Alabama supreme court justice wants to save marriage by abolishing it

[ksen]

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/does_gay_marriage_ruling_threa.html

Murdock agreed with his colleagues that the request by Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis to review Moore's administrative order was improper because only the governor or Legislature can do so. But he wrote separately, in part, to discuss the possibility that "considering the meaning of the term 'marriage' intended by the Legislature in those statutes, they may be deemed to survive, or must be stricken as wholly void, if they are not to be applied solely to a union between a man and a woman."

Well done Judge Murdock!

 

[Nice Squirrel]

This is why Alabama cannot have nice things, like a healthy economy.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Now i want a t-shirt that shows a picture of Judge Moore.
And a caption: "Alabama...why we can't have nice things."

 

[Keith&Co.]

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2015/02/does_gay_marriage_ruling_threa.html

Murdock agreed with his colleagues that the request by Mobile County Probate Judge Don Davis to review Moore's administrative order was improper because only the governor or Legislature can do so. But he wrote separately, in part, to discuss the possibility that "considering the meaning of the term 'marriage' intended by the Legislature in those statutes, they may be deemed to survive, or must be stricken as wholly void, if they are not to be applied solely to a union between a man and a woman."

Well done Judge Murdock!

So the questoin seems to be, would Alabama have written any marriage laws at all if they knew that some day, teh gays would be using their civil rights and those laws to make their icky union legal.
Most of the quoted experts don't see this as coming up for reals in an actual court case.

If this wasn't the American South, i'd probably agree.

However, this is the Bible Belt where schools that host bible study groups are told to also allow atheist, muslim or pagan study groups, or not to allow any religious groups at all, and choose to jettison all study groups. I could easily see someone bringing suit, that if god-fearing, baby-making heteroseckshuls cannot be the sole participants in marriage, then no one should be doing it. "Cut off everyone's nose to spite my face!"

 

[George S]

The word "marriage" should be reserved for religions. There is no shame, in today's society, to live together (maybe Alabama is different). So why would someone want to get married instead? I see two reasons: religious and civil. The civil marriage is a contract with a lot of legal precedent.


If the state wishes to offer "civil marriage" -- a contract that any two adults may enter into to treat them as "married" under state law, why not. (Later amendments may change the "two" to "group of.") This kind would require a legal divorce with terms of settlement of the contract.

If a church wishes to call them "married," why not. Its dissolution would be up to that religion's rules.

Let's separate church and state interests.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The word "marriage" should be reserved for religions. There is no shame, in today's society, to live together (maybe Alabama is different). So why would someone want to get married instead? I see two reasons: religious and civil. The civil marriage is a contract with a lot of legal precedent.


If the state wishes to offer "civil marriage" -- a contract that any two adults may enter into to treat them as "married" under state law, why not. (Later amendments may change the "two" to "group of.") This kind would require a legal divorce with terms of settlement of the contract.

If a church wishes to call them "married," why not. Its dissolution would be up to that religion's rules.

Let's separate church and state interests.

Oh goody goody! Alabama, the new Utah as radical Mormons flock in.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The word "marriage" should be reserved for religions. There is no shame, in today's society, to live together (maybe Alabama is different). So why would someone want to get married instead? I see two reasons: religious and civil. The civil marriage is a contract with a lot of legal precedent.


If the state wishes to offer "civil marriage" -- a contract that any two adults may enter into to treat them as "married" under state law, why not. (Later amendments may change the "two" to "group of.") This kind would require a legal divorce with terms of settlement of the contract.

If a church wishes to call them "married," why not. Its dissolution would be up to that religion's rules.

Let's separate church and state interests.

No, screw that. I'm not going to give up a word to religions, regardless of how little the word means. If the religions want to separate the concepts, they can come up with a "religious marriage" and go off on their own to distinguish between the two, but I'm not willing to go an inch out of my own way to appease them.

 

[Arctish]

The word "marriage" should be reserved for religions. There is no shame, in today's society, to live together (maybe Alabama is different). So why would someone want to get married instead? I see two reasons: religious and civil. The civil marriage is a contract with a lot of legal precedent.


If the state wishes to offer "civil marriage" -- a contract that any two adults may enter into to treat them as "married" under state law, why not. (Later amendments may change the "two" to "group of.") This kind would require a legal divorce with terms of settlement of the contract.

If a church wishes to call them "married," why not. Its dissolution would be up to that religion's rules.

Let's separate church and state interests.

No, screw that. I'm not going to give up a word to religions, regardless of how little the word means. If the religions want to separate the concepts, they can come up with a "religious marriage" and go off on their own to distinguish between the two, but I'm not willing to go an inch out of my own way to appease them.

I agree with George S. Let the state certify civil unions (all the parts of a marriage that involve laws, rights, privileges, and lawyers) and leave the rites and ceremonies of marriage to the religious communities. If a religious group believes God approves of same-sex marriage, that's between them and their God. The state should have no say in the matter. And if the other religious groups don't think it's a valid marriage, so what? Baptists don't think Catholic baptism is genuine baptism, both Baptists and Catholics think Mormon baptism is worthless, and let's not even talk about washing away sins in other faiths.


The Unitarian Universalists, Episcopalians, and a lot of Wiccan and neo-pagans happily perform marriage ceremonies in states where the right wing and fundamentalist Christians can't stop them. So you can have your civil union and marriage, too. And anyway, the recognition from the state is way more important than the recognition from a church group.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No, screw that. I'm not going to give up a word to religions, regardless of how little the word means. If the religions want to separate the concepts, they can come up with a "religious marriage" and go off on their own to distinguish between the two, but I'm not willing to go an inch out of my own way to appease them.

I agree with George S. Let the state certify civil unions (all the parts of a marriage that involve laws, rights, privileges, and lawyers) and leave the rites and ceremonies of marriage to the religious communities. If a religious group believes God approves of same-sex marriage, that's between them and their God. The state should have no say in the matter. And if the other religious groups don't think it's a valid marriage, so what? Baptists don't think Catholic baptism is genuine baptism, both Baptists and Catholics think Mormon baptism is worthless, and let's not even talk about washing away sins in other faiths.


The Unitarian Universalists, Episcopalians, and a lot of Wiccan and neo-pagans happily perform marriage ceremonies in states where the right wing and fundamentalist Christians can't stop them. So you can have your civil union and marriage, too. And anyway, the recognition from the state is way more important than the recognition from a church group.

Ya, that's fine, but we get the word marriage. Why? Because fuck them, that's why. They want to have some other kind of religious union which makes them super-special, they can go ahead and do it, but marriage needs to stay the term for the civil union.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I think we should stand behind Moore's proposal. Call marriages whatever you want, be it homosexual or heterosexual, but call them civil unions in the law books.

 

[fast]

There seems to be so many kinds of marriages that they need to be numbered.

First is the traditional marriage (of the first kind) between a man and a woman, seen as a blessed union in the eyes of God that the state does and should recognize also as a legal marriage.

The second is the legal marriage (of the second kind) that is also between a man and a woman, yet neither recognized nor admired through the eyes of The Lord, yet tolerated as having equal civil rights through the eyes of the law.

The third kind of marriage, when used in the extreme broad sense of the word, (of the third kind) is a purely social union between members of the same sex, which could be begrudgingly recognized by the state to allow members of this group to share in the same legal advantages of the second group.

The forth kind of marriage (of the forth kind) should be met with such disdain that any church allowing it should be berated at every available opportunity regardless of repercussions to their continuation. It would be a marriage (broad sense) between same sex couples that is recognized by the law and permitted and performed by a church.

See, there is no harm, (unless you consider the eroding destructive nature of traditional social values long held by religious institutions and their members as harmful), so allowing same-sex marriages (such as the third kind) to be recognized by the state really isn't all that much worst than the second kind, as far as the church should be concerned. Why? Because marriage of the second kind is no more of a holy marriage than is the third. Just because the second kind is between a man and a woman makes no difference--as it's just legally recognized with legal benefits. Nothing to admire...nothing to be proud of.

The forth kind should be met with utter scorn. Not because it's harmful. Not because it's wrong. Because it goes against the Bible.

Should we number divorces too? A divorce of the second kind surely shouldn't bring with it the same emotions as a real divorce should, yet when divorce rates are cited, never do we hear ... .

 

[Juma]

[...] of same-sex marriage, that's between them and their God..

no! These religious groups are communities! They consists of families. And families have children and some children are gay. So some people born into such communities will have different rights than others?

There is no right to discriminate gays! Gays have the same rights because they are the same human beings!

 

[Juma]

There seems to be so many kinds of marriages that they need to be numbered.

First is the traditional marriage (of the first kind) between a man and a woman, seen as a blessed union in the eyes of God that the state does and should recognize also as a legal marriage.

The second is the legal marriage (of the second kind) that is also between a man and a woman, yet neither recognized nor admired through the eyes of The Lord, yet tolerated as having equal civil rights through the eyes of the law.

The third kind of marriage, when used in the extreme broad sense of the word, (of the third kind) is a purely social union between members of the same sex, which could be begrudgingly recognized by the state to allow members of this group to share in the same legal advantages of the second group.

The forth kind of marriage (of the forth kind) should be met with such disdain that any church allowing it should be berated at every available opportunity regardless of repercussions to their continuation. It would be a marriage (broad sense) between same sex couples that is recognized by the law and permitted and performed by a church.

See, there is no harm, (unless you consider the eroding destructive nature of traditional social values long held by religious institutions and their members as harmful), so allowing same-sex marriages (such as the third kind) to be recognized by the state really isn't all that much worst than the second kind, as far as the church should be concerned. Why? Because marriage of the second kind is no more of a holy marriage than is the third. Just because the second kind is between a man and a woman makes no difference--as it's just legally recognized with legal benefits. Nothing to admire...nothing to be proud of.

The forth kind should be met with utter scorn. Not because it's harmful. Not because it's wrong. Because it goes against the Bible.

Should we number divorces too? A divorce of the second kind surely shouldn't bring with it the same emotions as a real divorce should, yet when divorce rates are cited, never do we hear ... .

Dont get it. Was this some kind of irony?

 

[Jarhyn]

Honestly, as a gay man, I agree with the judge.

Because as soon as 'marriage' is not the legal word to ANY civil domestic partnership contract, then literally ANY marriage is legal. Marry your sister. Marry a goat. Marry the entire cast of 'BoJack Horseman'. It's all legal. To protect marriage, he wants to legalize all marriages! Let him. Then we can say republicans are to blame for it all!

Not only that, but when it isn't 'marriage' we can much more effectively move away from the idea that legally partnered groups must parner on the basis of implied sexual relationships or even specific emotions. If I want a partnership with my totally straight sibling of the same sex, and it isn't the sexually based or romantically based 'marriage', then there's nothing legally that can be used to argue against it.

 

[fast]

There seems to be so many kinds of marriages that they need to be numbered.

First is the traditional marriage (of the first kind) between a man and a woman, seen as a blessed union in the eyes of God that the state does and should recognize also as a legal marriage.

The second is the legal marriage (of the second kind) that is also between a man and a woman, yet neither recognized nor admired through the eyes of The Lord, yet tolerated as having equal civil rights through the eyes of the law.

The third kind of marriage, when used in the extreme broad sense of the word, (of the third kind) is a purely social union between members of the same sex, which could be begrudgingly recognized by the state to allow members of this group to share in the same legal advantages of the second group.

The forth kind of marriage (of the forth kind) should be met with such disdain that any church allowing it should be berated at every available opportunity regardless of repercussions to their continuation. It would be a marriage (broad sense) between same sex couples that is recognized by the law and permitted and performed by a church.

See, there is no harm, (unless you consider the eroding destructive nature of traditional social values long held by religious institutions and their members as harmful), so allowing same-sex marriages (such as the third kind) to be recognized by the state really isn't all that much worst than the second kind, as far as the church should be concerned. Why? Because marriage of the second kind is no more of a holy marriage than is the third. Just because the second kind is between a man and a woman makes no difference--as it's just legally recognized with legal benefits. Nothing to admire...nothing to be proud of.

The forth kind should be met with utter scorn. Not because it's harmful. Not because it's wrong. Because it goes against the Bible.

Should we number divorces too? A divorce of the second kind surely shouldn't bring with it the same emotions as a real divorce should, yet when divorce rates are cited, never do we hear ... .

Dont get it. Was this some kind of irony?

I don't know what the hell I'm saying or thinking sometimes. It's kind of like playing chess against oneself. I'm always both in favor and against both sides. I don't even know where I stand on some issues.