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

SSG Gerhard S. — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 08:00:30 -0400

Alabama Senate votes to remove government from the marriage equation. State licensure of marriage has been used for everything from sources of revenue, to preventing interracial, and same-sex marriage. Is it time to once again remove government from making our decisions, or do we need government to determine which interpersonal relations are best, for us?
http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2015/05/alabama-senate-passes-bill-to-effectively-nullify-all-sides-on-marriage/

Alabama Senate Passes Bill to Effectively Nullify All Sides on Marriage | Tenth Amendment Center...

MONTGOMERY, Ala. (May 23, 2015) - This week, the Alabama state Senate passed a bill that would end the practice of licensing marriages in the state, effectively nullifying both major sides of the contentious national debate over government-sanctioned marriage. Introduced by Sen. Greg Albritton (R-Bay Minette), Senate Bill 377 (SB377) would end state issued marriage licenses, while providing marriage contracts as an alternative. It passed...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 8:34 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 08:34:46 -0400

So if I can't get my way and dictate who can't get married, nobody can get married.
Really?
Are we in third grade?

Not surprising that a state is deciding to go this route, but I think that they are foolish to remove the state as an interested party for any marriage equality litigation that goes on. It looks like the writing is on the wall, but we'll see what the Supreme Court says in a few more days.

Response by SGT Bryon Sergent made Jun 1 at 2015 9:07 AM

SGT Bryon Sergent — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 09:07:45 -0400

I don't think that the Government should say who and who shouldn't be married, however they should be there to issue the License and stuff. If they don't want to deal with the marriage are they going to do away with divorcing people also?

Response by SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. made Jun 1 at 2015 9:08 AM

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 09:08:13 -0400

The Government is smack dab in the middle of the marriage issue given the federal tax advantages, the default inheritance and the access to medical rights enjoyed by married couples.

To forbid 2 adults to marry. for any reason, flies in the face of the concept of equal protection.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 9:53 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 09:53:20 -0400

Whether you call marriage agreement a "contract" or a "license", it's esentially the same thing. All Alabama is doing is throwing up it's hands and saying "do what you want, we don't want to be responsible for your actions!" Plus the article provided no information on how those new marriage contracts would be handled federally, or even on the state level. Are they official enough for dependants to claim survivor benefits? What about Social Security? Are there requirements to obtain a marriage contract? What about sharing benefits?

It sounds to me that someone somewhere just doesn't want to deal with the whole "marriage equlaity" issue. I don't think that Government should dictate marriage requirements (except where it is designed to protect individuals, minors, etc.), but marriage is tied up in so many aspects of government (taxes, benefits) that it has to be regualted to a point, if nothing more than ensuring that your license or contract is filed for tax and benefit purposes.

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 1 at 2015 12:48 PM

CW2 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 01 Jun 2015 12:48:29 -0400

Marriage should be between you your spouse and your GOD. I of course would get married. I don't think homosexual need to get married. If government provides some sort of incentive to being married , then that needs to be removed. as far as insurance is concerned I dont know why private companies dont let same sex partners be on the same plan, after all they are paying for it...but isnt that a moot point because of the Affordable care act everyone has insurance :p
but this current rash about lbgtqrs rights really aint about rights its about russling jimmies and sticking it to christianity, Human Rights Campaign and Soro's Open(closed) society bullexcrement