[Wutang]

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2018/01...lic_1.html

Quote:

Instead of applying for a marriage license, a couple would submit a form to the probate judge swearing that they are of legal age, are entering the marriage willingly, are not already married and are not related by blood or adoption. The probate judge would record the form as the official marriage document.

Quote:

Under current law, a couple that has received a marriage license must also have a ceremony to "solemnize" the union. State law 30-1-7 broadly defines who can perform a marriage ceremony, including "any licensed minister of the gospel," "the pastor of any religious society," and active and retired judges and probate judges. The person conducting the ceremony is responsible for certifying the marriage to the probate court.

Albritton said the language about "licensed minister" is ambiguous and the requirement for a ceremony entangles the state unnecessarily in what should be a private affair. His bill abolishes the requirement for a ceremony.

The cost of having a marriage document recorded would be the same as applying for a license.

"It doesn't change the fees, it changes very little of the process," Albritton said. "But it does allow and kind of takes a libertarian view of getting the state out of it as much as possible and leaving the individuals to do as they choose and making the government recognize those marriages that are entered into."

I'm in full support of this and I hope something like this happens in other states as well. With more and more pressure from the LGBTXAP#$(click click) movement to force people to not just merely tolerate gay marriage but to compel them to participate in the ceremony as seen in the lawsuits related to private citizens refusing to bake a cake or rent out a hall for a gay marriage ceremony, it will be vital to have a legal basis for these people to not be made to act against their conscience.

[Leonard D Neubache]

Although I'm scratching my head thinking of unintended consequences I generally support moves in this direction.

It's my opinion that the government should only recognise unions for taxation, welfare and litigation purposes, and that the parties of such a union should legally be seen as genderless in just the same way they would be if a man and a woman entered into a business jointly. Custody during annulment of the union should be presumed a 50/50 split unless one party can prove beyond reasonable doubt that the children would be literally endangered by it. Child raising costs similarly would be split 50/50. Deviations on one side could typically be settled in small claims court at year's end, which is to say "sorry, bitches, no more gravy train".

This is a far cry from my preferred stance of patriarchy-guided traditionalism but until a collapse we have to push in realistic directions to stifle the decay in the most effective ways possible.

[PapayaTapper]

Ive long leaned Libertarian on this issue. There are already "overlapping laws" laws that address all the legal areas: namely the property and family arenas.

Let marriage be between the two people and their God. In general less government is good especially when it comes to personal liberties

[puckerman]

(01-23-2018 02:50 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

It's my opinion that the government should only recognise unions for taxation, welfare and litigation purposes, and that the parties of such a union should legally be seen as genderless in just the same way they would be if a man and a woman entered into a business jointly.

We should add things like medical decisions and inheritance.

We need two levels of marriage--temporary marriage and serious marriage. Temporary would require a pre-nuptial agreement. It would be marriage with the expectation of divorce. Serious marriage would be no divorce under any circumstances. Of course, a couple could have a temp marriage last for 50 years or longer if they chose to. I might even suggest that the temporary marriage has to be renegotiated on a regular basis.

[MKDAWUSS]

Fine by me.

[The Beast1]

This is how I was hoping the supreme court would have gone with their "gay marriage" ruling.

Marriage is a religious institution, not a state one. It's time we affirm that by such a rule.

Personally, I think children should be a defining factor in how much your taxed (more so than it is today) and a factor in how much your entitlements are paid out.

Of course you'll get toolbags saying, " well then I want to opt out of entitlements" or even better "I paid into them, gimme gimme!"

Sorry, but society and government are predicated on way more than just "participating". You want to live here, you have to put kids down. Hoards of low IQ immigrants wouldn't need to be coming in if there were more Americans popping out kids.

[Wutang]

(01-23-2018 12:47 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

Personally, I think children should be a defining factor in how much your taxed (more so than it is today) and a factor in how much your entitlements are paid out.

There's lots of government perks given out for people who get married and I believe the reason this is so is because for most of human history, marriage was linked to creating a family and offspring. If someone got married, it was automatically assumed that children would follow. It's only our time that is an outlier. Since this is the case now and with all the kids being had out of wedlock, I do agree we needs the laws to be amended so these benefits are only given to those who have children.

[porscheguy]

The bulk of welfare benefits already go to those with children.

A man with children who makes the same as me pays less in taxes.

Are you saying that some piece of shit who spends his days hanging out on a street corner, unemployed, never paid taxes, who spends his evenings knocking up bitches “cuz he got swag” with kids that my tax dollars support is more valuable to society than me?

Should I be forced to pay a bachelor tax?

If I spend my entire life contributing to a system and living within my means, are you saying I’m acting entitled if I want a piece of what I put in?

Why would I want to be part of a system that rewards irresponsibility and penalizes me for behaving with restraint?

You act as if procreation is some kind of saintly act. The truth is, it’s the result of squirting your load in an ovulating uterus. There’s nothing saintly about it. It’s just a little biology.

There is no need to import low IQ immigrants. 40% of adults in this country are not participating in the workforce for a number of reasons. To suggest we need immigrants is globalist noise.

[TooFineAPoint]

(01-23-2018 12:47 PM)The Beast1 Wrote:  

Sorry, but society and government are predicated on way more than just "participating". You want to live here, you have to put kids down.