It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Boss]

What I am 'acting like' is that this bill was designed to prevent Kim Davis-type situations...

Well the bill was introduced before Kim Davis but yes, it would eliminate those kind of situations. It was designed to remove the state from responsibility of sanctioning weirdo marriages. The SCOTUS has ruled on what the Constitution says but the Constitution does not say Alabama has to sanction marriages.

 

[Boss]

The state of Alabama would have just as much responsibility in civil marriage before and after the bill...

And that's fine if that's what you believe, I am not going to argue with you. I think it expressly removes them from responsibility or acknowledgment (in sanction) of ANY kind of "marriage" and replaces it with civil union contracts. You don't agree? Fine, I don't care that you don't agree. It doesn't really matter, the State of Alabama wasn't intending on consulting you.

 

[Boss]

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

You know you're ******* deranged, right?

No, they would not be getting "state-authorized contracts of civil union." They would be getting "contracts of marriage."

Alabama proposes... to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate office for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage;
​

Alabama would still recognize marriages as they always have. They will recognize all valid marriages including gay marriages, no matter how much you stomp your feet and shake your cane at the sky. The only difference is that judges of probate would no longer be required to issue marriage licenses.

Even worse for your dementia, other than the stated change that judges of probate would no longer be required to issue marriage licenses,

Alabama continues (f) This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.;​

You are such an idiot. You continue to cite parts of the bill which outline it's conformity with the recent SCOTUS ruling and all related laws regarding the institution of civil domestic marriage as it is now defined by law according to SCOTUS.

So you're pointing to something the State can't do anything about and can't legally defy and claiming that means they are sanctioning marriage even though they are expressly eliminating all state sanctioning of any kind of marriage.

But hey... Okay! I'm fine with you not having a problem with it. My goal and purpose in life is NOT to have you upset and pissed off about my State defying SCOTUS or trying to go rogue and make their own laws.

 

[Montrovant]

The state of Alabama would have just as much responsibility in civil marriage before and after the bill...

And that's fine if that's what you believe, I am not going to argue with you. I think it expressly removes them from responsibility or acknowledgment (in sanction) of ANY kind of "marriage" and replaces it with civil union contracts. You don't agree? Fine, I don't care that you don't agree. It doesn't really matter, the State of Alabama wasn't intending on consulting you.

Yet you still have not shown anywhere that civil marriage would be replaced by civil union contracts in the bill. That is because the bill doesn't say that. In fact, the bill goes on in length about the marriages that would continue to exist in and be granted by the state.

The state of Alabama wasn't consulting you either. That's clear from the fact that what you claim is in the bill is not.

You don't agree? Fine, but unlike you, I (and others) actually provide text of the bill to support my argument. When you are asked to do so you cannot. That seems to leave the argument between the text of the bill and your opinion. I'll go with what it says rather than what you think it says.

 

[Montrovant]

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

You know you're ******* deranged, right?

No, they would not be getting "state-authorized contracts of civil union." They would be getting "contracts of marriage."

Alabama proposes... to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate office for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage;
​

Alabama would still recognize marriages as they always have. They will recognize all valid marriages including gay marriages, no matter how much you stomp your feet and shake your cane at the sky. The only difference is that judges of probate would no longer be required to issue marriage licenses.

Even worse for your dementia, other than the stated change that judges of probate would no longer be required to issue marriage licenses,

Alabama continues (f) This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.;​

You are such an idiot. You continue to cite parts of the bill which outline it's conformity with the recent SCOTUS ruling and all related laws regarding the institution of civil domestic marriage as it is now defined by law according to SCOTUS.

So you're pointing to something the State can't do anything about and can't legally defy and claiming that means they are sanctioning marriage even though they are expressly eliminating all state sanctioning of any kind of marriage.

But hey... Okay! I'm fine with you not having a problem with it. My goal and purpose in life is NOT to have you upset and pissed off about my State defying SCOTUS or trying to go rogue and make their own laws.

Do you think the only way a state sanctions an act is by licensing?

 

[Montrovant]

What does any of that have to do with your claims that people would get civil unions rather than marriages under the bill?

I don't know what "people will get" under the bill other than a civil union contract from the state. I guess they can get married, live together, **** their goats... I don't know? Don't care, to be honest.

The State of Alabama won't be formally sanctioning their marriage anymore... they can still have one... the State isn't going to stop them.

The bill is pretty clear that couples would be getting legally married in the state of Alabama if the bill passed. Here's another example, from page 12, §30-1-14.
"
1
"Any judge, minister of the gospel, or other person
2
uniting persons in matrimony or any clerk or keeper of the
3
minutes of a religious society celebrating marriage by the
4
consent of the parties before the congregation, who fails to
5
return a certificate thereof to file the contract of marriage
6
with the judge of probate, as required by law, is guilty of a
7
misdemeanor."

In the bill, 'return a certificate thereof' is redacted and replaced by 'file the contract of marriage with the judge of probate'. So the bill says that for someone to unite persons in matrimony they must file the contract of marriage with the judge of probate. Failing to do so is a misdemeanor crime.

Is uniting in matrimony somehow granting a civil union rather than a marriage now?

 

[Syriusly]

You've stalked all the participants and can tell who are married or not?

Hell, then you must have the winning lottery numbers!

Ladies and gentlemen, THE AMAZING SYRIOUSLY -GAY MENTALIST

You just can't stop fantasizing about straight men having gay sex, can you?

You are sick. But that was obvious from the start

Not sick at all. Just can't help but notice how much you talk about straight men being gay. What other reason is there for such behavior other than you can't stop fantasizing about it?

Well and remember- Pops can't stop talking about incest.

He brings it up in every thread.

Why is Pops so obsessed about incest?

Is it because of his micro-penis?

Seriously, the incest obsessed poster, strikes again

See did I call it or what?

He can't stop talking about incest.

 

[Syriusly]

The State of Alabama won't be formally sanctioning their marriage anymore... they can still have one... the State isn't going to stop them.

Says Boss- citing Boss- quoting Boss.

And ignoring the facts.

 

[Faun]

What does any of that have to do with your claims that people would get civil unions rather than marriages under the bill?

I don't know what "people will get" under the bill other than a civil union contract from the state. I guess they can get married, live together, **** their goats... I don't know? Don't care, to be honest.

The State of Alabama won't be formally sanctioning their marriage anymore... they can still have one... the State isn't going to stop them.

You're ******* deranged.

Even after showing you the bill which clearly reads the state will be accepting contracts of marriage which the state will file -- you still don't know "what the people will get."

 

[Syriusly]

The state of Alabama would have just as much responsibility in civil marriage before and after the bill...

And that's fine if that's what you believe, I am not going to argue with you. I.

Yet Boss continues to argue on and on.

 

[Boss]

The state of Alabama would have just as much responsibility in civil marriage before and after the bill...

And that's fine if that's what you believe, I am not going to argue with you. I think it expressly removes them from responsibility or acknowledgment (in sanction) of ANY kind of "marriage" and replaces it with civil union contracts. You don't agree? Fine, I don't care that you don't agree. It doesn't really matter, the State of Alabama wasn't intending on consulting you.

Yet you still have not shown anywhere that civil marriage would be replaced by civil union contracts in the bill. That is because the bill doesn't say that. In fact, the bill goes on in length about the marriages that would continue to exist in and be granted by the state.

The state of Alabama wasn't consulting you either. That's clear from the fact that what you claim is in the bill is not.

You don't agree? Fine, but unlike you, I (and others) actually provide text of the bill to support my argument. When you are asked to do so you cannot. That seems to leave the argument between the text of the bill and your opinion. I'll go with what it says rather than what you think it says.

No, it replaces the licensing with a form you fill out and obtain a contract. The State doesn't have anything to do with your intentions for a contract. I suppose that is up to you. The State is obligated by law to administer the contract, they can't do anything about that and this was the case before Obergefell as well. Sanction and administration are two completely different things.

And whether the State was consulting me or not, I have you know that my State Representatives know me on a first name basis as a result of my ongoing communication with them. I've been pushing for this solution for over a decade.

The text of ANY bill that deals with something as complex as marriage and involves federal laws and constitutional rulings by SCOTUS is going to be worded in a way that it has to be worded in order to be legal and passed legitimately. I don't know what to tell you about that... you've not told me what other option they had. As for the State's official position, they will no longer be sanctioning any kind of marriage.

All of these silly things came up years ago when I first proposed civil unions as a solution to the gay marriage issue. Well what are you gonna do about this and that? And I said then, exactly what the State of Alabama is saying now, that we keep the same laws as they are, everyone still has their precious rights, we simply switch from marriage to unions. We remove the government from the marriage business and let the people and churches define it.

When I said this, the same idiots were hollering... "do away with marriage...duhz...that's crazy talk, boss!" And I've never said we're going to "do away" with anything other than the official state sanctioning of marriages.

 

[Faun]

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

You know you're ******* deranged, right?

No, they would not be getting "state-authorized contracts of civil union." They would be getting "contracts of marriage."

Alabama proposes... to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate office for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage;
​

Alabama would still recognize marriages as they always have. They will recognize all valid marriages including gay marriages, no matter how much you stomp your feet and shake your cane at the sky. The only difference is that judges of probate would no longer be required to issue marriage licenses.

Even worse for your dementia, other than the stated change that judges of probate would no longer be required to issue marriage licenses,

Alabama continues (f) This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.;​

You are such an idiot. You continue to cite parts of the bill which outline it's conformity with the recent SCOTUS ruling and all related laws regarding the institution of civil domestic marriage as it is now defined by law according to SCOTUS.

So you're pointing to something the State can't do anything about and can't legally defy and claiming that means they are sanctioning marriage even though they are expressly eliminating all state sanctioning of any kind of marriage.

But hey... Okay! I'm fine with you not having a problem with it. My goal and purpose in life is NOT to have you upset and pissed off about my State defying SCOTUS or trying to go rogue and make their own laws.

Why on Earth would I be pissed off because you're deranged? Let's be clear here... the only purpose you serve here for me is for my entertainment. Stop talking like a complete imbecile and I'll get bored.

And again, the parts of the bill I cited expose you as the moron you are. The parts I cited clearly read the state is treating marriage exactly as before with the exception that they would no longer require judges of probate to issue licenses but would instead have them accept contracts of marriage which they would have filed with the state.

You know, the polar opposite of the lunacy you're claming.

 

[Boss]

What does any of that have to do with your claims that people would get civil unions rather than marriages under the bill?

I don't know what "people will get" under the bill other than a civil union contract from the state. I guess they can get married, live together, **** their goats... I don't know? Don't care, to be honest.

The State of Alabama won't be formally sanctioning their marriage anymore... they can still have one... the State isn't going to stop them.

You're ******* deranged.

Even after showing you the bill which clearly reads the state will be accepting contracts of marriage which the state will file -- you still don't know "what the people will get."

I know exactly what the bill says and what the people will get. I know the State will no longer be licensing or sanctioning marriages. The people will get a form to fill out and apply for a contract. The State has to record it and complete necessary legal documentation. They have to abide by the Constitution and obey federal laws in whatever they do. There is not another option. How they have to word things to pass constitutional muster is, again, not in their control. They have to do this.

What they DON'T have to do, according to the Constitution, is sanction marriages.

 

[Boss]

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

You know you're ******* deranged, right?

No, they would not be getting "state-authorized contracts of civil union." They would be getting "contracts of marriage."

Alabama proposes... to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate office for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage;
​

Alabama would still recognize marriages as they always have. They will recognize all valid marriages including gay marriages, no matter how much you stomp your feet and shake your cane at the sky. The only difference is that judges of probate would no longer be required to issue marriage licenses.

Even worse for your dementia, other than the stated change that judges of probate would no longer be required to issue marriage licenses,

Alabama continues (f) This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.;​

You are such an idiot. You continue to cite parts of the bill which outline it's conformity with the recent SCOTUS ruling and all related laws regarding the institution of civil domestic marriage as it is now defined by law according to SCOTUS.

So you're pointing to something the State can't do anything about and can't legally defy and claiming that means they are sanctioning marriage even though they are expressly eliminating all state sanctioning of any kind of marriage.

But hey... Okay! I'm fine with you not having a problem with it. My goal and purpose in life is NOT to have you upset and pissed off about my State defying SCOTUS or trying to go rogue and make their own laws.

Why on Earth would I be pissed off because you're deranged? Let's be clear here... the only purpose you serve here for me is for my entertainment. Stop talking like a complete imbecile and I'll get bored.

And again, the parts of the bill I cited expose you as the moron you are. The parts I cited clearly read the state is treating marriage exactly as before with the exception that they would no longer require judges of probate to issue licenses but would instead have them accept contracts of marriage which they would have filed with the state.

You know, the polar opposite of the lunacy you're claming.

Nope. It's exactly what I have been claiming and what I have been advocating for since about 2005, when "gay marriage" became this huge urgent social issue that just had to be resolved.

But again, thank you so very much for reinforcing the point that you have absolutely no objections or problems with the bill. That it doesn't violate the law or constitutional rights of anyone. That it doesn't change anything with regard to the legal status of domestic partnerships. I am glad to know we have your endorsement! I think it is wonderful, in this day and age of vitriol in politics, when two opposing sides can come together.

 

[Faun]

What does any of that have to do with your claims that people would get civil unions rather than marriages under the bill?

I don't know what "people will get" under the bill other than a civil union contract from the state. I guess they can get married, live together, **** their goats... I don't know? Don't care, to be honest.

The State of Alabama won't be formally sanctioning their marriage anymore... they can still have one... the State isn't going to stop them.

You're ******* deranged.

Even after showing you the bill which clearly reads the state will be accepting contracts of marriage which the state will file -- you still don't know "what the people will get."

I know exactly what the bill says and what the people will get. I know the State will no longer be licensing or sanctioning marriages. The people will get a form to fill out and apply for a contract. The State has to record it and complete necessary legal documentation. They have to abide by the Constitution and obey federal laws in whatever they do. There is not another option. How they have to word things to pass constitutional muster is, again, not in their control. They have to do this.

What they DON'T have to do, according to the Constitution, is sanction marriages.

More bullshit. First and foremost, you continue to deny the contracts are contrcts of marriage, even though that's what they are defined as in the bill. Plus, who says they have to accept contacts of marriage at all?

 

[Faun]

..they would get state authorized civil marriages.

No, they would get state-authorized contracts of civil union. If they want to "marry" that is up to them. The state makes no distinction, nor does it recognize such on the part of the individuals. It is simply a contract between two parties as far as Alabama is concerned.

You know you're ******* deranged, right?

No, they would not be getting "state-authorized contracts of civil union." They would be getting "contracts of marriage."

Alabama proposes... to provide that a marriage would be entered into by contract; to provide that the judge of probate would record each contract of marriage presented to the probate office for recording and would forward the contract to the Office of Vital Statistics; to provide for the content of a properly executed contract of marriage;
​

Alabama would still recognize marriages as they always have. They will recognize all valid marriages including gay marriages, no matter how much you stomp your feet and shake your cane at the sky. The only difference is that judges of probate would no longer be required to issue marriage licenses.

Even worse for your dementia, other than the stated change that judges of probate would no longer be required to issue marriage licenses,

Alabama continues (f) This section shall not affect any other legal aspects of marriage in this state, including, but not limited to, divorce, spousal support, child custody, child support, or common law marriage.;​

You are such an idiot. You continue to cite parts of the bill which outline it's conformity with the recent SCOTUS ruling and all related laws regarding the institution of civil domestic marriage as it is now defined by law according to SCOTUS.

So you're pointing to something the State can't do anything about and can't legally defy and claiming that means they are sanctioning marriage even though they are expressly eliminating all state sanctioning of any kind of marriage.

But hey... Okay! I'm fine with you not having a problem with it. My goal and purpose in life is NOT to have you upset and pissed off about my State defying SCOTUS or trying to go rogue and make their own laws.

Why on Earth would I be pissed off because you're deranged? Let's be clear here... the only purpose you serve here for me is for my entertainment. Stop talking like a complete imbecile and I'll get bored.

And again, the parts of the bill I cited expose you as the moron you are. The parts I cited clearly read the state is treating marriage exactly as before with the exception that they would no longer require judges of probate to issue licenses but would instead have them accept contracts of marriage which they would have filed with the state.

You know, the polar opposite of the lunacy you're claming.

Nope. It's exactly what I have been claiming and what I have been advocating for since about 2005, when "gay marriage" became this huge urgent social issue that just had to be resolved.

But again, thank you so very much for reinforcing the point that you have absolutely no objections or problems with the bill. That it doesn't violate the law or constitutional rights of anyone. That it doesn't change anything with regard to the legal status of domestic partnerships. I am glad to know we have your endorsement! I think it is wonderful, in this day and age of vitriol in politics, when two opposing sides can come together.

I have no problem with the bill which is why I've said nothing negatively about it. Why would I care what Alabama does? I don't live in that backwards armpit.

 

[Boss]

What does any of that have to do with your claims that people would get civil unions rather than marriages under the bill?

I don't know what "people will get" under the bill other than a civil union contract from the state. I guess they can get married, live together, **** their goats... I don't know? Don't care, to be honest.

The State of Alabama won't be formally sanctioning their marriage anymore... they can still have one... the State isn't going to stop them.

You're ******* deranged.

Even after showing you the bill which clearly reads the state will be accepting contracts of marriage which the state will file -- you still don't know "what the people will get."

I know exactly what the bill says and what the people will get. I know the State will no longer be licensing or sanctioning marriages. The people will get a form to fill out and apply for a contract. The State has to record it and complete necessary legal documentation. They have to abide by the Constitution and obey federal laws in whatever they do. There is not another option. How they have to word things to pass constitutional muster is, again, not in their control. They have to do this.

What they DON'T have to do, according to the Constitution, is sanction marriages.

More bullshit. First and foremost, you continue to deny the contracts are contrcts of marriage, even though that's what they are defined as in the bill. Plus, who says they have to accept contacts of marriage at all?

Well, that's the whole deal, the State doesn't need a contract. However things are defined in the bill has nothing to do with the state endorsement or sanctioning of marriage. That is eliminated with the licensing. The contract, no matter what it's called, is not between the State and anybody, it's between two consenting legal adults. The State is simply following the law and administering it. They are not a party to the action in the contract so it doesn't really matter what it's for.

The point that seems to be flying over your head is the difference between authorizing a license and administering a contract. These terms imply completely different things and if you don't understand it, I don't know how to explain it any clearer than I have. If you don't think it changes anything, I say that's great... less opposition to it! Thanks for your continued support!

 

[Pop23]

You just can't stop fantasizing about straight men having gay sex, can you?

You are sick. But that was obvious from the start

Not sick at all. Just can't help but notice how much you talk about straight men being gay. What other reason is there for such behavior other than you can't stop fantasizing about it?

Well and remember- Pops can't stop talking about incest.

He brings it up in every thread.

Why is Pops so obsessed about incest?

Is it because of his micro-penis?

Seriously, the incest obsessed poster, strikes again

See did I call it or what?

He can't stop talking about incest.

See I called it.

Just like homosexuals created a mythical thing called "gay marriage" (actually same sex marriage), they create a discussion about something that never happened.

Prove me wrong Sally, post the Statute that creates a qualification that sex is a requirement for marriage.

Hee hee......

Sally can't, so it creates something out of thin air

Typical.

 

[Pop23]

You just can't stop fantasizing about straight men having gay sex, can you?

You are sick. But that was obvious from the start

Not sick at all. Just can't help but notice how much you talk about straight men being gay. What other reason is there for such behavior other than you can't stop fantasizing about it?

Well and remember- Pops can't stop talking about incest.

He brings it up in every thread.

Why is Pops so obsessed about incest?

Is it because of his micro-penis?

Seriously, the incest obsessed poster, strikes again

Your projections aside, is there a thread you post in where you don't talk about incest?

I post that it is an act

I post that by acting in that matter, the individuals commit a crime.

I post that marriage law does not require sexual contact as a qualification

You inject incest into this because you must think that all sibling must want to hump each other. That makes YOU a pervert.

 

[Seawytch]

Poor Boss...That bill doesn't say what chu tink it says...