Alabama’s on a roll.
First it was abortion.
Then it was gay rat weddings.
Now, state lawmakers have moved on to marriage licenses.
Both houses of Alabama’s legislature have approved a bill that replaces “marriage licenses” with “marriage certificates.”
The purpose? To satisfy homophobic county probate judges who are morally opposed to issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
Related: Twitter responds accordingly to Alabama’s freakout over gay cartoon rat wedding scandal
Right now, when a couple wants to get married, a county probate judge must issue them a marriage license. Under the new law, the judge will only have to record the marriage certificate.
See the difference?
The legislation came in response to the legalization of same-sex marriage by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2015. In Alabama, some probate judges stopped issuing marriage licenses four years ago because they did not want to sign same-sex marriage licenses.
Under the bill that passed today [Thursday], couples wanting to get married would submit to the probate judge a form that includes an affidavit saying they meet the legal requirements of marriage and the probate judge would record that as the official marriage document.
Sen. Greg Allbritton, who authored the bill, says by changing the words of what they call things, it provides a solution that accommodates everyone.
“It allows everybody in the state now to go to their local courthouse, or wherever, to accomplish this without traveling somewhere else, which is the intent of the law.”
But Rep. Neil Rafferty, who is openly gay and was elected to the Alabama State House of Representatives last year, isn’t buying it. He opposed the bill, saying it was “born out of prejudice.”
“I think it’s far less about good governance and more about protecting folks that don’t want to do their jobs,” Rafferty told local media last week.
We’re with Rafferty on this one. If the county probate judges would simply obey the United States Constitution, none of this would be an issue.
The bill is on its way to Gov. Kay Ivey’s desk for her signature.
Related: Apparently Alabama Hasn’t Gotten The Memo That Gay Marriage Is Legal In The United States
If Their bigotry prevents them from doing their jobs, they need to be fired.
That’s my take away. Why would you take a job knowing that’s part of it? Funny how most people just aren’t that bigoted and would love to have these judges jobs. Bigoted POS.
It is based in bigotry, but let them revise the law if they want. I don’t care.
I can’t imagine being a gay couple wanting to live in Alabama though. Be like a black couple wanting to live in a KKK community. Not unlike most of Alabama.
Since you stereotype most of Alabama as KKK, it only seems fair that people in Alabama stereotype most gays as nasty sluts and undeserving of marriage. Fair is fair. If you don’t want them to be assholes to us, try not being one to them.
Miss deranged, does your mother know you are sneaking in and using her computer?
How surprising that the account that constantly defends anti-LGBTQ bigots, attacks all gay people in their response.
You aren’t even pretending not to be an anti-LGBTQ account are you?
Oh Cam. It’s fine that he attacks all of Alabama but not okay that I call him out on it? You need to read closer. Never attacked all gays, but good try. Comprehension must not be a skill of yours.
I didn’t say all so maybe it’s you that lacks reading comprehension. Clearly there’s a few nice areas but apparently the assholes govern the whole state. Just like it’s always been.
Really Vince? Saying most of Alabama is KKK is absolutely an attack on all of Alabama.
@youarederanged Alabama is a shithole State and that is proven out by the laws it passes. Give up.
The new law is perhaps going to screw over the people who voted for it because of their prejudices about gays. The old law said that probate judges “may” issue marriage licenses. That is how they have been getting by with not doing it. The new law says they must record the marriage affidavit. Under the old law, you got a license and went out and found an “officiant” to perform the wedding. The new law states you are married upon recording the affidavit – no ceremony required. No ceremony required means no preacher or other officiant required.
This completely separates the civil marriage contract from anyone’s religious mumbo-jumbo. It is a common process found elsewhere in the world as well – you register and voila, you are married with no ceremony needed nor religious nonsense mixed in with the process.
So in the short run, the Bubbahs did this for a nasty reason but in the long run, this could cut their own throat.
I don’y understand this it at all. What does the new law prevent or stop? Or Change?
What does it ever accomplish when we change the acceptable verbiage of things? Someone, somewhere decides a commonly used word is offensive for some reason, so we are all supposed to kowtow to that and it weaponizes the old word. Somehow, that’s better.
What does it matter? People of any sex can still get married and have the validation they so desperately desire. Never understood the need to have government validate my existence. I exist because I live and breathe. I don’t need to government to tell me that. And I don’t give the government any more power over me than I need or want them to have. Sure, some things are out my control. But I can control this and I can tell the government to go flog themselves for all I care. As long as I have the power and don’t let the government control me where they can’t I am better for it.
Gary Q VV
@whateverokok I respect your candor and ideology. It’s not a new way of thinking or living, which I and multitudes had to endure.
Back in the ole days of the late 70’s thru the early 90’s, we had no protections of any kind, much less marriage rights. But, we fought hard and steady without pausing or wavering. As new Gay/Lesbian acceptances and finally protective legislation arose. The newest generation of now called LGBT & the newest Queer community persons might not notice anything about the Gay Rights history. It was a revolutionary success that’s continually challenged…. .just wanted to share this with others.
This is a good move, even though they did it for the wrong reasons. The need for a license, or even a ceremony, is outdated. In fact, the idea that the clergy, or a person ordained by mail order, is needed to declare anyone to be married for civil purposes is a violation of church-state separation. There should not be any requirement for a couple other than signing on the dotted line and declaring themselves to be married. Because marriage instantly gives a couple access to Social Security survivor benefits, military spousal benefits and 1,100 or so rights and benefits under federal laws alone, it is more of a civil arrangement than a religious one.
Comments are closed.