Alabama Votes to Abolish Marriage Licences

[Torrocca]

So Alabama gets shittier and shittier. Nice.

If it was up to me I would have fired all the judges who refused to sign marriage licenses, but I suppose this works too.

And if it was up to me, we would've called up elements of the Military and launched a crackdown on the supporters of Obergfell. Such is, unfortunately, life.

Imagine wanting to take military action because you're this fucking afraid of gay people.

[Costa Fierro]

Damn. I was hoping they were abolishing marriage.

[The Rich Port]

Considering that there's still a record, there won't be an issue on a federal level, it's just that Alabama is no longer directly regulating marriage licenses, only indirectly.

There's still criteria they have to qualify for, presumably?

[Torisakia]

"We're doing away with an official document that says you're married and we're replacing it with an official document that says you're married."

50st in Education shining bright.

[Torisakia]

Considering that there's still a record, there won't be an issue on a federal level, it's just that Alabama is no longer directly regulating marriage licenses, only indirectly.

There's still criteria they have to qualify for, presumably?

I would assume whatever the federal government says are legal qualifications to get married. But knowing this state, they're liable to render that null and void and go their own way.

[Trollzyn the Infinite]

Yes, really. From AL.com: https://www.al.com/news/2019/05/alabama-lawmakers-pass-bill-to-end-marriage-licenses.html

The Alabama House of Representatives gave final passage today to a bill that would end the issuance of marriage licenses by probate judges and instead have them record documents that would serve as the official records of marriage.

The bill goes to Gov. Kay Ivey, who could sign it into law.

The legislation came in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015. In Alabama, some probate judges stopped issuing marriage licenses four years ago because they did not want to sign same-sex marriage licenses.

Under the bill that passed today, couples wanting to get married would submit to the probate judge a form that includes an affidavit saying they meet the legal requirements of marriage and the probate judge would record that as the official marriage document.

The House passed the bill, by Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Range, by a vote of 67-26. It had already passed the Senate.

Probate judges in some counties are still not issuing marriage licenses. The current law does not require them to issue licenses, but says they “may.”

Under Albritton’s bill, probate judges would be required to accept and record the official marriage documents.

“It allows everybody in the state now to go to their local courthouse, or wherever, to accomplish this without traveling somewhere else, which is the intent of the law,” Albritton said.

The bill also would end the requirement that a marriage be “solemnized” by a minister or another person qualified to do so. Albritton said he thought it was appropriate to separate that religious component of marriage from the state law.


Among those voting against the bill today was Rep. Neil Rafferty, D-Birmingham, who is gay and married his partner of 15 years in December.

“I feel like while in and of itself it is not prejudiced, I feel like it was born out of prejudice though," Rafferty said. "That’s just kind of my ultimate feelings, why I ultimately couldn’t support the bill, even though in and of itself it does create a system that treats everyone equal before the state.”

Rafferty said he believes the bill would allow probate judges who are not issuing marriage licenses because of their personal beliefs to skirt their responsibilities.

“I think it’s far less about good governance and more about protecting folks that don’t want to do their jobs," Rafferty said.

Rep. Wes Allen, R-Troy, was among those voting for the bill today. Allen is the former probate judge in Pike County and stopped issuing marriage licenses in 2015.

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman, as do a lot of Alabamians,” Allen said. He noted that about 80 percent of Alabama voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a unique relationship between a man and a woman in 2006.

“The probate judge has to sign the marriage license,” Allen said. "And effectively, by your signature going on that marriage license, basically in my opinion, you’re endorsing it. Because it’s your signature, just like you’re signing a check, you’re endorsing it. And that was one of the objections that I had back in 2015."

Albritton’s bill had passed the Senate in previous years but never made it through the House. The senator, who is an attorney, said he’s been working on the issue since 2015.

“I’m trying to find a path that’s legal and has the least effect with the greatest amount of benefit," Albritton said. "And I think I found that.”

So here's what happened. Ever since Obergfell v. Hodges, a lot of Alabama's probate judges have refused to sign marriage licences because they didn't want to endorse same-sex marriages. So, now the House and Senate have passed, and Ivey's expected to sign, this bill that does away with marriage licences once and for all. Instead, the two getting married would fill out a form that includes an affidavit that says that they fill all legal qualifications, and that would serve as the official record. It also says marriages wouldn't have to be "solemnised" by a minister or a justice of the peace to be considered valid.

What say you about this, NSG?

I think that, setting aside the obvious reasons of covering the judges' arses, this could cause more problems than some may think. When we look at how many of the legal benefits that come from marriage require a marriage licence as proof, and taking into consideration that, at least as far as I know, and let me know if I'm wrong about this, the Federal Government doesn't have any provision for anything besides a marriage licence for domestic marriages, this could lead to a lot of couples in Alabama being left in the lurch when it comes to things like Social Security, tax purposes, visitation and estate rights and the like.

Alabama records documents? I assumed they passed their history down the generations by training druids.

Alabama isn't cool enough to have druids.

[Salus Maior]

So Alabama gets shittier and shittier. Nice.

What's actually shitty about it?

[Torisakia]

So Alabama gets shittier and shittier. Nice.

What's actually shitty about it?

As a (unfortunate) resident of Alabama, I can list many things.

[Salus Maior]

What's actually shitty about it?

As a (unfortunate) resident of Alabama, I can list many things.

I mean about this particular thing.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Mostly to dodge class action lawsuits while letting their judges go "Faggots Are Icky".

Or, maybe it's because the judges (GASP) believe in a religion that condemns that and they don't want to breach their conscience by endorsing something explicitly declared an abomination by their faith? It's almost like people shouldn't be forced to violate their religion!

Conscience protections! Wow! How dare they peacefully express dissent!

[TURTLESHROOM II]

50st in Education shining bright.

Says the man that says "fifty-st".

[TURTLESHROOM II]

They're not abolishing marriage, just slightly changing how marriages are recorded to pacify some judges who get triggered at their name being on a marriage license for a gay couple.

Imagine dumbing down freedom of conscience to this level. Not one of you would look down on dissidents like this if you were on the other side.

Priests shouldn't be made to break the Confessional Seal. Doctors shouldn't be forced to perform abortions. Psychologists shouldn't be forced to not provide counseling to people with Gender Identity Disorder to overcome it. Muslims shouldn't be forced to serve pork. Jews shouldn't be forced to hired as photographers for Neo-Nazi events. Atheists should not be made to affirm the existence of God or a god when they take an oath. I shouldn't be made to celebrate homosexuality.

People shouldn't be compelled by the state to sin.

How hard is that to get? Just because you're an Atheist doesn't mean it's okay to trample on the people that aren't. If you really want homosexuals to "live and let live", then you'd be tolerant of dissent. -but you aren't. You were never about tolerance or acceptance. You were about compulsion. We'd all end up like Jack Phillips or Kim Davis if they had their way.

The Thirteenth Amendment covers more than chattel slavery.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

It just lets Evangelical judges dodge having to preside over Icky Gay Weddings while protecting the state from class action lawsuits.

HOW DARE those Evangelical primitives not be forced into involuntary servitude and made to personally participate in sin with the state's gun to their head!

[Godular]

A reply to Turtleshroom's posts:

'render unto caesar'

Government officials gotta do government stuff. If they don't want to perform all the duties of their job, QUIT.

[Senkaku]

Seems a little like cutting off your nose to spite your face, but anything to stick it to the fags I guess

If you really want homosexuals to "live and let live", then you'd be tolerant of dissent. -but you aren't. You were never about tolerance or acceptance. You were about compulsion. We'd all end up like Jack Phillips or Kim Davis if they had their way.

By "dissent", I assume you mean the strand of thought that doesn't want to "live and let live", and would like to compel people to deny LGBT people their rights? This is a little rich lol

It just lets Evangelical judges dodge having to preside over Icky Gay Weddings while protecting the state from class action lawsuits.

HOW DARE those Evangelical primitives not be forced into involuntary servitude and made to personally participate in sin with the state's gun to their head!

...so, to be clear, you're upset that judges who have chosen of their own free will to work for the state and who are able to find other positions are being forced to adhere to the state's rules...

[Rostavykhan]

50st in Education shining bright.

Says the man that says "fifty-st".

That's the joke tho.

What's actually shitty about it?

As a (unfortunate) resident of Alabama, I can list many things.

TBH Alabama is really enough.

It's just bantz I swear don't come across the Chattahoochee AAAAAA

[The Republic of Fore]

Excellent, there's no reason for the state to be involved in marriage. Now if only we could stop giving tax breaks to married couples.

[Highever]

Mostly to dodge class action lawsuits while letting their judges go "Faggots Are Icky".

Or, maybe it's because the judges (GASP) believe in a religion that condemns that and they don't want to breach their conscience by endorsing something explicitly declared an abomination by their faith? It's almost like people shouldn't be forced to violate their religion!

Conscience protections! Wow! How dare they peacefully express dissent!

Them maybe they shouldnt be judges in a secular nation where their religion has no bearing on laws?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

It's almost like people shouldn't be forced to violate their religion!

It’s almost like people shouldn’t work for the government if they have deeply held religious beliefs that would prevent them from doing their jobs.

[Shrillland]

Considering that there's still a record, there won't be an issue on a federal level, it's just that Alabama is no longer directly regulating marriage licenses, only indirectly.

There's still criteria they have to qualify for, presumably?

Some, yes. But they don't have to actually prove it anymore, they just have to sign the piece of paper that says they've proved it.

[Greater vakolicci haven]

This is actually pretty good.

[Kowani]

They're not abolishing marriage, just slightly changing how marriages are recorded to pacify some judges who get triggered at their name being on a marriage license for a gay couple.

Imagine dumbing down freedom of conscience to this level. Not one of you would look down on dissidents like this if you were on the other side.

Priests shouldn't be made to break the Confessional Seal. Doctors shouldn't be forced to perform abortions. Psychologists shouldn't be forced to not provide counseling to people with Gender Identity Disorder to overcome it. Muslims shouldn't be forced to serve pork. Jews shouldn't be forced to hired as photographers for Neo-Nazi events. Atheists should not be made to affirm the existence of God or a god when they take an oath. I shouldn't be made to celebrate homosexuality.

People shouldn't be compelled by the state to sin.

How hard is that to get? Just because you're an Atheist doesn't mean it's okay to trample on the people that aren't. If you really want homosexuals to "live and let live", then you'd be tolerant of dissent. -but you aren't. You were never about tolerance or acceptance. You were about compulsion. We'd all end up like Jack Phillips or Kim Davis if they had their way.

The Thirteenth Amendment covers more than chattel slavery.

Okay, my personal opinion about functional economics aside for a moment, if they’re an employee of the state, they no longer get to pick and choose.

[The Holy Therns]

Mostly to dodge class action lawsuits while letting their judges go "Faggots Are Icky".

Or, maybe it's because the judges (GASP) believe in a religion that condemns that and they don't want to breach their conscience by endorsing something explicitly declared an abomination by their faith? It's almost like people shouldn't be forced to violate their religion!

Conscience protections! Wow! How dare they peacefully express dissent!

It's okay, there are other jobs they can take to avoid that.

[Bienenhalde]

I do not have a problem with LGBT people, considering I am one myself. However, what I am hearing from left-leaning posters in this thread is that government employees should just do whatever the law or their superiors tell them to do, without any regard to conscience or morals. Think about that. Is that really a good idea?

[Shrillland]

I do not have a problem with LGBT people, considering I am one myself. However, what I am hearing from left-leaning posters in this thread is that government employees should just do whatever the law or their superiors tell them to do, without any regard to conscience or morals. Think about that. Is that really a good idea?

I've not said that, I've just said that I'm concerned that the new system might not be considered legally sufficient on a federal level.