In Alabama, a bill abolishing marriage licenses has passed the Senate and is headed for the house. The link is here, and it’s pretty obvious the reporter hates the idea.
The bill would replace marriage licenses with contracts filed at the courthouse. Getting the state out of the marriage business entirely was what many of us suggested would be the best way to deal with the radical redefinition of the institution sought by the progressive left.
may as well. When a marriage license becomes nothing but a rubber stamp, it serves no purpose.
Excellent. Every conservative who wants government out of their lives should support this.
Remember, what the government licenses, it also controls. You do NOT want government controlling your marriage.
Excellent. I believe Oklahoma has also ended marriage licenses as well.
But I want the insurance benefits I receive from my husband Andys job. Would stuff like that go by the wayside? Isn’t this like cutting off your nose in spite of your face.
@ Niall: I’m pretty certain they thought of that…I’d have to read the bill. Who’d have thought Alabama would lead the charge in this area?
Oklahoma (my home) has not altered their marriage laws.
I agree in principle with what’s happening here: get the State out of the marriage business and instead institute civil unions for whoever wishes to formally register their relationship with the State for tax purposes or Social Security or whatever.
Actually David is a pretty good reporter and has amazing facial expressions when on camera. If you read the article its like how he talks. I didn’t see anything wrong with how it was written and with how I know he speaks.
Are the accepting all types of contracts, how long these accepted contracts for? 10 years, or more? The type of contract, if any were accepted, could undo Alabama’s implied intent. Contracts aren’t unlimited & Alabama isn’t known for its geniuses.
Actually Hanover, we are known for our genius’. At least we here in Huntsville are. However, its always us vs them as in North Alabama/South Alabama. I can say the dynamic of what comes out of the legislature is always interesting to say the least.
If it be civil unions for all, so be it. With the majority of black babies dropping out of wedlock, what the heck is the difference?
Hopefully, the gay agenda crowd will just get all slap-happy over civil unions and go away and shut up.
Bakeries can make civil union cakes galore, but have a list of “requirements” that have to be met for contracting for a wedding cake. After all, a muslim taxi driver can refuse to let transport a passenger with a dog or liquor or whatever offends his religion. So, bakers can refuse special services to would-be clients if the baker’s religion is offended.
“Hi, we are lesbians going to be married.” “The civil union cakes are on aisle three.”
But I want the insurance benefits I receive from my husband Andys job. Would stuff like that go by the wayside?
Ah, but this is the glorious age of Obamacare. 1) You can go buy your own affordable policy from the exchange! No need to mooch from someone else’s employer! 2) Companies have been dumping spouses from employee insurance to cut the costs of Obamacare compliance, so mooching might not even be an option much longer.
Technically no.
States generally have little to no power to mandate benefits for private employers (although obviously they can for their employees and as a condition of receiving a state contract). Companies are generally free to set their own rules about whom they will cover under their health insurance plans, and there are a healthy number of employers that have employee-only plans.
The difference is currently in tax law. In Federal and (most) state tax laws, contributions made by an employer to health coverage for a spouse or dependent is not taxable to the employee. For a non-spouse or non-dependent, the company is not barred from contributing to their health coverage, but the employee is taxed on the amount of the company’s contribution as if it were additional pay to the employee (imputed income).
The easy fix for this would have been to tweak the tax code to allow preferential tax treatment for the employee plus any single non-dependent individual they elect to include and for which they contribute. The fact that it wasn’t done shows an ulterior motive.
I was for this in the 1990s. Where were all of you?
Yeah, still behind. : roll eyes :
It’s the progressive left whose push for gay marriage has brought us to this.
Which is just fine by me.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYXfARbezcA&feature=youtu.be
I know a guy who got gay married last year whose husband didn’t know him for long. They had a judge ceremony just the 2 of them so none of his friends could warn him about creditors looking for him. He will probably bleed him for gay alimony as soon as possible unless he gets caught cheating too many times.
I have been saying this for years. Civil unions for everyone, and let each place of worship determine if marriage is permitted for same sex couples.
Why all the hating on Alabama? There are real rocket scientists working there (Marshall Space Flight Center). And I hear tell it’s a sweet home.
Regarding insurance benefits. That would be up to whatever arangement you and your insurer come up with. You don’t think they currently insure spouses for free, do you? Someone is paying the additional premium, be it the employer or the employe. I am pretty sure the insurance company would be happy to continue collecting those premiums for any “persons living in a condition analogous to marriage”. Because they like collecting premiums. That is why they are in business.