Alabama to stop using marriage licenses altogether.

[dixiegrrrrl]

This was in our local weekly newspaper.

Alabama, in a preemptive move against the probable SCOTUS ruling, is planning on removing the need for marriage licenses altogether.
The plan is to go to a recording system, where you sign a form stating you want to be considered married, pay the Probate office a fee, and that is it.
People seeking marriage in a church can do the whole vow taking thing, the minister will fill the recording form.
The forms will be filed with the Dept. of Health.

Apparently Oklahoma does this also.

In 2006, Alabama legislature passed a law saying marriage was lawful between a man and a woman.
How this plan will address that is not clear.
There are now several lawsuits by gay couples against the state.

Personally, I like the more simple process, as long as it does not discriminate.

Thoughts?

[kelly1mm]

1. I am all for it. The State should never have been involved in marriage at all. nt

[LynnTTT]

2. Stupid

Some people who are not religious do nit have a church. Nevertheless, they like the ceremony and formality at the Courthouse or a Justice of the Peace. I've seen people in formal gowns at Courthouses.

[liberal_at_heart]

5. I agree. Sounds too much like hiding to me. Some states are hoping if they make it quiet enough

no one will make a stink. I doubt this would keep the fanatics from making a stink about same sex marriage, plus it robs people who want a ceremony. People should not have to hide just to keep bigots from throwing a hissy fit.

[whatthehey]

11. Don't see the problem

You can have all the ceremony you want as you desire. As long as this way does not discriminate by gender it doesn't stop you hiring out an arena and having the Vienna Boys' Choir sing your vows to you while you ride in an elephant parade if that's what floats your boat. The signing and filing of licenses has always been separate to the ceremony.

[Eleanors38]

20. What? Hide the issue from the LGBTQ community and its activists? Don't think so.

[liberal_at_heart]

36. No. To me it seems like the state is trying to hide same sex marriage from those who oppose it so

that they, the state, won't have so much trouble from those who oppose it.

[Eleanors38]

39. Very good point. They launched a heat-seeking missile....

...they shouldn' be surprised when it flies up their own tailpipe.

[former9thward]

31. Government does not owe you a ceremony.

If you want a ceremony, fine have one. But don't drag government into it. Government only started demanding a role in marriage in the mid 1800s. Then it started deciding who could marry. Laws were passed forbidding marriage between whites and various racial groups. Get government out. Their role has not been good.

[liberal_at_heart]

35. I am so tired of people telling people how they are or are not allowed to get married.

If people want a Justice of the Peace to marry them and have a ceremony in a courthouse they should be allowed to. We should be fighting to expand people's rights, not diminish them. I will always defend same sex marriage. My daughter is bisexual and she should have the right to marry a man or a woman, and she should have the right to marry that person in church or in the court house or anywhere she freakin decides to get married.

[former9thward]

37. Courthouses do not exist for ceremonies.

Do it on your own time and dime.

[Yo_Mama]

15. Getting a license is separate from actually getting married.

People who want to celebrate marriages will still do so in any way they see fit.

It's entirely possible to get a marriage license but not get married, although probably uncommon.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

40. You want to maintain an entire government bureaucracy so you can have a ceremony?

What the hell? Have you own ceremony... I can think of about a million things the government should be doing before this.

[OKNancy]

3. Oklahoma doesn't do it yet

It hasn't passed the Senate yet.

After reading extensively about this, it just isn't going to do what the author of the bill hoped for.


Get this:

HB 1125 would change that. Authored by state Rep. Todd Russ, R-Cordell, the bill eliminates marriage licenses and widens a loophole that allows online groups to ordain minsters who can then register and legally perform marriage ceremonies.

Current state law allows representatives of secular entities and religious officials “of any denomination who has been duly ordained or authorized by the church” to register with a county.

HB 1125 bill would strengthen that language by allowing representatives “of other assemblies” to preside at wedding ceremonies.

In Tulsa, Paula Scheider was ordained two years ago. But Scheider, who makes her living as a corporate trainer, wasn’t ordained by a mainstream church – instead, she was ordained by the Church of The Latter-Day Dude, a website inspired by the movie, "The Big Lebowski."

Scheider said she went to the church’s website, filled out the form and received her certificate of ordination. Scheider said she “made her ordination official” by going to the Tulsa County Court Clerk’s office and registering her paperwork.

“I’ve performed eight marriages so far,” she said. “I want to help several of my friends.”

Scheider said she has another wedding ceremony scheduled next month.

more interesting commentary here: http://oklahomawatch.org/2015/03/16/marriage-bill-would-not-eliminate-state-involvement/


----------------
In many ways it makes all marriages, even same sex marriage easier.

[Buns_of_Fire]

12. Good for her. Dudeism is, you know, the way of the future, man.

http://dudeism.com/

[TlalocW]

17. So many times

Certain groups of Christians - evangelical and especially the ones in Oklahoma - try to pass or do things that promote only their religion, but it ends up backfiring on them. Like putting a 10 Commandments monument on the state house lawn opens it up to other groups to do so - or expensive lawsuits if they try to stop other groups from doing so. Russ' mindset - as far as I can tell - is that there are only true Christians (like him) and thus Christian churches and everyone else - atheists, LGBT community, etc. who will not have any places or clergy to marry them.*

When in fact, while this might make it more difficult for atheists to get married, there are plenty of churches in Oklahoma - including Christian ones - willing to marry LGBT. So if this is passed, atheists will suffer until it is undoubtedly declared unconstitutional, but if he was wanting to find a loophole to keep LGBT from marrying, at least the ones who want/don't mind a wedding in a church/performed by a clergy person, he's done the opposite and guaranteed Oklahoma having the kind of marriage equality he didn't want.

*maybe throw in some Muslims and Jews and their places of worship, but they don't matter to him in this case

TlalocW

[OKNancy]

23. Judges can marry atheists.

Under the law judges can still marry people.
I'm a non-believer and got married at Hope Unitarian in Tulsa.
THere are three ( I think ) other Unitarian churches in Tulse that will marry same-sex couples.
In fact All Souls has a lesbian minister.

Article: http://www.tulsaworld.com/staff/jamesdwattsjr/all-souls-minister-releases-new-cd/article_8b55ac49-9a95-5638-a3a7-eb9df1d383cc.html?_dc=144909029360.8606

[Nay]

28. Unitarian ministers have always married atheists. nt

[Cal Carpenter]

34. Remember Utah?

they passed a law a couple years ago intended to ban gay marriage (maybe an amendment? can't remember details) but the way it was worded made all marriage illegal. They fixed that quickly. LOL.

[dixiegrrrrl]

18. Oh, that is funny.

Wonder if I should get ordained by the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

[Thinkingabout]

4. Guess there isn't a limit on how far extremism can go. Just cut off their noses to spite their

Faces. And we want to know why things do not get accomplished in the US, we have to pull many kicking and screaming to the line.

[closeupready]

6. fine with me. As long as there is no discrimination against gay people.

[el_bryanto]

7. The issue with it is that the intention is clear

and it might well open the door to more lawsuits - a court employee saying they don't want to issue these recordings to gay people because it violates their constitutional rights.

In theory I am in favor of this as well. The other advantage to it is that it gets the Government out of deciding what a "real" marriage is. But given the state involved, and where they stand on this issue, I feel reasonably sure that once the whole thing is put into place it will end up being discriminatory.

Bryant

[dixiegrrrrl]

19. Yeah, Ala. is going to run head long into that legal marriage definition.

They say they want to go to a recorder system in order to help officials who do not want to marry gays.
but, since the state law defines a legal marriage as between opposite sexes, something is gonna give.

[11 Bravo]

8. YEEHAW! Now everybody can just go ahead and shack up with their cousin.

(We kid because we love! There are some amazing progressives in Alabama, and I feel their pain.)

[whatthehey]

14. As the old punchline goes...

....if she's not good enough for her family she's not good enough for ours.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

41. They always could... I'm not sure why a "license" is needed for that.

Besides, its stupid for two adults having to go to the government to ask permission to get married. How people got brainwashed into accepting this as normal is beyond me.

[NightWatcher]

9. Marriage should only be covered under contract law

Last edited Fri Mar 20, 2015, 05:10 PM - Edit history (1)

As long as there are no other restrictions as to whom can enter into a contract (age, usually) there should be no discrepancy as to who can enter into marriage (which is nothing but a state sanctioned contract status).

[Ms. Toad]

16. Actually not.

Marriage is similar to a 3 party contract, but the third party is actually multiple parties (each state the couple is in during their marriage). In addition, in a contract the parties can negotiate whatever they want as terms. In marriage there are certain terms that are fixed by the state - not the couple negotiating the deal. Those things make it more complex.

So in Oklahoma or Alabama, both are still covered by marriage law - the only difference is that they are removing the solemnization requirement.

[TampaAnimusVortex]

42. It's insane...

The fact that it currently acts as a 3 party contract has nothing to do with the fact that 2 people should be free to enter into their own 2 party contract. Denying them from doing so is just about as an authoritarian thing that I can think of. An adult doesn't ask permission to go to the bathroom, or to the store, and they damn well shouldn't in something as important as who their going to spend their life together with.

Who cares if its more complex? You want to maintain an entire bureaucracy to simplify social relationships? I can think of about 50 million other things the government should be doing than this. It just reeks of slave/master mentality.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. On paper, it sounds good and sensible.

[Yo_Mama]

13. It doesn't discriminate, and it doesn't block any legal marriage.

My guess is that they are planning this based on the idea that some officials might lose their jobs for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses.

Cheap and simple.

[NutmegYankee]

21. How does one present their marriage license in another state if they move?

[dixiegrrrrl]

25. Why would one present their marriage license in another state?

I never have had to.

did you mean "certificate of marriage"?
Again, I never had to.


but..I would assume that recording a marriage would result in some sort of official receipt, much like when you pay for your car tags and registration.

[NutmegYankee]

26. Name change for a drivers license.

Your name may no longer match your birth certificate.

And yes, a marriage license and certificate of marriage are the same.

[dixiegrrrrl]

32. I kept my name. Drives the conservatives nutz.

Never ever saw the need to give up my name, which I happen to like.

The intent of the Ala. recording is that it will state person a and person b are legally married, even if they do not share the same last name, and would be as valid as a marriage certificate is today.

[Eleanors38]

22. What some activists suggested years ago: The states get out of the marriage biz.

Recognize a union for legal purposes (wills, POA, insurance, taxes, etc.), and sanctify through church, mosque, synagogue, or the Reform Artemis Council, or whatever's available at a Reno drive- through.

[Zorra]

24. This type of system would be great for filing for divorce. Sign a mutual consent form,

pay the office fee, and be free to go on your way.

Make it so that property cannot be held in common as well; no legal hassles. Just keep your receipts!

Property inheritance can be determined by a simple will.

No judge or courtroom necessary. Bing bada boom, lawyers are out of luck, and the the justice system will only need half as many employees.

[MADem]

27. This is like some places overseas--you go and "register" your marriage--anything beyond that,

ceremony-wise, you pay!

[Agnosticsherbet]

29. Marriage will be handedl by churches.

Most chruches are opposed to same sex marriage. Leaving it to the chruches means that unless people seek out Unitarian Universalist Church, some Episcopalian churches, and reformed Jewish Synagogues they could not get married.

I do't know how this affects a Justice of the Peace in those states, who generally have the state autorized power to hold a marriage.

[Agnosticsherbet]

30. According to Religon news, "The bill would require court clerks to issue certificates of marriage

signed by ordained clergy or affidavits of common-law marriage."

Same Sex marriage would be covered under a certificate of "Common-Law marriage."

http://www.religionnews.com/2015/03/12/oklahoma-bill-abolish-states-role-granting-marriage-licenses-leave-clergy-hands/

[jwirr]

33. I think this is a good move. The real purpose of a marriage license is so that there is a record.

[DemocraticWing]

38. Straight people would rather take their ball and go home then let us in their "institution."

Just like when that stupid town in Mississippi canceled the school prom as to avoid having a lesbian couple attend. How many more things will you destroy in your scorched earth campaign to keep LGBT people at bay?