Alabama's Marriage Idea
The Tenth Amendment Center reports the Alabama state Senate just passed a bill that would end state issued marriage licenses and replace them with marriage contracts.
"The intent or motives behind this bill are a moot point. By removing the state from the equation, no one can force another to accept their marriage, nor can they force another to reject that person’s own beliefs regarding an institution older than government.
'Licenses are used as a way to stop people from doing things,' said Michael Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center. 'My personal relationship should not be subject to government permission."
I've always proposed something along the same line. Let's just have marriage contracts, or whatever you want to call them, and the state only need record the contract. Seems simple enough to me, although I'm sure religious marriage types and the in- your- face LGBT folks will disagree for one reason or another. Let the flaming begin!
posted by Fred Mangels @ 7:32 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
I can see why religious marriage types would be angry over this bill, but why LGBT folks? Seems like it's a win-win for them.
Because a lot of them will say "Full Equality", which means government officially recognizing their "marriage". Since this takes government a step away from being involved in marriage, I would think that wouldn't be thought of as a good thing. That's my guess.
Isn't a contract a form of government involvement? I don't get your point.
Both sides may be "married" to the word marriage, but I have a feeling that the LBGT folks would dump it in a heartbeat if it meant having equal treatment regarding cohabitation.
Yes, it is, assuming government will be involved in any conflicts within the contract. As an online buddy pointed out, though, it's up to the two people entering into the contract to decide who gets involved in any disputes.
I'm not so sure LGBTs would dump it so quick. Too many of them are in- your- face types that want to force themselves into others lives. For instance, those that want to force businesses to cater to them.
Even those not exactly sympathetic to forcing others to do business with them will often follow those who are.
I related a while back here how I started to rag on a married lesbian couple I work for over the fallout from Indiana's religious freedom bill. The one gal seemed to agree with me at first saying- being in business themselves- "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone".
Cool, but then I hear they're going on a long road trip and were going to pass by Indiana because of the uproar over the religious freedom law. Being politically correct and following their peer group even though they don't exactly agree with them.
The religious freedom issue started when a gay couple was refused service after PAYING for it. They weren't being in your face. They wanted business done in a fair way.
Your beef with gay people seems unwarrented. Or maybe you have deeper issues that are coming to surface.....
If they weren't in my face, how did I know they were a gay couple? Still, we're talking a different issue here, a compromise of sorts on marriage.
In case you weren't aware, I've gone on record before as being strongly supportive of same sex marriage. I simply acknowledge many others might be strongly opposed. As such, I'm always looking for some sort of middle ground that all sides can agree on.
I don't feel I have a beef with LGBT folks. I do have one with the those that want to force others to deal with them. Or, those that attack others because they're not LGBT friendly.
One instance comes to mind from some years ago: A small church group was using a city facility to hold church services. Some in- your- face LGBT folks protested the city letting them use it. Don't remember the exact details. They insisted the church shouldn't be able to use city property since they opposed gay marriage, or something along that line.
That's b.s. and the kind of stuff that pisses me off. These folks need to learn to live and let live.
And in case anyone was wondering, I'm not religious in the least. In fact, I've gone on record as opposing the Mayor's prayer moment here in Eureka. I'll just fight for their right to live their lives religiously, just as I'll fight for others not to.
The Government has no business in marriages. The Government has no business who you voluntarily associate with. (Check it out it is in the constitution!) The problem is in our society, married people are treated differently. Insurance is cheaper. Taxes are lower. Your married partner has the ability to make decisions on your behalf. Your property is equally owned by each other (at least in a Community Property state like CA). If you make this change, what about heterosexual people who want to get married in Alabama, and have that status. This law would obfuscate that.
Post a Comment
<< Home