Signed by the Governor: Alabama Eliminates Marriage Licenses; Foundation to Nullify Federal Control in Practice

Posted by $ AJAshinoff 1 year, 4 months ago to Culture
13 comments | Share | Flag

Of interest. Removing government from the picture is never a bad thing. However, this also opens a ton of possibility for fraud since a valid, authenticated marriage license is a requisite for custody and joint financial obligations.
SOURCE URL: https://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2019/06/signed-by-the-governor-alabama-eliminates-marriage-licenses-foundation-to-nullify-federal-control-in-practice/

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ mminnick 1 year, 4 months ago
    A point I did ot see addressed is the length of the contract. If both parties stipulate that the marriage will last 10 years with renewal options, it that valid?
    What about divorce? is it simple the dissolution of a contract are are there more things that need to be specified in the contract or contract addendea?
    Opens a large number of potential new legal issues and problems .
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 1 year, 4 months ago
      and what of children? Child support? Big ticket items where both parties paid for years (homes, cars, etc.). While negating the need for a marriage license is do-able, and there wasn't always state marriage licenses, society has woven it into so may things that I can see heightened 'victim' mentality and years of litigation.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jdg 1 year, 4 months ago
      I like the change for just that reason. Freedom of contract is better than one-size-fits-all even though it means the courts are going to have to explore a whole new area that wasn't previously covered by the common law of contracts. And once Alabama has settled those questions, there'll be precedent that the next state to try it can use.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ 1 year, 4 months ago
        I'm not saying its necessarily a bad thing, but the government has sewn itself, and its document, so into many things in society that it will be a nightmare to sort it out.The only people who will profit will be the lawyers and those who will get fleeced are those seeking a ironclad detailed contract and those seeking to get out of it. IDK what a marriage license runs (28 years), but I'm sure its not hundreds or thousands of dollars rife with lawyer negotiation..
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LarryHeart 1 year, 4 months ago
    Another STUPID government solution that causes more problems.
    I have been telling people for years just take the word marriage out of the civil license. It is then not a license to get married. it is merely a legal contract for a civil union which defines legal rights between a couple to money, inheritance, children, access to hospital Social security etc.
    Eliminating the contract completely puts children and spouses at risk.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 4 months ago
    Government shouldn't be in the business of trying to control marriage. Period. That goes for States and especially the Federal Government. Much of it started in an attempt to prevent interracial marriages - itself an unlawful and immoral attempt at control of individual freedom. Leave marriage to the various religious entities or the local judge.

    And if there is a concern about custody, etc., a DNA test can be pretty quick and definitive...
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 1 year, 4 months ago
    Me an Alabamian thought this was all done a while back.
    Must have taken a while to get to Gov. Ivey's desk.
    Me dino has the reason I've read somewhere I can't recall.
    It's so gay couples can't sue for for being denied a license.
    Other problems that arise from Alabama marriages being unlicensed have taken a back seat.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 year, 4 months ago
    Most states recognize "common law" relationships as an alternative to licensed marriage. Some are strange, like Colorado, where paying for a motel room as man and wife constitutes a legal common law relationship (it also is the basis for a charge of bigamy if one of the parties is married to another person).

    Anytime lawyers get involved, the result is messy for all concerned. We chose to have a society based on the rule of law, because the rule of kings was even messier.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 1 year, 4 months ago
    Awesome! Get government out.

    DNA is ready and waiting for responsibility. Allows the state to assert a plan, and we can see an outcome.

    Diversity is great, but not the way the clowns mean it. The way it really contributes
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by LibertyBelle 1 year, 4 months ago
    Well, there would still have to be rules. Such as against bigamy. There needs to be some kind of legal recognition, as children can result from such a union, and somebody has to be responsible for them; they can't be just allowed to run through the streets committing crimes and/or themselves becoming the victims of crime.
    They need to be protected in some kind of structured environment.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo