Alabama Senate passes bill to ‘get the state out of the marriage business’

[cptau 169]

If passed into law Alabama's county probate judges would stop issuing marriage licenses and only record that a "marriage contract" exists between eligible persons. And yes the probate judge would charge fees for recording the contract.

http://alisondb.legi...s/SB377-eng.pdf

http://yellowhammern...riage-business/

MONTGOMERY, Ala. — The Alabama Senate passed Tuesday SB377, a bill to “get the state out of the marriage business,” by a vote of 22-3.

SB377 would remove the duty of confirming marriages from county probate judges. It would also allow marriages to be recorded by the state after filing a simple contract between two people eligible to be married that is solemnized by a pastor, attorney, or other authorized witness.

Though some are characterizing the bill as a reaction to the possibility of the state being required to perform and recognize marriages between same-sex couples, Albritton maintains he is simply removing the government from an area it never should have been in the first place.

“Right now, Alabama is in a chaotic state as far as marriage is concerned, he said. “You have a federal court that has ruled one way (in terms of same-sex marriage) and a state court that has ruled in another way.”

“When you invite the state into those matters of personal or religious import, it creates difficulties,” Albritton said of his bill in April. “Go back long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away. Early twentieth century, if you go back and look and try to find marriage licenses for your grandparents or great grandparents, you won’t find it. What you will find instead is where people have come in and recorded when a marriage has occurred.”

SB377 also raises some of the fees required to file a marriage contract; fees the Legislative Fiscal Office predicts would increase revenues to the General Fund by $1.3 million a year.

The bill encountered little debate while in the Senate, but is expected to inspire lively discussion during its next stop in the House.

[cooltigger21 0]

I think that's the best solution to everything. Once upon a time there was no such thing as a marriage license from the state. You went to the preacher and got married and that was it.

[JoeBags7277 734]

I'm all for it, but the backers of this bill would have much more credibility of they'd introduced it before federal SSM legalization became inevitable, not after. This is the only real solution to the problem.

[quietfan 233]

Curious as to what such a contract means in terms of tax status, survivor status, insurance, etc. Does it satisfy current marriage law/legal definitions in those areas (including federal law/regulation), or will some of the old laws/regulations have to have their wording revised to match?

Also interested in how it affects common law marriage...of whatever gender.

Since Representative Patricia Todd, the only openly gay member of the state legislature, said she actually has no problem with the idea, perhaps it will be acceptable to all.

[cptau 169]

Curious as to what such a contract means in terms of tax status, survivor status, insurance, etc. Does it satisfy current marriage law/legal definitions in those areas (including federal law/regulation), or will some of the old laws/regulations have to have their wording revised to match?

Also interested in how it affects common law marriage...of whatever gender.

Since Representative Patricia Todd, the only openly gay member of the state legislature, said she actually has no problem with the idea, perhaps it will be acceptable to all.

I think the bill addresses the above areas. The main purpose is to get the state out of issuing licenses.

I suppose some people may show up with incorrectly worded contracts. The bill provides the required wording.

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/ALISON/SearchableInstruments/2015RS/PrintFiles/SB377-eng.pdf

[quietfan 233]

Curious as to what such a contract means in terms of tax status, survivor status, insurance, etc. Does it satisfy current marriage law/legal definitions in those areas (including federal law/regulation), or will some of the old laws/regulations have to have their wording revised to match?

Also interested in how it affects common law marriage...of whatever gender.

Since Representative Patricia Todd, the only openly gay member of the state legislature, said she actually has no problem with the idea, perhaps it will be acceptable to all.

I think the bill addresses the above areas. The main purpose is to get the state out of issuing licenses.

I suppose some people may show up with incorrectly worded contracts. The bill provides the required wording.

http://alisondb.legi...s/SB377-eng.pdf

Thanks! On reading the Bill, it does seem to have covered all my earlier concerns. And it doesn't seem to be redefining "marriage" as much as simply changing the technicalities of how a marriage is recorded by the state. Mostly it attempts to remove probate judges from the legal dilemma of being caught between contradictory orders from state and federal courts (although, of course, either court could still find the bill unconstitutional).

I am a little concerned about this clause at the top of page 2:

(2) A statement that the parties are legally authorized to be married.

This doesn't seem to address the question of who is "legally authorized" to be married, i.e., does it give same-sex couples the legal right to marry? Call it a "Licence" or "Record", I can foresee anti-SSM supporters, persons or courts, saying same sex couples still have no legal authority to marriage while the pro-SSM faction argues the opposite. And who--what court, official, or body--decides if the given parties in the contract are legally authorized?

In other words, upon further analysis as I write, I'm not sure the bill really solves anything regarding the right of same sex couples to marry. Mostly it just changes the duties of the probate judge from "issuing a licence" to "recording a contract". And I can still see Roy Moore & company claiming same sex couples are no more qualified for such contracts than they were for licences.