It's easier to condemn homosexuality

[Faun]

Marriage is a form of contract even when licensed.

There is a difference between a license and a permit. If marriage were entered into with a permit does that mean the state would treat marriages differently?

The difference is how state authorized marriage is entered into, not what those marriages entail.

Yes, marriage is a form of contract... which is why it can be legally administered as a contract by the state. Again, the state action of administration for a contract is not a state sanctioning or endorsing of the reason for the contract. Licensing is specifically that.

And they would still recognize all marriages, including gay marriages...

recognize

: to accept or be aware that (something) is true or exists

: to accept and approve of (something) as having legal or official authority​

Recognize can have different meanings as you're pointing out here. You do not have to accept or approve of something to recognize it exists. Licensing something is official state sanction. Permitting a contract between two private parties is an administrative action. If you're too stupid or illiterate to comprehend the difference, I don't know what to tell you. I think I have explained it thoroughly and we're just wasting time here.

More Boss derangement syndrome.

Here's the state of Alabama recognizing marriages in their state as legal...

The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage.​

Correct, and if they did not say this, what would that mean from a legal standpoint? Couldn't the new law be challenged that it violated federal law regarding the recording of legal marriages?

This is an administrative duty they are obligated to perform. This simply doesn't mean they sanction or approve of the marriage in any way.

You can't think beyond your own shadow, can you? Nothing obligates them to take possession of marriage contracts. So no, they don't have to say that. They choose to because they still recognize marriages in their state as legal marriages, just as they did before.

 

[Faun]

And they would still recognize all marriages, including gay marriages...

recognize

: to accept or be aware that (something) is true or exists

: to accept and approve of (something) as having legal or official authority​

Recognize can have different meanings as you're pointing out here. You do not have to accept or approve of something to recognize it exists. Licensing something is official state sanction. Permitting a contract between two private parties is an administrative action. If you're too stupid or illiterate to comprehend the difference, I don't know what to tell you. I think I have explained it thoroughly and we're just wasting time here.

As usual, you spout complete nonsense.

My car is registered with my state. That authorizes it to be legally driven. And they did not license my car; yet by accepting my registration, they recognize my car as being legally allowed on public roads. Same way Alabama would be recognizing and authorizing marriages in their state.

We can keep on and on with the irrelevant examples if you like, I've got nothing else to do. It's not going to change the fact that Alabama will not be sanctioning marriages, but if you just want to argue and have me stomp your ass, we can do that.

Now to shoot down this latest strawman... the state certainly DOES license your vehicle... what do you think that rectangular thing on the bumper with the numbers and decal is? Registration does not authorize your car to be driven legally, you have several other things you must also comply with, including proof of insurance and a driver's license. The driver's license is a specific state sanction of your right to operate a motor vehicle.

They'll be sanctioning marriages according to the definition you provided earlier. And no, registration is not a license. The tag on my plate is also not a license. My license to drive has nothing to do with my car's registration. Having my car registered means it's legally allowed to be driven on public roads by a licensed driver with my approval. My driver's license permits me to drive any legally registered non-commercial vehicle with the owner's approval.

No, they will not be sanctioning marriages. Again, you are conflating the administrative obligation they have to record marriages with the act of authorizing and sanctioning through a license.

It's the definition you gave...

sanc·tion - official permission or approval for an action.

Alabama would be giving permission to marry to couples who qualify for marriage. If a couple doesn't qualify, the state does not accept their marriage contract and they are not married in the eyes of the state.

Your car tag is also known as a "license plate" and it signifies that your vehicle is registered with the state and you've paid your ad valorem taxes. This does not authorize your car to be driven by anyone. In some states, your car may need to pass an inspection. Your car will need to have insurance. It can't have broken headlights or taillights. It can't be a threat to public safety. It has to have working seat belts. Most importantly, it requires a licensed driver. This is a very bad analogy to present for something that does not require state sanctioning.

Fair point, I concede my analogy doesn't apply.

 

[Boss]

The State doesn't "hold" anything.

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

(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.​

Who knows what you think the state would not be holding when the law clearly states otherwise?

That does not say the state is "holding" anything as far as I am reading.

Now I have to teach you what "hold" means?

hold

1 a :to have possession or ownership of or have at one's disposal <hold property worth millions> <the bank hold the title to the car>​

Since the state will "have possession" of the marriage contract on file, just as they always have, the state "holds" it, just as they always have.

Thank you.

The State will never "hold" marriage. They don't possess it or own it.

You need to take your meds.

Nah, you're just ******* deranged. No skin off my back.

I never said they would hold marriages.

If facts and truth was on your side, you wouldn't have to make such delirious comments.

LOL.. You didn't make the quotes above?

 

[Boss]

Alabama would be giving permission to marry to couples who qualify for marriage.

No they aren't giving permission, that is the purpose of removing the sanction. You don't have to obtain the State's permission to marry anyway, it's a fundamental right.

If a couple doesn't qualify, the state does not accept their marriage contract and they are not married in the eyes of the state.

No, if a couple does not qualify, they aren't administered a contract. This is also why the status of the contract has to be duly recorded, so as to prevent multiple contracts of this kind. This is part of the administrative aspect of the contract regarding civil domestic partnership, formerly known as "marriage." None of it has to do with the State sanctioning or endorsing the contract.

Let me make it clear again... The State of Alabama in no way endorses, condones, supports or sanctions whatever personal intimate arrangement you have regarding this contract. It is not responsible or liable for whatever you assume the contract is supposed to mean. What you choose to do with the contract after they have administered it, is your business.

 

[Montrovant]

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

(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.​

Who knows what you think the state would not be holding when the law clearly states otherwise?

That does not say the state is "holding" anything as far as I am reading.

Now I have to teach you what "hold" means?

hold

1 a :to have possession or ownership of or have at one's disposal <hold property worth millions> <the bank hold the title to the car>​

Since the state will "have possession" of the marriage contract on file, just as they always have, the state "holds" it, just as they always have.

Thank you.

The State will never "hold" marriage. They don't possess it or own it.

You need to take your meds.

Nah, you're just ******* deranged. No skin off my back.

I never said they would hold marriages.

If facts and truth was on your side, you wouldn't have to make such delirious comments.

LOL.. You didn't make the quotes above?

I believe Faun said the state would hold the marriage contracts.

 

[Boss]

That does not say the state is "holding" anything as far as I am reading.

Now I have to teach you what "hold" means?

hold

1 a :to have possession or ownership of or have at one's disposal <hold property worth millions> <the bank hold the title to the car>​

Since the state will "have possession" of the marriage contract on file, just as they always have, the state "holds" it, just as they always have.

Thank you.

The State will never "hold" marriage. They don't possess it or own it.

You need to take your meds.

Nah, you're just ******* deranged. No skin off my back.

I never said they would hold marriages.

If facts and truth was on your side, you wouldn't have to make such delirious comments.

LOL.. You didn't make the quotes above?

I believe Faun said the state would hold the marriage contracts.

Administrative obligation they are required to do and have done for ...since they were a state!

 

[Faun]

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

(e) The contract shall be filed in the office of the judge of probate in each county and shall constitute a legal record of the marriage. A copy of the contract shall be transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics of the Department of Public Health and made a part of its record.​

Who knows what you think the state would not be holding when the law clearly states otherwise?

That does not say the state is "holding" anything as far as I am reading.

Now I have to teach you what "hold" means?

hold

1 a :to have possession or ownership of or have at one's disposal <hold property worth millions> <the bank hold the title to the car>​

Since the state will "have possession" of the marriage contract on file, just as they always have, the state "holds" it, just as they always have.

Thank you.

The State will never "hold" marriage. They don't possess it or own it.

You need to take your meds.

Nah, you're just ******* deranged. No skin off my back.

I never said they would hold marriages.

If facts and truth was on your side, you wouldn't have to make such delirious comments.

LOL.. You didn't make the quotes above?

Holyfuckingshit!

I said the state will be holding the "marriage contracts," not "hold marriage."

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

 

[Faun]

Alabama would be giving permission to marry to couples who qualify for marriage.

No they aren't giving permission, that is the purpose of removing the sanction. You don't have to obtain the State's permission to marry anyway, it's a fundamental right.

If a couple doesn't qualify, the state does not accept their marriage contract and they are not married in the eyes of the state.

No, if a couple does not qualify, they aren't administered a contract. This is also why the status of the contract has to be duly recorded, so as to prevent multiple contracts of this kind. This is part of the administrative aspect of the contract regarding civil domestic partnership, formerly known as "marriage." None of it has to do with the State sanctioning or endorsing the contract.

Let me make it clear again... The State of Alabama in no way endorses, condones, supports or sanctions whatever personal intimate arrangement you have regarding this contract. It is not responsible or liable for whatever you assume the contract is supposed to mean. What you choose to do with the contract after they have administered it, is your business.

Of course they're giving permission. If a couple who doesn't qualify for marriage, the state will not accept their marriage contract. Otherwise, anyone could marry anyone, regardless of consent.

 

[Faun]

Now I have to teach you what "hold" means?

hold

1 a :to have possession or ownership of or have at one's disposal <hold property worth millions> <the bank hold the title to the car>​

Since the state will "have possession" of the marriage contract on file, just as they always have, the state "holds" it, just as they always have.

Thank you.

The State will never "hold" marriage. They don't possess it or own it.

You need to take your meds.

Nah, you're just ******* deranged. No skin off my back.

I never said they would hold marriages.

If facts and truth was on your side, you wouldn't have to make such delirious comments.

LOL.. You didn't make the quotes above?

I believe Faun said the state would hold the marriage contracts.

Administrative obligation they are required to do and have done for ...since they were a state!

Where is it written they are obligated to accept marriage contracts? The state doesn't have to be involved in marriages at all, if they so chose.

 

[Montrovant]

No they aren't giving permission, that is the purpose of removing the sanction. You don't have to obtain the State's permission to marry anyway, it's a fundamental right.

Only, you do need state permission to legally marry. If the state doesn't give permission, do you think a couple can still become legally married?

Your fundamental right comment is also clearly wrong by your own definitions. In every state a couple must obtain a marriage license in order to enter a civil marriage. By your definitions that is state permission, even if you don't think it would be under SB377. So, even as a fundamental right, state permission is required. *As I've said before, I don't like the court ruling that civil marriage is a fundamental right, which is what they have in effect done in multiple rulings.

I've given this comparison before, but in Illinois one must obtain a FOID card to buy or own (I believe) a firearm. That would be a requirement of state permission for a fundamental right.

 

[Boss]

That does not say the state is "holding" anything as far as I am reading.

Now I have to teach you what "hold" means?

hold

1 a :to have possession or ownership of or have at one's disposal <hold property worth millions> <the bank hold the title to the car>​

Since the state will "have possession" of the marriage contract on file, just as they always have, the state "holds" it, just as they always have.

Thank you.

The State will never "hold" marriage. They don't possess it or own it.

You need to take your meds.

Nah, you're just ******* deranged. No skin off my back.

I never said they would hold marriages.

If facts and truth was on your side, you wouldn't have to make such delirious comments.

LOL.. You didn't make the quotes above?

Holyfuckingshit!

I said the state will be holding the "marriage contracts," not "hold marriage."

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

An administrative duty they have to perform as a function of ******* state, dumbass!

Holding the contract has nothing to do with sanctioning the relationship. They do not hold the relationship. They have no part in the relationship. They don't approve or disapprove of the relationship. What part of this are you having a problem with, goofball?

 

[Boss]

Only, you do need state permission to legally marry. If the state doesn't give permission, do you think a couple can still become legally married?

Are you now going to pervert the conversation into a discussion of the word "permission" ...really?

Handing you a form that you and your gay lover can fill out and obtain a document to have your pairing recorded for vital statistics and so you don't go contracting with another party... making sure you are of legal age and meet the criteria for the contract... is NOT "giving you permission" for anything. It is an administrative duty of the state and has been a duty of the state forever.

Why do you idiotically think the State of Alabama has to give you permission to exercise a fundamental constitutional right?

 

[Boss]

I've given this comparison before, but in Illinois one must obtain a FOID card to buy or own (I believe) a firearm. That would be a requirement of state permission for a fundamental right.

You are giving an example of where we've decided to require state permission!

I ask you, where does it say that Alabama HAS to give you permission?

 

[Montrovant]

I've given this comparison before, but in Illinois one must obtain a FOID card to buy or own (I believe) a firearm. That would be a requirement of state permission for a fundamental right.

You are giving an example of where we've decided to require state permission!

I ask you, where does it say that Alabama HAS to give you permission?

What are you talking about? You said :

You don't have to obtain the State's permission to marry anyway, it's a fundamental right.

I pointed out that if you want to get a civil marriage, you do have to obtain the state's permission. I then provided an example of another fundamental right that requires state permission. In both cases it was to show that fundamental rights sometimes require state permission.

 

[Montrovant]

Only, you do need state permission to legally marry. If the state doesn't give permission, do you think a couple can still become legally married?

Are you now going to pervert the conversation into a discussion of the word "permission" ...really?

Handing you a form that you and your gay lover can fill out and obtain a document to have your pairing recorded for vital statistics and so you don't go contracting with another party... making sure you are of legal age and meet the criteria for the contract... is NOT "giving you permission" for anything. It is an administrative duty of the state and has been a duty of the state forever.

Why do you idiotically think the State of Alabama has to give you permission to exercise a fundamental constitutional right?

Why do you idiotically go on about not needing permission to exercise a fundamental right after repeatedly saying that licensing marriage is the state sanctioning marriage, which is defined as official permission? So in every state in the country official permission is required to legally marry, but no state must give permission to marry?

Your contradictions are mind-boggling.

And as I've said multiple times now, I don't like the idea of civil marriage as a fundamental right, but that's in effect what the USSC has given us.

 

[Boss]

I've given this comparison before, but in Illinois one must obtain a FOID card to buy or own (I believe) a firearm. That would be a requirement of state permission for a fundamental right.

You are giving an example of where we've decided to require state permission!

I ask you, where does it say that Alabama HAS to give you permission?

What are you talking about? You said :

You don't have to obtain the State's permission to marry anyway, it's a fundamental right.

I pointed out that if you want to get a civil marriage, you do have to obtain the state's permission. I then provided an example of another fundamental right that requires state permission. In both cases it was to show that fundamental rights sometimes require state permission.

Fundamental rights do not require state permission unless we collectively decide that they can. We don't have to have firearm registration. Domestic partnerships are going to happen and the state has to document them for millions of reasons. Our state is on the horizon of change. We are going to divorce the state from marriage. We'll administer your contracts, we'll even call it whatever in needs to be called in order to clarify compliance with the law. But the State of Alabama is not going to be sanctioning any marriages.

 

[Faun]

Now I have to teach you what "hold" means?

hold

1 a :to have possession or ownership of or have at one's disposal <hold property worth millions> <the bank hold the title to the car>​

Since the state will "have possession" of the marriage contract on file, just as they always have, the state "holds" it, just as they always have.

Thank you.

The State will never "hold" marriage. They don't possess it or own it.

You need to take your meds.

Nah, you're just ******* deranged. No skin off my back.

I never said they would hold marriages.

If facts and truth was on your side, you wouldn't have to make such delirious comments.

LOL.. You didn't make the quotes above?

Holyfuckingshit!

I said the state will be holding the "marriage contracts," not "hold marriage."

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

An administrative duty they have to perform as a function of ******* state, dumbass!

Holding the contract has nothing to do with sanctioning the relationship. They do not hold the relationship. They have no part in the relationship. They don't approve or disapprove of the relationship. What part of this are you having a problem with, goofball?

Too funny.

First you said they hold nothing.

Then I had to teach you what "hold" means.

Then you tried claiming I said they would hold marriage, which I didn't say.

Now you finally accept they will be holding marriage contracts.

You sure did put up a fight to finally acknowledge I was right about them holding marriage contracts.

That aside, you're still wrong about them sanctioning marriage in your state. They do not have to accept any marriage contracts. They do not have to perform that administrative act at all. They could leave marriage entirely up to the people and stay out of marriage completely. Instead, they chose to continue recognizing marriages just as they have always done. Only now, they will no longer require their judges of probate to issue licenses. That's all that law would change. And they've proposed that change to avoid having a Kim Davis in your state.

And yes, they will be approving/disapproving marriages. They will not accept marriage contracts from people who don't qualify to be married because they don't approve of all marriages. For example, if some adult guy shows up at the courthouse to marry a 4 year old, they don't approve of such a marriage and will not accept their marriage contract. That isba marriage they would not recognize as a legal marriage. On the flip side, if two men show up at the courthouse to marry each other, theirs is a marriage they approve of and would recognize as a legal marriage, so such a couple's marriage contract would be accepted and held by the state.

As far as your nonsense about them not "holding the relationship," that is a strawman -- they've never "held the relationship." They held the marriage license. Since they propose to use marriage contracts instead of marriage licenses, they will hold onto the contract instead of a license.

 

[Faun]

Only, you do need state permission to legally marry. If the state doesn't give permission, do you think a couple can still become legally married?

Are you now going to pervert the conversation into a discussion of the word "permission" ...really?

Handing you a form that you and your gay lover can fill out and obtain a document to have your pairing recorded for vital statistics and so you don't go contracting with another party... making sure you are of legal age and meet the criteria for the contract... is NOT "giving you permission" for anything. It is an administrative duty of the state and has been a duty of the state forever.

Why do you idiotically think the State of Alabama has to give you permission to exercise a fundamental constitutional right?

Same reason people have to qualify for permission to legally obtain a firearm even though that's a Constitutional right. Because not everyone qualifies. There are restrictions on rights.

 

[Faun]

I've given this comparison before, but in Illinois one must obtain a FOID card to buy or own (I believe) a firearm. That would be a requirement of state permission for a fundamental right.

You are giving an example of where we've decided to require state permission!

I ask you, where does it say that Alabama HAS to give you permission?

What are you talking about? You said :

You don't have to obtain the State's permission to marry anyway, it's a fundamental right.

I pointed out that if you want to get a civil marriage, you do have to obtain the state's permission. I then provided an example of another fundamental right that requires state permission. In both cases it was to show that fundamental rights sometimes require state permission.

Fundamental rights do not require state permission unless we collectively decide that they can. We don't have to have firearm registration. Domestic partnerships are going to happen and the state has to document them for millions of reasons. Our state is on the horizon of change. We are going to divorce the state from marriage. We'll administer your contracts, we'll even call it whatever in needs to be called in order to clarify compliance with the law. But the State of Alabama is not going to be sanctioning any marriages.

You are ******* deranged. Alabama did not propose divorcing themselves from marriage or viewing married couples as "domestic partners." You're making that shit up out of whole cloth because the legalization of gay marriage is eating you alive.

Where Alabama was issuing and administering marriage licenses, they would instead administrator marriage contracts should that legislation ever pass. If they were actually divorcing themselves from marriage, as you idiotically believe, they wouldn't even administer marriage contracts.

And nowhere in the proposed law does it refer to "domestic partnerships." You're making that up because it's killing you that your state will recognize gay marriages. The bill clearly refers to such couples as "married."

 

[Boss]

Where Alabama was issuing and administering marriage licenses, they would instead administrator marriage contracts should that legislation ever pass. If they were actually divorcing themselves from marriage, as you idiotically believe, they wouldn't even administer marriage contracts.

No, they can't do that because it's against the law. They have to record vital statistics. They have to administer contract law. What they DON'T have to do is sanction marriage, and that's what they will not be doing anymore, WHEN the legislation passes next session.

And nowhere in the proposed law does it refer to "domestic partnerships." You're making that up because it's killing you that your state will recognize gay marriages. The bill clearly refers to such couples as "married."

It doesn't have to say it in the bill. The bill has to address the numerous issues regarding what is already established on the books as "marriage" in the state of Alabama. It has to conform to the recent SCOTUS ruling and cannot violate equal protection. It has to stipulate that the change does not effect contract of marriage between individuals or any rights they may have as a couple.

It's not killing me that my state will recognize gay marriages because they won't be recognizing gay marriages in a sanctioning capacity. They are mandated by law to recognize them administratively.