marriage and decide who or who you cannot marry? Why should you require a government license to get married? You shouldn't. This bill doesn't discriminate and it simply replaces the function of marriage licenses with a marriage contract with identical legal standing. I'd like to see this happen worldwide.

I'm not an expert of American laws, I'm aware that Alabama is likely to be a very conservative state and against homosexuals' rights. Also, English it's not my native laguage, so I can miss some nuances.
Still, after reading the link, it seems to me you're right: it seems they aren't banning marriage but they're making it more easy and without the involvement of the State. It seems a progress, not a step back.

They aren't banning marriage, but they aren't really getting the state out of it either. If there is any question about the legality of a marriage contract, the state will still be responsible for settling the issue.

Nazi Flower Power wrote:

Chessmistress wrote:
I'm not an expert of American laws, I'm aware that Alabama is likely to be a very conservative state and against homosexuals' rights. Also, English it's not my native laguage, so I can miss some nuances.
Still, after reading the link, it seems to me you're right: it seems they aren't banning marriage but they're making it more easy and without the involvement of the State. It seems a progress, not a step back.

They aren't banning marriage, but they aren't really getting the state out of it either. If there is any question about the legality of a marriage contract, the state will still be responsible for settling the issue.

And?
I don't really see how that can be harmful. It seems good: at least when there is NOT any question about the legality of a marriage contract, things will be more easy, it seems to me.

Nazi Flower Power wrote:

Parhe wrote:I still don't see how this move is stupid. Judges refuse to sign off marriage licenses for homosexual couples so the senate decides to take judges out of the equation. It is still a contract, I doubt the state government will stop recognizing marriages because now you just need a notary or other lawyer. This seems much easier than forcing change onto the judges.

It's not actually the state that is being stupid. I can't speak for any of the other posters that are ragging on Alabama, but what I thought was stupid is the fact they have so many homophobic judges for this to be necessary.

Point taken and I agree, if only the judges weren't homophobic. That said, sometimes a change has to be introduced top-down by the government rather than forced by the population and as unfortunate as it is this is what the state must go to at least the state is trying to change it rather than just sitting back and letting it happen.

I just though posters seemed to be, though I might be wrong, disproportionately commenting on the aspect of the judges being homophobic rather than the state doing something to fix the issue. Although it doesn't seem the title chosen by the OP helped much

Scandavian States wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:No, that's a wedding. Marriage is the legal civil contract bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_(Catholic_Church)

No, that is why people have a wedding. They marry for the benefits and paperwork.

That might be your Atheist interpretation, but that is neither the original interpretation, the only interpretation, nor the majority interpretation.

There isn't only one interpretation, because marriage of various kinds is an almost universal phenomenon.

Scandavian States wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:No, that's a wedding. Marriage is the legal civil contract bit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_(Catholic_Church)

Marriage predates the Catholic church. That the Catholic Church wants to claim ownership is not my problem.

No, that is why people have a wedding. They marry for the benefits and paperwork.

That might be your Atheist interpretation, but that is neither the original interpretation, the only interpretation, nor the majority interpretation.

It IS however the legal and states interpretation. And guess what we are discussing here ?
Exactly. The legal thing.

Chessmistress wrote:

Nazi Flower Power wrote:
They aren't banning marriage, but they aren't really getting the state out of it either. If there is any question about the legality of a marriage contract, the state will still be responsible for settling the issue.

And?
I don't really see how that can be harmful. It seems good: at least when there is NOT any question about the legality of a marriage contract, things will be more easy, it seems to me.

And you guys were talking about it like this was some kind of meaningful change that gives the state less power over who can or can't be married. The state still has that power. It is really not a significant change of any kind, good or bad.

Marriage licenses aren't a ton of extra bureaucracy anyway. Some states just have one document that is a combined marriage license and marriage certificate. It just has two sections to fill out.

Nazi Flower Power wrote:

Chessmistress wrote:
And?
I don't really see how that can be harmful. It seems good: at least when there is NOT any question about the legality of a marriage contract, things will be more easy, it seems to me.

And you guys were talking about it like this was some kind of meaningful change that gives the state less power over who can or can't be married. The state still has that power. It is really not a significant change of any kind, good or bad.

Marriage licenses aren't a ton of extra bureaucracy anyway. Some states just have one document that is a combined marriage license and marriage certificate. It just has two sections to fill out.

It's not a great change, but it's a little and good change, because it really gives the state less power over who can or can't be married.
Also it's unrelated with same-sex marriage and with "ban of marriage".
Also, I don't think that great changes are needed about marriage: same-sex marriage is all we need at the moment. Some changes should be about divorces, since women have it worse when it comes to divorce.

Chessmistress wrote:

Nazi Flower Power wrote:
And you guys were talking about it like this was some kind of meaningful change that gives the state less power over who can or can't be married. The state still has that power. It is really not a significant change of any kind, good or bad.

Marriage licenses aren't a ton of extra bureaucracy anyway. Some states just have one document that is a combined marriage license and marriage certificate. It just has two sections to fill out.

It's not a great change, but it's a little and good change, because it really gives the state less power over who can or can't be married.
Also it's unrelated with same-sex marriage and with "ban of marriage".
Also, I don't think that great changes are needed about marriage: same-sex marriage is all we need at the moment. Some changes should be about divorces, since women have it worse when it comes to divorce.

But the state should enforce gay marriage, as the state is the best protection and the most respected authorization for concepts that society must accept.

And women don't necessarily have it worse for divorce everywhere. At least where I live (the UK), many fathers are not granted any custody of their children or indeed visiting time etc, because the mother is automatically assumed to be the most caring of the two parents - and is given automatic custody. If you don't believe me, there's a whole pressure group dedicated to this issue - Fathers 4 Justice. There's also the issue of cases for divorce and family court cases being held in secret, so decisions that are difficult aren't scrutinized as much as a normal family court case would be - this could be counted as a slight advantage for women in heterosexual couples in these types of cases.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fathers_4_Justice

Lordareon wrote:

New Grestin wrote:Oh, look. The American South refusing to join the rest of us in the 21st century. What a totally new and not at all common occurrence.

Texas can into independence.

The zombie empire wrote:

Lordareon wrote:

Texas can into independence.

Is that even proper grammar?

Vashtanaraada wrote:

The zombie empire wrote:

Is that even proper grammar?

The structure is likely a reference to Polandball.

Scandavian States wrote:

The Alma Mater wrote:Marriage IS a civil contract.

No, it's a religious sacrament. It's a religious sacrament that predates the formation of Sumeria.

its neither
it is a social construct common to every culture on earth.
every culture on earth has some formal or ceremonial way to join two people in producing socially recognized offspring.

This is one route. It would've been preferable to just allow gay marriage, but ridding secular support of the religiously originated institution of marriage is good too.

Doing a respectable thing for a terrible reason.

Planeia wrote:This is one route. It would've been preferable to just allow gay marriage, but ridding secular support of the religiously originated institution of marriage is good too.

Marriage is not a religiously originated institution. It's a worldwide phenomenon that predates any of our currently existing religions.

Meryuma wrote:Doing a respectable thing for a terrible reason.

It's not even a respectable thing. So it's 'doing a terrible thing for a terrible reason'.

Grave_n_idle wrote:

Meryuma wrote:Doing a respectable thing for a terrible reason.

It's not even a respectable thing. So it's 'doing a terrible thing for a terrible reason'.

Whats the terribleness.

You marry and mail in your forms the state views you as married, as does the federal government.

The only one cut out is the justice of the peace so a handle full of couples can't use the justice of the piece as a substitute for a ceremony.

Instead they get their friend to download a church of universal life ordination.

Commonwealth of Hank the Cat wrote:Is this what it's come to? Seriously? This is America today?

This is Alabama today.

greed and death wrote:

Grave_n_idle wrote:
It's not even a respectable thing. So it's 'doing a terrible thing for a terrible reason'.

Whats the terribleness.

You marry and mail in your forms the state views you as married, as does the federal government.

The only one cut out is the justice of the peace so a handle full of couples can't use the justice of the piece as a substitute for a ceremony.

Instead they get their friend to download a church of universal life ordination.

The common conservative-christian complaint about gay couples being allowed to marry is that it 'redefines' marriage. Of course it doesn't - it just applies it more equally - but that's the complaint.

The 'terribleness' here is that this actually does 'redefine' marriage.

I don't mind other people being married. Or NOT being married, if they like. I do object to someone saying that because they don't like something about someone ELSE's marriage, they are going to invalidate MY marriage.

Galloism wrote:

Ieperithem wrote:Why not just eliminate government involvement with the institution altogether?

It saves money, everyone's happier because they get to choose for themselves what marriage means, and the pool of piranhas that is the modern day divorce system dries up overnight.

I ponder how the state failing to recognize marriage "saves money" in any practical way. Got sauce?

Hey, if there's no such thing as marriage then by extension that means there's no such thing as adultery either.

Gauthier wrote:

Galloism wrote:I ponder how the state failing to recognize marriage "saves money" in any practical way. Got sauce?

Hey, if there's no such thing as marriage then by extension that means there's no such thing as adultery either.

Get this man a Medal of Freedom and his choice of liquor on tap.

Gauthier wrote:

Galloism wrote:I ponder how the state failing to recognize marriage "saves money" in any practical way. Got sauce?

Hey, if there's no such thing as marriage then by extension that means there's no such thing as adultery either.

Oh, shit. Does Alabama realize they're totally fucking over Christianity too?

Prussia-Steinbach wrote:

Gauthier wrote:
Hey, if there's no such thing as marriage then by extension that means there's no such thing as adultery either.

Oh, shit. Does Alabama realize they're totally fucking over Christianity too?

Everything to stop the gay agenda!