Alabama to ban marriage to stop gay marriage.

[Rednekylvania]

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.

Which is overwhelmingly unprogressive, because every aspect of human existence must be inspected, approved, and policed by government agency or we are uncivilized.

[Galloism]

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?

[Geilinor]

Do these new marriages have the same status as other marriages?

[Prussia-Steinbach]

...well. Um. Fuck. Okay?

Like shit Alabama, go ahead and be dicks about it, bigotry still kind of loses.

[New Werpland]

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.

Which is overwhelmingly unprogressive, because every aspect of human existence must be inspected, approved, and policed by government agency or we are uncivilized.

It's usually defended as the state's official endorsement of x kind of marriage. This thing happening in Alabama is supposed to be the neutral Libertarian approach. But as the thread in my signature shows, state neutrality doesn't exist.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

This is what happens when the federal government lets backwater states have too much power.

Because it's a backwater state.

[The Alma Mater]

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.

Because the "government involved institution" is what most people actually want to have when they get married. Scrapping that part therefor would accomplish exactly nothing.

[Nazi Flower Power]

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.

[Scandavian States]

Actually, I take that back. It can mess with inheritance and medical issues(who has power of attorney, emergency contacts and all that). At any rate I'm no advocate for marriage anyways, best to not get the state involved in your personal life.

Funny thing, that can be all deal with by civil contracts as well. Power of attorney has nothing to do with marriage, it's an entirely separate issue. And if somebody has something on file with their attorney that says these people are to be notified and these people are explicitly banned from visiting, then the hospital has to abide by that or they'll be sued to hell and back.

[Utrinque Paratus]

Well, that's fucking retarded.

[Scandavian States]

Well, that's fucking retarded.

How? Gay people get to do what they want. Straight people get to do what they want. Nobody needs to fight over this shit anymore. How is that not the best possible outcome?

[The Alma Mater]

Actually, I take that back. It can mess with inheritance and medical issues(who has power of attorney, emergency contacts and all that). At any rate I'm no advocate for marriage anyways, best to not get the state involved in your personal life.

Funny thing, that can be all deal with by civil contracts as well.

Marriage IS a civil contract. That is the whole bloody point. And it is the civil contract bit that most people who get married actually want; so removing that from marriage makes 0 sense.

[Utrinque Paratus]

Well, that's fucking retarded.

How? Gay people get to do what they want. Straight people get to do what they want. Nobody needs to fight over this shit anymore. How is that not the best possible outcome?

Legalising gay marriage and keeping heterosexual marriage would actually be the best outcome. If homophobes don't like then tough luck, it's the 21st century. We have more important issues to deal with and should just get it over with and legalise it already.

[Crezilivion]

Well, that's fucking retarded.

How? Gay people get to do what they want. Straight people get to do what they want. Nobody needs to fight over this shit anymore. How is that not the best possible outcome?

They're not fully content because it doesn't absolutely 100% radiate pro-LGBT intentions. There goes their equality ruse...

[Utrinque Paratus]

How? Gay people get to do what they want. Straight people get to do what they want. Nobody needs to fight over this shit anymore. How is that not the best possible outcome?

They're not fully content because it doesn't absolutely 100% radiate pro-LGBT intentions. There goes their equality ruse...

You don't have to be pro-LGBT, but you don't have a right to stop gays from getting married and abolishing marriage to stop it is just absolutely pathetic and speaks volumes.

[Laanvia]

Hold a vote on it. Whatever the result is will be implemented.

[Scandavian States]

Marriage IS a civil contract.

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

And it is the civil contract bit that most people who get married actually want; so removing that from marriage makes 0 sense.

I'm pretty sure that's not the reason most people get married. People get married because they love each other and want a ceremony to commit to a lifelong relationship. Doesn't always happen that way, but that's the idea.

[Scandavian States]

You don't have to be pro-LGBT, but you don't have a right to stop gays from getting married and abolishing marriage to stop it is just absolutely pathetic and speaks volumes.

Do you even read, bro? Marriage hasn't been abolished, you go through the ceremony (or not), have the paperwork notarized, and file it with the records office. The only thing that has changed is that judges are cut out. Where do you even get this shit?

[Utrinque Paratus]

You don't have to be pro-LGBT, but you don't have a right to stop gays from getting married and abolishing marriage to stop it is just absolutely pathetic and speaks volumes.

Do you even read, bro? Marriage hasn't been abolished, you go through the ceremony (or not), have the paperwork notarized, and file it with the records office. The only thing that has changed is that judges are cut out. Where do you even get this shit?

Apologies, it's morning and just did an all-nighter. Anyway, I'll pay more attention in the future. Bro.

[Vashtanaraada]

Sweet Home Alabama

[The Alma Mater]

Marriage IS a civil contract.

No, it's a religious sacrament.

No, that's a wedding. Marriage is the legal civil contract bit.

And it is the civil contract bit that most people who get married actually want; so removing that from marriage makes 0 sense.

I'm pretty sure that's not the reason most people get married. People get married because they love each other and want a ceremony to commit to a lifelong relationship. Doesn't always happen that way, but that's the idea.

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

[Threlizdun]

Why, because you don't agree with it, and because of that, it shouldn't exist?

Marriage is a tool of the state and religion. As both the state and religion should be abolished (in favor of stateless government and spirituality), marriage would cease to exist. Marriage is also an institution that has, historically, been used to discriminate against LGBT+ individuals (denying them equal rights by granting exclusivity to heterosexuals. This is not the case as much anymore, obviously), maintain women be economically dependent on men, and incentivize excessive childbirth for nationalistic ideals like "populating the homeland". It maintains traditional gender roles and social hierarchies that should be rejected, in favor of voluntary relationships. Free love, man.

I'm not opposing love or relationships, or the word "marriage", but institutional marriage requires the state or religion, both of which are unnecessary.

The institution of marriage long was strictly authoritarian in its construction, but while it still has vestiges of authoritarianism, it has largely improved. It is inappropriate to view it as incompatible with libertarian and secular views. I'm an atheist anarchist who still likes the idea of being married to someone.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

At it's core, marriage allows people who intimately trust one another to share their assets and responsibilities in a tight mutual pact. It does not have to incorporate authoritarianism.

[Vashtanaraada]

At it's core, marriage allows people who intimately trust one another to share their assets and responsibilities in a tight mutual pact. It does not have to incorporate authoritarianism.

by that logic, apparently wealth distribution is fascism

OK then....

but yeah, Russels hit the nail on the head

[Chessmistress]

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.