Alabama Senate passes Marriage Nullification Bill. Is this a step in the right direction for Marriage equality?

Great issues brought to light here. First, I would like to point out that a "license" is a permission from one party (government) that allows one, while, by default, restricts others from engaging in an activity. A "contract" is a mutual agreement between two entities that includes certain elements, which are 1. Offer, 2.Consideration, 3. Acceptance, and 4. Mutuality.

The fact that our Federal government has tied marriage to so many benefit programs is not an argument for State or Federal regulation of marriage, instead it is an argument against such ties, as our Constitution (the one we all swore an oath to support and defend) gives our Federal government no such power. I respectfully challenge you to "place your finger upon" that line in our Constitution that allows the Federal government to act as such. Regards

Regards

Of course it could be easily argued that it would be far more efficient to divorce government from the idea that it should be the one giving us permission to marry, and to then place restrictions such as banning interracial, or same-sex marriag. Or, on the other hand granting special tax privileges, or other benefits to the married. Additionally, it is important to note that State issued "licenses" that can be arbitrarily granted, can also be arbitrarily rescinded, or revoked, not based on any law, but merely through Executive orders, or through the (out of control) regulatory process. Once we buy into the idea that our rights and privileges come FROM government, then we are stuck in the rut that also requires us to buy into the idea that government can take them away.... often arbitrarily.

I would also ask, how is it that marriage is an inseparable aspect of taxation? Can't we all just be taxed as individuals? Or even better, why not use the Fairtax plan http://www.fairtax.org and tax sales instead of income, further divorcing ourselves and our bank accounts from the scrutiny of our already overly intrusive government?

One could argue also that the issues of benefits, could just as effectively be managed through the use of wills, and powers of attorney.

Lastly, regarding your question as to validity on the Federal level; if the State of Alabama has a filed marriage contract, they are saying these two persons are married, and since the Federal government has no Constitutional power to regulate marriage, those two persons should, and would have to be treated as any other married couple from any other State.

Again, one could see such actions as a move away from government intrusions in our lives, at both the State, and at the Federal level, as it would (if this catches on) encourage the divorce of the idea of marriage culminating in some sort of Federal privilege, benefit, or punishment with regard to taxes, benefits, or rights.

One could argue that chaos would not ensue, but rather, that wills, powers of attorney, and contracts would ensue. Alternatively, those State probate laws on inheritance, and such could still remain, as a marriage "contract" would be on file, fulfilling the marital aspect of the relationship. That aside, wills tend to suffice in this realm.

why should married people get special consideration with the federal government, that is discriminatory to single people

CW2 (Join to see) yup! Contact your US Rep.
SSG Gerhard S. Agreed, yet better than half the US population die without a will. Without a "default" inheritance chain .. chaos ensues.

Indeed, true SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. , most people do die intestate, the fact remains though, that State Statutory law regarding transfer of assets, would still apply whether a couple were married under a license, or by a (filed) contract.

Great point!

Regarding fathers/daughters, etc, most States DO have incest laws, and also, child abuse laws that would prohibit minors from engaging in such activities.... and minors are typically prohibited from entering into contracts anyway. So, the States are still able to enforce the laws in place that prohibit such activities regardless if a couple is married by licensure, or by contract.

I have found that those that want to restrict same-sex couples from CIVIL marriage are the ones that are the most butthurt when someone wants to restrict anything that affects them.

a man has already married his adopted son, granted he adopted his son when he was grown man apparently because they couldnt get married at the time

But none of this is perverse? Wow I'm Out!