Alabama Senate Passes Bill To End Marriage Licenses

The Birmingham News reports:

A bill to eliminate marriage licenses in Alabama and set up a process under which probate judges accept affidavits from couples as official records of marriage has passed the Alabama Senate. The cost would be the same that it now costs to buy a marriage license.

The requirement of a ceremony to solemnize the marriage would be eliminated. The sponsor, Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Range [PHOTO], said that would take the state out of any role in marriage ceremonies, which he said would properly separate church and state.

Albritton has proposed similar bills the last couple of years. They first surfaced after the U.S. Supreme Court legalized gay marriage in 2015. Under current law, Alabama probate judges are not required to issue marriage licenses and some, at least initially, declined to issue licenses to same-sex couples after the Supreme Court ruling.

This is third consecutive year that that Alabama Senate has made this move. Both earlier attempts died in the Alabama House.

  • PickyPecker
  • Do Something Nice

    This has both national and international implications. Good job, fuckwads.

    • leastyebejudged

      Like what ?

      Don’t some states already have this separation ?

      • gaycuckhubby


      • Do Something Nice

        Hague Marriage Convention for starters. You need a certificate/license for and ‘apostille’ for that marriage to be recognized in other countries.

  • DaddyRay

    It is Alabama – do they have to prove they are related in order for the judge to accept the affidavit

    • Steve Smith

      In Alabama they probably have to prove that they’re related to each other to get the affidavit approved….

  • Michael R
  • gaycuckhubby

    So I don’t get this, I’m honestly confused at what this changes

    • CB

      It is an attempt to limit, or eliminate, civil marriage for everyone. The implications for taxes, inheritance, custody, etc. are now all put into question by a different construct.

      • gaycuckhubby

        I don’t think so, they said they would verify marriages. I guess just not issue the licenses themselves? So where do people get marriage licenses? The Supreme Court has already said that it’s a basic right to get marriage license so they cannot eliminate them them they can only stop handing them out. They will be required to uphold inheritance and taxes and custody Etc

        • Tawreos

          The Supreme Court said that everyone has the right to a marriage. A marriage license is how the state makes money off of marriage. If I am understanding this correctly it changes from a document that a person would have to sign saying that two people are allowed to get married and makes it so that they sign that these people are married. Probably to take away the step where some state officials were approving a marriage that their god said was a no no or some such crap.

          • gaycuckhubby

            Great. It really doesn’t change anything but it’s silly and Petty

          • SilasMarner

            Yes it is silly and petty, but that is what the haters in Alabama are. Not to mention, evil.

    • ajchar

      Its as clear as mud, sort of a you say to-MAY-to, I say to-MAH-to kind of thing.

      When my hubby & I married in 2010 I submitted a marriage license to the county. (It was Iowa, we were in NC, I had to call 4 different counties near his family to find one who would do the process by mail.) We had to meet the requirements of state law: not already married, not siblings or first cousins, blah, blah, blah. We had signatures notarized at my bank, had to have someone (in our case, one of my sister-in-laws) sign it in front of a notary, too. And then we received our marriage license. I found a legal officiant via internet/phone, a part-time lawyer, part-time judge. We married, he submitted the proper paperwork, and the county certified the marriage and told the state we were married which told the Feds.

      As I understand the new rules you find a qualified officiant who follows the state rules for legal marriage, and she/he or you submits an affidavit saying you’re married and its approved by a probate judge. All the same laws after marriage seem to apply.

      So the County Clerk doesn’t have to verify eligibility and issue a marriage license. A County Probate Judge has to file it but not approve it. The State adds (but not approves) it to their database.

      What this accomplishes puzzles the universe, unless you’re a rabid evangelical.

      • Mihangel apYrs

        What this accomplishes puzzles the universe, UNLESS YOUR A RABID EVANGELICAL.

        You answered yourself

  • kaydenpat

    Wow. They really hate gays, don’t they? So dramatic.

    • Todd20036

      They hate gays, blacks, Jews, Latinos, educated people, thinking people, LBGTs in general, atheists, Native Americans….
      In fact the only people they like are Nazis.

      • kaydenpat

        Sadly true. If they didn’t have someone to hate, they couldn’t survive. Nasty people.

      • caphillprof

        White trash needs anybody to look down upon.

  • CB

    The idiocy of this is incredible.
    As my brother, an Episcopal priest, says, the role of the church is to “solemnize” a marriage, which he maintains adds a sacramental element to what is a civil construct.

    • killreligion

      True but even more accurate is the service the church provides its customer is to solemnize if the couple voluntarily wants it and pays for it

      It’s not their role to do anything wrt civil marriage. The confusion lies in your brother performing the role of the state as a separate act from his religious service offering.

      He is a JP and a priest at same time. This is of course a huge flaw in our system.

  • Dagoril

    Alabama – still a shithole.

    • Todd20036

      But Africa is not. Wonder if we can trade.

  • HZ81

    Yes, separation of church and state had always been a top priority of GOP lawmakers in AL —and everywhere.

    Fuck you, douchebag.

    • Todd20036

      Meanwhile, SCOTUS should (!) call this end run around marriage equality to be unconstitutional.

      • John30013

        I don’t think this is an “end run” around marriage equality, since it applies equally to all couples. It’s more like “Do It Yourself” marriage: any couple can just sign an affidavit declaring they are married, file it with the probate court, and boom! Instant marriage. No waiting period, no officiant required. Actually it sounds like a pretty good idea to me.

        (I know its motivated by anti-LGBT bigotry, but that doesn’t mean it’s not a reasonable idea, especially since it preserves everyone’s rights.)

        • killreligion

          Two issues potentially. Bigot judge refuses and divorce fails with challenge to marriage. Second a stretch, is affidavit stronger or weaker than notorized license???

          • John30013

            Assuming the law is written correctly, these affidavits would legally be just as binding (on all parties, including the state) as a notorized license.

        • Ronald Ibach

          Totally agree with you.

        • Chris Baker

          I agree. You say you are married, and ‘boom’, you are legally married. I’m guessing that’s how marriages worked a long time ago.

          Father and groom exchanged some handshakes and/or livestock and the girl was given to the man and ‘boom’, they are married. No county clerk, register of deeds, priest, etc.

          Although, at some point, some sort of paperwork has to be available so the couple can later prove their marriage. A certificate of marriage. So the state is still involved.

          • John30013

            Yes, especially where benefits and/or children are involved.

      • Nelson Kerr

        The problem with that is that while it is a douche-bag move It is not unconstitutional since it applies equally to everyone and does not violate anyone rights, it is a procedural change that does not i terfer with anyone’s rights

  • Frostbite

    Know what. I’m all for this. Get the government out of the marriage business everywhere, including taxes, give equal benefits and rights to everyone and whoever they indicate (like visiting).

    • gaycuckhubby

      But I don’t think that’s what they’re talking about.

      • Frostbite

        Of course not. They only want to end it so icky gays can’t get married. They don’t think for a second about the unintended consequences.

    • CB

      It’s actually the church that should get out of the marriage business. Marriage is a civil construct, that the church has turned into a sacrament.

      • Frostbite

        But that’s my point. End the civil construct too.

        • gaycuckhubby

          So eliminate all marriages and the rights that automatically go with them? What about rights of inheritance and Hospital visitations and custody battles?

          • Frostbite

            If there’s no such construct as marriage, then we shouldn’t have those issues. Why would a hospital block a non-spouse from visiting if there was no marriage? Custody battles, would still be, battles, it’s two people fighting for “custody” of a child, regardless of a title. Eliminate the taxes associated with the marriage construct along with the marriage construct, no more issues with inheritance.

          • gaycuckhubby

            The reason I see is for ease and clarity on the hands of the hospital staff for example. If you have multiple people trying to make end-of-life decisions that are at odds with each other, it’s easy for Hospital administrators to find out who is the spouse of the patient and to let them make the final decision. Otherwise you have long drawn-out Court battles on something that needs immediacy

          • Frostbite

            But that’s only for someone who is married, we still have those issues with the many non-married people out there. You’re not solving the issue, only applying a band-aid to a subset of the population.

            The best solution for this issue is to have “power of attorney” or the similar filed designating someone to make such decisions.

          • Reality.Bites

            Getting rid of a word doesn’t get rid of its meaning.

            All you’re really proposing is taking away structures available to all and force everyone to lawyer up for everything they do.

          • GeoffreyPS

            What about making medical decisions for those who are incapable? That right would then go to parents. Some readers here have no contact wth their patents and would not want to give them any authority like that.

          • Frostbite

            Then designate someone with power of attorney. And this isn’t an issue limited to people on this site.

  • gaycuckhubby
  • Rex

    A question for the Alabama Senate – don’t you have anything better to do?

    • Frostbite

      What? No. Don’t you know they ended poverty, unemployment and toe fungus in that state already.

      • djcoastermark

        You forgot the highest education achievements in the country too.

  • Michael R

    That will get them off the number one worst state to live in for sure .

  • leastyebejudged

    The drug OD’s in Alabama continue, unabated, as the state continues to do nothing.

  • How freaking petty and homophobic.

  • Silver Badger

    Will the probate judges accept affidavits from gay couples as official record of marriage?

    • gaycuckhubby

      Yes. They will have to treat heterosexual couples and homosexual couples exactly the same

      • Silver Badger

        If that is the case, I fail to see the point of such legislation.

        • gaycuckhubby

          There is literally no good reason for this legislation. Probate judges will now sign an affidavit stating that people have decided to sign up for marriage as opposed to granting the license themselves. I guess that gives them and their bigotry some peace

          • whollyfool

            I’d love to have the government out of marriage altogether

          • Bj Lincoln

            I am not defending bigoted people but if it keeps them doing their job, not giving us crap and treating everyone equal, I don’t have a problem.

      • Acronym Jim

        The way I see it is the judge only has to accept affidavits from people who are already married. If judges no longer perform civil (secular) marriages, who else has the authority to do so? This seems designed to make it more difficult for same-sex couples to get married as they would have to find a minister (in Alabama of all places) to marry them.

        Of course, the idiot legislature seem to think that becoming an ordained minister is something that is only allowed for evangelicals.

        • gaycuckhubby

          The way I read it, no one needs to perform any marriage ceremony. The parties that are getting married need to sign an affidavit and turn it in and then they are married. no ceremony needs to occur unless the couple wants to do it on their own either religious or secular.

  • BeaverTales

    They know this is unconstitutional. Old spiteful Christians want to get the public angry over an issue that isn’t harming anyone. Maybe some LGBT folk will get lynched or run out of state….just like they did with interracial couples after Loving

  • MBear

    Alabama Senate: what a shithole

  • Gustav2
    • Gustav2

      And no, our side roads in the city don’t look this good.

    • Treant

      27 and falling and still snowing. 🙂 I gotta get out and blow.

      Then handle the 5″ of snow that’s fallen.

      • Mark

        Okay, my mind just went in the gutter…..

    • Mark

      It’s 12º in Santa Fe this morning but no snow. None. Bupkis. We’re so damn dry it’s getting scary!

    • ColdCountry

      31°, 6″ of snow and counting. I hope it gets colder! Right now, it’s light and fluffy, and I want it to stay that way. I have to go to work this afternoon.

    • John30013

      It was 17°F here in North Central Georgia this morning, and about half an inch on the ground. It’s melting on the roads now since the sun came out (although it’s still only about 25°F).

      • Gustav2

        We had 4″ on the ground Sat morning plus a lot of drifting, 4″ more Monday. and none of it has melted because of the temps.

  • gaycuckhubby

    Okay so they will accept affidavits as marriages. And it will cost the same as marriage licenses. So the only thing that’s changing is that judges don’t have to preside over a ceremony?

    • Gustav2

      And ‘the church’ owns the word “marriage” just like Medieval Europe.

      Then the religious can discriminate saying, “You are not really married.”

      • gaycuckhubby

        But they’re not changing the word either. Is just very very strange…
        “probate judges accept affidavits from couples as official records of marriage”

        • Gustav2

          They are ascared churches will be required to do gay marriages, when no clergy has to marry any couple.
          See RCC and civil divorced couples.

    • Bj Lincoln

      Yes. They are still married but no civil service. We had our commitment ceremony years before we had got married in a civil service. They can have a service in their church if they want. I don’t see a problem.

      • gaycuckhubby

        Me neither

  • jayjonson

    I’m surprised that the bill doesn’t include a “conscience clause” that would allow a clerk to refuse to file an affidavit for same-sex couples if same-sex marriage violates their deeply held religious beliefs.

    • liondon#iamnotatraitor

      Also too…have you been to the South?… gluttony is alive and well.

      • 1 West Virginia

        2 Mississippi

        3 Alabama

        3 Arkansas

        5 Louisiana

        6 Tennessee

        7 Kentucky

        8 Texas

        9 Oklahoma

        The South WILL rise again…like a blimp!

        10 Michigan

        10 Indiana

  • TominDC

    I wonder if Toyota/Mazda can be made to change their minds about building their new plant in Alabama. .

    • Charles Nelson

      No unions…minimum minimum wage laws…negligible taxes…plantation psychology. Of course, they will build there.

      • TominDC

        It is cheaper to manufacture things in the 3rd world.

  • shellback
  • Mike

    This is super dumb even for Alabama. I don’t want to say it’s a shithole, but let’s face it, it’s a shithole. Bigly.

  • TuuxKabin

    Should make a ‘three strikes and you’re out” batsball rule with legislation.

    • GayOldLady

      Their ridiculous attempts at this is only hurting themselves, they can’t keep us from marrying, no matter what they do.

      • gaycuckhubby

        The funny thing is, that this legislation doesn’t even attempt to stop gay people from marrying

        • Friday

          The courts still can do just as easily as refusing to sign marriage licenses, etc.

          • gaycuckhubby

            No. They’re not allowed to

        • GayOldLady

          Because they can’t, but what they’re trying to do is make it more difficult for gay people to marry. It’s not easy to find a church or a minister in Alabama to marry a gay couple. In TN, for example, a lot of judges in counties away from the metropolitan areas are no longer performing marriage ceremonies at the Court House at all. The Country Clerk in my counties close the office on the day of the SCOTUS Obergefell decision. So we went to Nashville to get ours. We couldn’t arrange a marriage ceremony because the Judges in Nashville that were doing gay ceremonies were booked and the private chapels were either refusing to talk to us about it or booked. So we booked a minister in a wedding chapel in Gatlinburg, TN and went there to be married. It’s still requires jumping through hoops for gay couples to get married in the South, but gay couples are persistent and will get married no matter what sort of hurdles they throw in front of us.

          • gaycuckhubby

            It’s not clear that this bill would require you to get married by a religious figure though. Sounds like you get married just by signing an affidavit and returning it with no ceremony whatsoever.

  • GayOldLady

    Y’all can keep trying to deprive us of marriage by passing all the stupid laws you want, but we will still get married in Alabama or anywhere else we want in this country. You lost, WE WON, LOVE WINS!

  • j.martindale

    Such a lot of effort just to let them demonstrate their contempt of gay people! It’s okay. the feeling is mutual.

  • gaycuckhubby

    This does absolutely zero to change marriage rights in Alabama or access to marriage in Alabama. Same-gender couples and different gender couples will be treated the same under this law. It’s the most ridiculous non effective stupid thing that I’ve seen past in any legislation in a long time. So Alabama.

    • Gustav2

      They don’t want to dirty their hands with issuing permission to marry called a “license.”

  • That_Looks_Delicious

    Next, Alabama Senate passes bill to end all bathrooms.

  • SkokieGuy [ChicagoAdjacentGuy]

    If only Christians would stop destroying marriage.

    • Buford

      I don’t get it… why is this a bad thing?

      • jamklev

        It’s essentially “Well, if gay people wanna get married, then no one can get married.” It’s a last ditch effort to avoid having their government giving consent to gay marriage.

        • Buford

          That’s not what I read. I read that the law now simply allows ‘couples’ to submit affidavits to become legally married, with no mention of how they define ‘couples’. If all consenting couples can submit affidavits to become married, that sounds remarkably efficient and secular… I like it.

  • BlueberriesForMe

    I felt I needed to remind myself what it is: (Per Wikipedia):

    An affidavit (/ˌæfɪˈdeɪvɪt/ AF-i-DAY-vit) is a written sworn statement of fact voluntarily made by an affiant or deponent under an oath or affirmation administered by a person authorized to do so by law.

    Such statement is witnessed as to the authenticity of the
    affiant’s signature by a taker of oaths, such as a notary public or commissioner of oaths. The name is Medieval Latin for he/she has declared upon oath.

    An affidavit is a type of verified statement or showing, or in other
    words, it contains a verification, meaning it is under oath or penalty
    of perjury, and this serves as evidence to its veracity and is required for court
    proceedings. It is done with the help of court, with a stamp paper.
    Affidavits may be written in the first or third person, depending on who
    drafted the document.

    • Frostbite

      Until we get a court who doesn’t want to accept an affidavit because it violates their beliefs..

      • BlueberriesForMe

        I want mine to be in the third person. I’m sure it makes it more meaningful.

  • Tawreos

    Alabama: Working hard to be a national embarrassment for 198 years

    • fuow

      1) At least they’re working hard at something.
      2) Mississippi, for one (as one) is glad they’re a success at it.

  • Richard Rush

    As long as this change doesn’t restrict the marriage benefits to same-sex couples, I have no problem with it. In fact, I don’t understand why marriage should require a ceremony.

    Religious so-called sacred rites, such as communion, baptism, and (to some degree) marriage, involve going through a bunch of contrived physical motions accompanied by groundless assertions. While it’s claimed that these rites produce a powerfully significant result, they do nothing more than strengthen the fantasies in the heads of gullible people, which is what they were designed to do.

    • Friday

      The required ‘ceremony’ never had to be religious, just having an oath and signing witnessed.

      • Richard Rush

        While I realize that the “ceremony never had to be religious,” the tradition of having a ceremony began with religion.

    • Makoto

      My folks got married at a Carson City place (it was closer than Vegas). Not a religious rite, and they even got a roll of nickels to use at the local casinos after. Boiled down to a city authorized justice of the peace and rented witnesses signing a paper, no ceremony at all. But, they did get a picture. And the roll of nickels, which they used for gas money on the way home.

      They’re still together, and the mention of nickels as useful casino tokens probably helps indicate how long ago this all was…

      Anyway, that’s all unrelated to the fact that this is being introduced to ‘destroy’ marriage now that ‘teh gayz’ can get it. This guy didn’t introduce his bill to get religion out of the wedding business. He introduced it because he wants to make sure happy gay couples can’t claim to be married the way straight couples did back in the day.

      • Menergy

        That’s what I did in Reno, NV on a weekend back in 1967 – justice of the peace presided, forms signed etc. and out the door married. (Didn’t get the roll of nickels though….damn!) Stayed over for the night, flew back to Denver to finish up USAF school, spouse drove back with the 2 witness friends to San Francisco and returned to work. Reunited shortly thereafter. No religious ceremony at all. A civil contract suffices!

  • Happy_Housewife

    The majority of people in Alabama who vote (or at least the people who’s votes are counted) are morons. This is what you get when the morons control the vote.

  • Butch

    Could Alabama please secede? We won’t try to stop you, I promise.

    • fuow

      Take Texass with you.

      • The_Wretched

        Texas is very blue at its heart and voter suppression is the only thing keeping republicans in control.

  • Michael White

    KKKristins FORGET, the state grants churches the right to witness marriages, NOT the other way around. Backwards religious assholes as always.

  • Stogiebear

    This is just utter bullshit and a blatant waste of taxpayer monies to keep the queers down and make sure they know their proper place.

    – Marriage licenses are issued only by a county’s probate judge in Alabama.
    – Alabama probate judges refused to issue marriage licenses to queer folks.
    – Much self-righteous whinging and wringing of hands ensues over “participation” in fag weddings.
    – Marriage affidavits are dreamt up and will be accepted only by a county’s probate judge in Alabama to keep the special little Alabama snowflakes from being triggered and melting.
    – The same shithole probate judges who refused to issue marriage licenses to queeeerz1! will refuse to accept marriage affidavits because religious freedumb.
    – Ethnic minorities in Alabama — Jim Crow 2.0 has been released. Please shift in your seats because LGBT folks are now required to ride in the back of the bus too.

    • leastyebejudged

      I don’t know, this looks like a great way to remove corrupt Probate judges to me !

  • Dazzer

    Under this proposal, how will couples married in Alabama be able to prove that they’re married in different States in the US and in different countries around the world?

    There are international treaties – to which the US is a signatory – that cover the recognition of marriage in different countries.

    • gaycuckhubby

      You will also be able to get married in Alabama. This just gets rid of the need for a marriage service if you don’t want one. You still have to sign paperwork and be declared married

      • Dazzer

        So you’ll still have a marriage licence?

        • gaycuckhubby

          I think it would technically be called an official record of marriage. but yes, it would be the exact same thing and recognized in all of the states and localities

          • Dazzer

            OK then. Thank you.

            It’s a bizarre and totally unnecessary move, though.

          • gaycuckhubby

            Yeah, a waste of time to change nothing in order to make themselves feel better

          • Dazzer

            Even with an “official record of marriage”, it’ll still cause problems for both straight and gay couples if they move overseas and want to claim partnership benefits.

            I can see them still getting those benefits, but only after they’ve had to jump through extra hoops of bureaucracy because it’s such an odd type of document that registrars in the rest of the world and tax authorities, immigration, hospitals, insurance companies, etc will have to verify that it’s a legal document before according partnership rights.

            Alabama seems to hate its straights just as much as it hates its gays.

    • Reality.Bites

      A marriage license is not proof of being married. It’s merely proof that at one point one was given permission to marry.

      Proof of a marriage is the registration of it, not the license permitting it.

  • Bride of Trump

    The sure do make them simple down in Bama.

  • Impressive that my marriage has interstate superpowers.

  • Harveyrabbit
  • Natty Enquirer

    Under Albritton’s next bill, all Alabama churches will be burned down because gay churches.

  • fuow

    Holy Matrimony is a sacriment.
    Marriage is a legal means of protection for a couple and, if need be, the rest of their family, up or down the generational scale.
    This is pure hatred.

    • customartist

      Correct. In marriage, the two become one legal entity. In contracts, the Terms are spelled out, and if one party or the other forgets to put something in, then watch the courts fill up, and without legislation on the books to address the quagmire.

  • BourbonGal

    I must be missing something, I don’t see how this is homophobic. Gay people can still get married in the same fashion as straight couples. Further separating church and state is a good thing.

    • gaycuckhubby

      It’s not homophobic as it treats all couples the same. I don’t see how it advances the separation of church and state though.

      • BourbonGal

        I guess if it reduces regulations and requirements then it’s basically just a contract between two people as it should have been all along.

    • Dot Beech

      It does not appear on its face to be homophobic. I champion every bit of progress on getting the state out of the marriage business. It is only because the state inserted itself into what had historically been a religious rite that we had to fight all the way to the Supreme Court.

      Just go to the religious leader of your choice, or don’t, and say your magic words, or don’t, and you are married. If you and your partner agree to be married and hold yourselves out to the community as married, then that ought to be sufficient. Just go record it so that the matter is clear, as you would a deed or business lease.

      But the reason for making this change to a long-standing policy and practice is clearly, obviously, and exclusively homophobic and in no way springs from enlightenment. Not in Alabama.

    • customartist

      Aside form that argument, it complicates marriage for everyone. Will these new contracts still be governed by existing marriage laws, or will they be governed, in divorce courts, etc., ONLY by the terms of said contracts? Will one party in the contract be substantially disadvantaged, financially let’s say for the sake of this conversation, because he or she, earns less than the other?

      If it were to pass, and I say it won’t, I will predict here and now that it would be repealed.

      • gaycuckhubby

        It appears that it will be marriage contracts as it is now. It just means government officials won’t have to preside over a ceremony. Everything else remains exactly the same, the same rights and responsibilities

        • The_Wretched

          Heaven forfend they have to do the jobs they were hired or elected to do.

          • gaycuckhubby

            Especially when it comes to the icky gays!

    • The_Wretched

      Marriage is civil law in the US, not an church/State entanglement. So far as there is one, it’s in the ‘solemnization’ requirement and allowing people to use whatever ceremony they want including religious ones.

  • Friday’s_cat

    Since marriage started as a system to ensure hereditary rights with the Church getting a cut or to unite opposing clans there’s always been a civil component. It should be a contract like any business arrangement.

    • Dazzer

      The Church didn’t officially get into the marriage game until the 12th century.

      Clerics were allowed to perform and record marriages so that they had a continuous income stream.

      In historical terms, church-blessings of marriages is a relatively new idea.

    • customartist

      Should this or similar legislation begin to make its way through the States, then yes, there will be emerging “contracts” between the “parties”.

      HETEROS will find themselves negotiating “terms” between the parties – “prenups” if you will, that many, middle and lower class, heterosexual couples NEVER imagined that they would have even contemplated having, or needing, to do. There will BE NO traditionally understood, by the Government or the Courts, terms of what marriage is or was before. Repercussions, they call these here thingeys. Be careful what you ask for. Let the snowball take off! And let them eat cake! Wedding cake. LOL

      • gaycuckhubby

        I see a lot of problems playing out if people start making up terms for their own contracts.

        • customartist

          There will be regret

    • clay

      Please don’t limit your history of marriage to “important” or “royal” marriages. Marriage pre-dates the church, and probably the state, and common law marriage was the norm for the first half of the church’s history, and even the first half of Roman Catholic theocratic monarchies.

    • customartist

      Marriage indebts the spouse with the liabilities of the other spouse as well as ensuring inheritance rights. The two parties are ONE entity, under the law.
      The proposed legislation will not change the existing State Marriage laws – or will it??

      • gaycuckhubby

        based on everything I’ve read know it will not change it

    • The_Wretched

      Marriage has been around forever in a variety of forms and legal contexts including plural marriage. Western 1M1F marriage, the Church pushed for “primogenture” and contracts for the reasons you suggest. So called ‘love’ marriages are recent to the early 1900s in the US.


  • Bluto

    This makes no sense & prevents nothing. I suspect there is a “part 2” that we don’t know about yet.

  • Gerry Fisher

    As long as it’s equal, I don’t care.

  • Paula

    Oh, c’mon, Alabama. You have conclusively proven to us repeatedly, how stupid you are. You don’t have to keep trying to outdo yourselves.

    • customartist

      It comes naturally. No exertion required.

    • shivadog

      Maybe they are worried Mississippi or Texas might out-stupid them.

  • Snownova

    Interesting, here in the Netherlands it’s the opposite, the government doesn’t give a crap what you do in your church, mosque or temple, you need to drag your ass to city hall to get married there, everything else is just fluff for your personal preference, with absolutely zero legal value.

    • gaycuckhubby

      That’s essentially what it is here too, it’s just not explain very well. The government gives Limited powers to (often) a religious figure to conduct a marriage ceremony and sign as a witness to this ceremony. But those records need to be sent into the government and a person does not become legally married until the government gives their stamp of approval on the record. If you have a religious ceremony but do not turn the marriage license in to be authorized by the state, then you are not legally married.
      It should also be noted that one does not need to have a religious ceremony or a government ceremony in the US. You can have secular friends perform a secular ceremony, sign as Witnesses and return the record to be authorized by the state.

      • customartist

        So it’s STILL a “marriage”?
        Not quite sure what’s accomplished with the proposed legislation?

        • gaycuckhubby


          • customartist

            THIS is what our highly intelligent legislators busy themselves with – I mean, instead of preventing Trump from pissing off the Other child-leader in North Korea, for example.

          • gaycuckhubby

            Exactly. This changes absolutely nothing other than probate judges won’t have to conduct a ceremony.

        • The_Wretched

          Either nothing at all, or quite a bit and we need to wait and see the rest of the scheme. I don’t know how the rest of the Alabama marriage laws are written.

          • customartist

            I believe that there are 50 or so versions out there [in the USA alone]

          • The_Wretched

            Yes, and the State laws are what I meant – exactly because there is State to State variation.

        • John30013

          It removes the requirement for Probate Court religious snowflakes to have to sign an icky same-sex couple’s marriage certificate. It does this by changing the marriage certificate from an official government document (requiring the signature of a Probate Court official) to a do-it-yourself affidavit that the Probate Court official merely files, but does not have to put their name on. It’s stupid, and it’s nothing more than papering over the semantics, but it relieves their precious consciences of having to sign a piece of paper they might not like.

      • (((GC)))

        It varies state by state. Many states require a clergyperson, judge, or other official allowed to do so to “solemnize” the marriage.

        • gaycuckhubby

          Yes, some do but anyone can get solemnized for a day to do it.
          People do it all the time, they have family members or teachers or metters or bosses

      • killreligion

        I do think it varies by state. In mass your friends have to file some paperwork similar to a notary if you want them, same for a priest so not just anyone can do it. Also no ceremony needed civil or not. You can just find a justice of the peace (similarly established authority person with a special seal) and sign the form, they put their seal on it and mail to the state

    • canoebum

      Not just the Netherlands.

    • Steve Smith

      Same in a lot of Europe. Last year a couple of my straight friends got married, and in true Italian style brought the mayor to the restaurant to do the ceremony, so there’d be less delay in getting to the 6-hour, 8 course lunch…….

  • disqus_D9pH1OIG67

    I think this is a good idea and takes us back to what marriage really is, i. e., a contract between two people, no church needed.

    • customartist

      Secular marriages merely had a processor, either the Clergy or Justice of the Peace, witnesses, and paperwork. This only changes what we call the process. Semantics. Will they still call it “marriage”? Doesn’t this still “redefine” marriage? This proposal is merely a DIG at gays – so they can say they have “won”.

    • Ben in Oakland

      No church was needed before this. You get a civil marriage license, and your choice of solemnization.

    • BobSF_94117

      If you think marriage is just a contract between two people, you’re just plain wrong.

    • The_Wretched

      In US law, there has never been a requirement for a church. The ‘solemnization’ requirement could always be met with a civil ceremony.

      • gaycuckhubby

        Yes indeed. I’m always surprised by how many people don’t understand that

        • customartist

          Ya cant teach the unwilling

  • customartist

    So if this legislation were to pass, what then prevents a clerk or other municipal employee from still registering objections and refusing to process the NEW paperwork from same sex couples?

    I recall, telling my age, that there were objections to African Americans eating at Woolworth’s for example because God “did not intend for the races to intermix”. Where does it end? This resolves nothing. This is transparent political pandering [to the ignorant]. Sorry but someone had to say it.

    • customartist

      This reminds me of the televised session with Trump and Feinstein and McCarthy the other day regarding DACA, Wall Funding and Immigration Reform.

      Feinstein proposed that they fix DACA with legislation, AND THEN come back with a commitment to work on immigration reform. She meant not all at once. Kevin McCarthy quickly brought to Trump’s attention that they “did not want to be back here in the same place, with the same problem”, Illegal Children, as we have today.

      Summary: McCarthy indicated via his statement that there is some type of legislation where they, Republicans, can fix the system so that there will BE NO illegal immigrant children in the future. LOL. This is the kind of Republican short sightedness that rules our land. *shakes head*

      • The_Wretched

        “”NO illegal immigrant children in the future” – which is, of course, impossible.

        • customartist

          Paul Ryan has put Kevin McCarthy ‘out there’ as his surrogate for public consumption so that HE will not suffer the political repercussions when this whole Trump thing blows up. Poor pawn.

  • Lee Grupsmith-Pedersen

    Congratulations! Y’all just redefined marriage!

    • customartist

      Funny how it’s A.O.K. when THEY do it, huh?

  • Statistics Palin

    No marriage licenses? This just means I’ll be perfectly accurate in calling the citizens of Alabama “alabastards”

    • customartist

      Well, if you can’t marry a 14 year old…..

      • The_Wretched

        That’s one of the open legal questions now. If marriage is a recordation instead of a license, can you now “marry” underage? There isn’t a legal requirement that you be able to legally consummate your marriage.

        • gaycuckhubby

          From all the Articles I’ve read the same restrictions to recorded marriages would apply.

        • customartist

          Even in States where some underage marriage are currently legal, with parental consent or not, the underage person cannot enter into a contract. So then, will the Parent(s) of said minor be able to marry-off, or “contract out” their underage minor to another person, adult or other minor[remember, WITHOUT the minor’s consent]?

          This would appear to play right into the hands of child traffickers, and presents all kinds of legal issues, and conflicts of interest.

          • The_Wretched

            I would say no but there’s always someone who will take a change and say it nullifies a limit that was on the pre-changed version. They could literally relitigate every aspect of ‘marriage’ (and there’s a ton of case law on topic).

          • customartist

            The litigation will take place in front of Judges. I have personally had perfectly legal portions of contracts reversed by a judge for one reason or another. A contract is not always upheld in the courts, even if it adheres to the exact letter of the law.

          • The_Wretched

            Very true, every court proceeding is a dice roll.

        • gaycuckhubby

          the Alabama Senators have noted over and over again that this doesn’t change anything in the marriage laws at all, it just changes how they are recorded and who is required to preside over it

          • The_Wretched

            Unless those ‘notes’ were written explicitly into the law, they could be ignored by a judge who wants to ignore them.

  • canoebum

    This is some petty bullshit. Eliminating marriage licenses will allow the state to claim there is no same-sex marriage in Alabama, and the Probate Judges can refuse to marry whoever they chose. The whole idea is to deny same-sex couples the ability to get married.

    • customartist

      It’s like ending ALL school sponsored clubs just because the Principal does not want to allow gay-straight alliance clubs.

      “THERE! We sure fixed those darned homos!”

      • canoebum

        Or closing all the public swimming pools to keep black kids out. Same shit, different day.

        • customartist

          EX-cellent analogy!
          Thank for that.

  • clay

    So, just state recognition of common law marriages?


    Chris Sevier’s next target for lawsuit to marry his laptop (though he’s never actually tried to actually marry his laptop).


    Part two of this action will be to institute separate “covenant” marriages which cannot be severed by divorce (but are only conducted by fundamentalist religious groups).

    • gaycuckhubby

      In my understanding, it goes beyond common law marriage. A couple who wants to get married signs an affidavit brings it into the courthouse the Probate Judge signs it. And they are married. The only difference is the judges will not perform a ceremony.

      • customartist

        Sooo, Judges are off the proverbial hook, but are Clerks are next to need “special legislation”??

        BTW – North Carolina already has legislation allowing Judges to refuse to marry SS couples.

        • gaycuckhubby

          According to this article it is the probate judge’s who will have to record the affidavits as marriage records. Not the clerks. so it affects the same people, but the Senate has decided that Probate judges will be okay RECORDING the affidavits as long as they don’t have to preside over a ceremony.

          • customartist

            What will Kim Davis do?

          • gaycuckhubby

            Lose her election to a gay guy she refused a license too ☺️

          • -M-

            Just changing what they’d call the paperwork.

    • The_Wretched

      Yeah, this is either an irrelevant change or there’s a raft of unanswered legal questions. Will ‘recordation marriage’ count for federal taxes?

    • customartist

      The laptop was eventually able to consent – it simply refused the proposal.

  • Bambino

    I read “The requirement of a ceremony to sodomize the marriage would be eliminated.”

    • gaycuckhubby

      Sodomy is always required, or is that desired?

    • customartist

      Many in Alabammie would likely read it that-a-way

      • customartist

        Remember people being opposed to eating Black Angus?

  • KnownDonorDad

    And…hack away at that nose!

  • Ben in Oakland

    So the people who want to end marriage in Talibama are actually…


    • GanymedeRenard

      “Talibama”. Totally stealing that!

      • Ben in Oakland

        Only if you send me lots of money.

        • GanymedeRenard

          Ha! That wouldn’t be an act of stealing then. It would be a commercial agreement! Anyway, I was just kidding! But you should totally copyright that word if you coined it. 😉

          • Ben in Oakland

            If youre not going to pay me for it you might as well steal it. I certainly did.

          • GanymedeRenard

            You naughty boy, you.

  • customartist

    Sooo, will the Kim Davises of the world be OK with RECORDING gay marriages, while they were so vehemently opposed to issuing a license? It’s all paperwork. Voting minds wan to know.

    • Menergy

      I bet the Kim Davises figure out a way not to touch the heathen paperwork or give “approval” dontcha know.

  • BobSF_94117

    I suspect the Alabama Senate just does this for the campaign-ad value, knowing the House will fail to pass it.

    If the House were to pass this stupid bill, it would be the end of “I hereby join…” and people would be PISSED.

  • AdamTh

    So… the kkkristian probate judges will be required to record affidavits? How will this help the poor, perpetually persecuted kkkristians?

  • Gigi

    If they’re so concerned about why won’t they ban divorce?

  • TexasBoy

    Don’t be stupid, you know this is just a preliminary step if it passes. The next step is there will be no recognized marriage benefits for gays, even with an affidavit because “Oh look, they aren’t really married” but they’d recognize “special unions” between a man and woman because “it’s traditional” *wink, wink, nod, nod*

    • Hank

      Isn’t Texas on its way to removing marriage benefits for SSM??

      • McSwagg

        “… on its way …”, No. It’s a done deal. The appeal was rejected.

  • abqdan

    My only concern is that I be treated equally with everyone else. If they want to do this, fine. Don’t expect straight Christian couples to be happy about it though… As far as state benefits related to marriage, they’ll struggle with administration of that; and whether the federal agencies will recognize people as ‘married’ at all is a matter for the courts. These people administer one of the poorest states in the nation. If they really think this is the best use of time and resources, the people of Alabama should bear that in mind come November…

  • Ninja0980

    Bitter bigoted assholes need to get the hell over the fact marriage equality is the law of the land.

  • Ore Carmi

    Fucking Alabama.

  • Rocco

    They reacted the same way with the end of segregation…

  • killreligion

    This has nothing to do with establishment as marriage has nothing to do with religion. What happened to civics education? (And home economics while I’m ranting)

    • LesbianTippingHabits

      but her e-mails . . .

  • GanymedeRenard

    It’s amazing what some people are capable of doing in order to suppress equality. Bigotry at its best.

  • JWC

    Easier to marry your cousin or sister i guess

    • Girlgoon

      Can I marry my gun dog yet

  • Good grief, how completely over the top this response is to same sex marriage. There is no way at all to take the State out of marriage. The only way to do that is to totally remove any and all marriage perks from law. But then that would make the xtians cry cry cry.

    • LesbianTippingHabits

      Horse carpaccio.

  • Dicky is the text of the bill and if you want to see the parts that are to be edited and struck, Section 30, Chapter 1 is the marriage portion.

  • Steven in Texas

    Sounds fair as it applies to all couples……

    here’s some good info on traditional marriage, Matt Baume from YouTube:

  • Gene Perry

    Seriously? Do they hate gays so much that they would abolish marriage all together In Alabama? Just for spite?

  • Gregory Peterson

    That’s right out of the 1950’s “Massive Resistance” playbook, isn’t it?

  • DT

    I love it and think we should encourage even more republicans to fight against marriage. There is a delicious irony that people who argued so vehemently in “defense of marriage” are the ones trying to kill it.

    • LesbianTippingHabits

      If Republicans really wanted to protect marriage, they would ban divorce.

  • Y’all Qaeda strikes again.

  • LarryChemEngr

    Of course, an asshole Republican.

    • LesbianTippingHabits

      That’s redundant.

  • Pip
  • PDQ

    Dear Senter albritton:

    Thank yew fer pertektin mareig. Bless yer hart! Now could yew pass a law soes I dont half to ware shews in skool inymor? I’m 20+6 an tryn to pass third grayd an my feet hurt win I half to ware mah shews. Its wurs whens I ‘member to ty the shew strings on ’em.

    Thank yew! Yer frind Cletus

  • EdmondWherever

    The sponsor, Sen. Greg Albritton, R-Range [PHOTO], said that would take the state out of any role in marriage ceremonies, which he said would properly separate church and state.

    How so? Is marriage specifically “religious” in some way? How is the “church” even involved, that it needs to be separated?

    • LesbianTippingHabits

      In many European countries, as well as Mexico, the state does not recognize any religious marriage ceremonies.

      Civil marriage exists, but is completely separate and distinct from religious marriage (if desired).

      Thus, couples who are religious get married twice. First at City Hall, and then later in the religious congregation of their choice.

      ‘Not exactly what Alabama is proposing, but similar. Thank you.

  • JCF

    Make no mistake: the Confederate dead-enders in Alabama (etc) have been TOTALLY empowered by Drumpf & Sessions.

  • cfa

    Here is the full text of the bill:

    It is the European system: the couple go to the probate court, sign the affidavit, have it notarized, and they are legally married. Or they can go to any notary public (like a clerk at your bank, or Joe at the general store), sign the affidavit, and then file it at the probate court.

    Once it is filed (and the probate court cannot refuse to accept it, if it is properly signed and notarized), the couple is legally married. The only way it could be invalidated is if one or the other made false statements on the affidavit.

    What they don’t say is that the next step is that notaries public who don’t agree with same-sex marriage will refuse to notarize the affidavits. So that is the next court battle for equality advocates.

  • SFHarry

    The problem is that there will continue to be prejudice and some judges might not accept the affidavits from gay couples. Changing the procedures probably won’t change the hatred. Just forcing the haters to comply under the present system until it becomes a longstanding reality might just be what needs to be done.

  • Tartarana Vindex

    Sounds like another possible attempt to screw same sex marriage. Hopefully not but we will see!