It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[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?

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!

You're ******* deranged. Alabama would still recognize marriages. All marriages including gay marriages. It even says so in the bill.

 

[Faun]

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.

In other words... "no."

 

[Pop23]

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.

In other words... "no."

If you say so, I've also posted about due process. Why not bring that up?

Hmmmm, because due process demand proof that a crime has happened before the State can administer its judgement?

So, since marriage does not require sex, and you BELIEVE siblings would break the law by having sex by applying for a licence, do you want all siblings jailed? I mean, in your whacked out mind they all are potential criminals.

 

[Faun]

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.

In other words... "no."

If you say so, I've also posted about due process. Why not bring that up?

Hmmmm, because due process demand proof that a crime has happened before the State can administer its judgement?

So, since marriage does not require sex, and you BELIEVE siblings would break the law by having sex by applying for a licence, do you want all siblings jailed? I mean, in your whacked out mind they all are potential criminals.

Why would I want anyone jailed for applying for a license? Since when is that a crime?

And your idiocy has been thoroughly refuted by the fact that a gay man has never been allowed to marry his lesbian sister. Or cases where a brother & sister were incapable of bearing children together. Clearly, laws preventing a brother and sister from marrying extend to beyond being just about procreation.

And there goes your entire premise. *poof*

 

[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.

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.

Please point to the part of the bill which replaces civil marriages with civil unions. You claim that the state will no longer grant marriages, instead granting civil unions. You have yet to show where in the bill that change is documented....because you can't. It isn't part of the bill. The bill specifically and repeatedly says that Alabama will still be granting marriages.

You keep talking about needing to follow federal marriage laws. Do you think that Alabama has no state laws involving marriage?

If licensing is required for something to be a state sanctioned, authorized, recognized marriage, why does the state of Alabama choose to recognize unlicensed common law marriage? Most states do not, but Alabama does. Perhaps the state does not agree with your beliefs regarding the importance of licensing.

Your argument has no credibility when you are unwilling and unable to show the portion(s) of the bill which do what you claim. Only those arguing with you have been willing to use the actual text of the bill to support their argument. That's because the actual text of the bill shows that your claims are almost all wrong.

 

[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.

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.

If you know exactly what it says, please show where it says that the state will no longer grant marriages and instead will grant civil unions.

And again, do you think there are no Alabama laws involving marriage?

 

[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.

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.

Nope, the legal status of domestic partnerships aren't changed. They will still be marriages where authorized by the state.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

You still can't stop talking about incest.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

In other words... "no."

If you say so, I've also posted about due process. Why not bring that up?

Hmmmm, because due process demand proof that a crime has happened before the State can administer its judgement?

So, since marriage does not require sex, and you BELIEVE siblings would break the law by having sex by applying for a licence, do you want all siblings jailed? I mean, in your whacked out mind they all are potential criminals.

Pops can't stop posting about sex and incest.

 

[Pop23]

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.

In other words... "no."

If you say so, I've also posted about due process. Why not bring that up?

Hmmmm, because due process demand proof that a crime has happened before the State can administer its judgement?

So, since marriage does not require sex, and you BELIEVE siblings would break the law by having sex by applying for a licence, do you want all siblings jailed? I mean, in your whacked out mind they all are potential criminals.

Why would I want anyone jailed for applying for a license? Since when is that a crime?

And your idiocy has been thoroughly refuted by the fact that a gay man has never been allowed to marry his lesbian sister. Or cases where a brother & sister were incapable of bearing children together. Clearly, laws preventing a brother and sister from marrying extend to beyond being just about procreation.

And there goes your entire premise. *poof*

Why? Another assumption on your part.

 

[Pop23]

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.

You still can't stop talking about incest.

I'll let you know when I start talking about it Sally

 

[Pop23]

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.

You still can't stop talking about incest.

You still can't stop fantasizing about siblings humping each other.

 

[Boss]

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!

You're ******* deranged. Alabama would still recognize marriages. All marriages including gay marriages. It even says so in the bill.

Again, "recognize" can have various meanings depending on context. The context I've used it in is sanctioning or licensing. The context you are using is acknowledgement and rule of law. If we use my context, I am right. If we use your context, you are right. But you are like a little Palestinian, you do not recognize the right of my context to exist. I can't do anything about that, just as Alabama can't do anything about having to follow the constitution and rule of law.

What it all boils down to is, you think the Alabama bill does nothing and is totally superficial and meaningless. And I've said, that's fine with me. I don't need for you to believe it does anything or changes anything. My motive is not to get you riled up by passing a bill that defiantly ignores federal laws or the constitution.

Now, if the bill does nothing and means nothing, as you argue... it really feels like, the only reason you are arguing about it is because you don't like the idea that I believe it does mean something and change something. That kinda says something for you as a person, doesn't it?

 

[Montrovant]

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!

You're ******* deranged. Alabama would still recognize marriages. All marriages including gay marriages. It even says so in the bill.

Again, "recognize" can have various meanings depending on context. The context I've used it in is sanctioning or licensing. The context you are using is acknowledgement and rule of law. If we use my context, I am right. If we use your context, you are right. But you are like a little Palestinian, you do not recognize the right of my context to exist. I can't do anything about that, just as Alabama can't do anything about having to follow the constitution and rule of law.

What it all boils down to is, you think the Alabama bill does nothing and is totally superficial and meaningless. And I've said, that's fine with me. I don't need for you to believe it does anything or changes anything. My motive is not to get you riled up by passing a bill that defiantly ignores federal laws or the constitution.

Now, if the bill does nothing and means nothing, as you argue... it really feels like, the only reason you are arguing about it is because you don't like the idea that I believe it does mean something and change something. That kinda says something for you as a person, doesn't it?

Or we are arguing against your claims because they are wrong.

 

[Seawytch]

The Alabama bill is moot. It died last month.

 

[Boss]

Please point to the part of the bill which replaces civil marriages with civil unions.

This bill would abolish the requirement to 2 obtain a marriage license from the judge of 3 probate. 4 This bill would provide that marriage would 5 be entered into by simple contract,

Now, first and foremost, I have never said that Alabama is abolishing civil marriages or replacing them. Those are your words and your understanding of what I have said. I've corrected you repeatedly, but you continue to insist on phrasing my argument as such. I can't do anything about you being stubborn and not listening to me. If you want to change my argument into one I am not making, that's up to you. I think it speaks volumes to what kind of pathetic and dishonest low-life you are.

I have said that Alabama plans on removing the state from sanctioning of any marriage. The sanctioning aspect comes from the act of licensing. A license is a document issued by an authority granting permission to do something. The issuing of a license implies approval, endorsement and condoning of whatever the license is for. If the State issues a license for driving, it is implied they approve, endorse and condone the action of driving. If they issue a license for fishing or hunting, the same thing applies.

Obviously, administering a contract is a different thing completely. However, you are using the fact that the legislation uses the language "marriage contract" to infer there is no distinction between a contract and license. The fact that Alabama has to use specific language in order to comply with federal laws and the SCOTUS ruling on marriage, has nothing to do with the state sanctioning of an activity itself.

The bill specifically and repeatedly says that Alabama will still be granting marriages.

No, it specifically does not say that. Alabama cannot grant marriage. How can the State "grant" something that is a fundamental constitutional right? That doesn't even make rational sense. They didn't "grant" marriages BEFORE Obergefell.

You keep talking about needing to follow federal marriage laws. Do you think that Alabama has no state laws involving marriage?

No, I have repeatedly said there are a number of laws concerning marriage, spouses, marital relations, etc. I didn't say they are all federal, in fact, since marriage is a state institution, most of them are not federal. Alabama still has to comply with the constitution and rule of law. Whenever they pass legislation regarding something like marriage, which does involve so many other laws associated with marriage, they are going to have to use particular language in order to address those relevant issues. They can't defiantly refuse to acknowledge the existence of marriage and all the laws associated with marriage. They can't ignore these aspects and pretend they don't have to be addressed. Any such a thing would spell certain doom and failure of their bill.

If licensing is required for something to be a state sanctioned, authorized, recognized marriage, why does the state of Alabama choose to recognize unlicensed common law marriage?

Because you are using "recognize" in a different context.

That's because the actual text of the bill shows that your claims are almost all wrong.

Well no... the made up argument you've created for me is wrong. MY argument is that Alabama will no longer license (i.e. sanction) marriages.

 

[Boss]

The Alabama bill is moot. It died last month.

Yes it did but it will be back next session. The bill didn't die, it was voted on and passed but it required a super majority because it wasn't on the governor's agenda. That is a throwback to the days of George Wallace when the legislature was controlled by Democrats.

Governor Bentley is probably one of the most socially conservative governors in the US. This issue wasn't on his agenda because he had no way of knowing it was going to come up. The next session of the state legislature, it will be on the governor's agenda and the bill will pass again, as it did the first time.

 

[Seawytch]

It will die again. Alabama doesn't want to keep being THAT state.

 

[Boss]

Or we are arguing against your claims because they are wrong.

No, I think you're arguing because you can't be satisfied unless you make me miserable. This is about inflicting discomfort on me personally. You've all gone on record to say that you believe this bill changes nothing and doesn't mean a thing... but yet, you're all still here arguing for some reason. I've said that it's fine if you don't believe it changes anything or mean anything, but that doesn't seem to matter.

Now the thing you really need to know is this... I am not miserable. I am not discomforted. You pinheads don't bother me. You changing my arguments into arguments I haven't made, doesn't bother me. I will continue to point it out to others so they realize what a dishonest punk you are, but it really doesn't bother me in the least.

 

[Boss]

It will die again. Alabama doesn't want to keep being THAT state.

What state? We've just been through the debate and your side thinks the bill doesn't mean or change anything. It has been pointed out that everything will remain the same except for the state licensing the act of marriage.

Let me help you... YOU want Alabama to be "that state" like the 1960s. You were really hoping that Alabamians would try to "stand in the schoolhouse door" on this and already had your ears pinned back for a fight. Well guess what? Alabama is not stuck in the 1960s and we didn't do that. Aww.. too bad, so sad!