Alabama to ban marriage to stop gay marriage.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

While opposed to the notion of gay marriage, this is ridiculous

*sigh*
I thought that was me and I didn't understand what I was reading.

Same when I first saw it. I was like what the fuck Geil hahaha

[Liberaxia]

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.

This is entirely disconnected from reality. There is no such thing as "government involvement in marriage", which is an empty concept, and yes, it does constitute a ban. A conservative blog post here explains why it is. The constitution of Alabama prohibits same-sex marriages.

[New Chalcedon]

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.

This is entirely disconnected from reality. There is no such thing as "government involvement in marriage", which is an empty concept, and yes, it does constitute a ban. A conservative blog post here explains why it is. The constitution of Alabama prohibits same-sex marriages.

I could care less what a conservative blog says - SCOTUS rulings override State Constitutions when applying the Federal, and a SCOTUS ruling on the topic of marriage equality is coming up. This move is an attempt to preempt the SCOTUS ruling so that teh ghey marridj doesn't happen.

[Liberaxia]

This is entirely disconnected from reality. There is no such thing as "government involvement in marriage", which is an empty concept, and yes, it does constitute a ban. A conservative blog post here explains why it is. The constitution of Alabama prohibits same-sex marriages.

I could care less what a conservative blog says - SCOTUS rulings override State Constitutions when applying the Federal, and a SCOTUS ruling on the topic of marriage equality is coming up. This move is an attempt to preempt the SCOTUS ruling so that teh ghey marridj doesn't happen.

I'm on your side. I'm explaining why he is wrong.

[Greed and Death]

This is entirely disconnected from reality. There is no such thing as "government involvement in marriage", which is an empty concept, and yes, it does constitute a ban. A conservative blog post here explains why it is. The constitution of Alabama prohibits same-sex marriages.

I could care less what a conservative blog says - SCOTUS rulings override State Constitutions when applying the Federal, and a SCOTUS ruling on the topic of marriage equality is coming up. This move is an attempt to preempt the SCOTUS ruling so that teh ghey marridj doesn't happen.

Most likely, it appears though it would give gay marriage state recognition(after the scotus ruling) while allowing the conservatives a symbolic victory.

[Wulfenia]

While their reasons for doing so are incredibly idiotic, I do like their new definition of marriage.

[Confederate Ramenia]

While opposed to the notion of gay marriage, this is ridiculous

Wait Gellinor I thought you supported marriage equality?

[Threlizdun]

While opposed to the notion of gay marriage, this is ridiculous

Wait Gellinor I thought you supported marriage equality?

That's not Gellinor

[Rednekylvania]

While their reasons for doing so are incredibly idiotic, I do like their new definition of marriage.

I don't think it's the definition that's in question so much as to whether political recognition is required to legitimize it, because such consideration can be used to delegitimize it as well.

[Confederate Ramenia]

Wait Gellinor I thought you supported marriage equality?

That's not Gellinor

Oh lol. But I think this is the only way to achieve true marriage equality, is to separate marriage from the state.

[Grave_n_idle]

That's not Gellinor

Oh lol. But I think this is the only way to achieve true marriage equality, is to separate marriage from the state.

Why?

Only the state has the power to make it happen.

I'm not saying people can't be pro-equality on their own, and I'm not saying that a popular movement can't call for equality on their own recognizance - but only that state can offer the stability that stops it being voted AWAY by popular support, and only the state can ensure that people get treated equally even by the people who DON'T agree.

No matter which way you look at it, the state is just the best alternative for marriage.

[Mysterious Stranger]

That's not "banning marriage," that's just taking the government out of marriage, which social libertarians have been calling for for ages.