Yea, my immediate question was 'what about the man who wants to marry his cow' and 'what about pervert mcpedophile who wants to marry his 12 year old daughter' et. al
This is all smoke a mirrors. I see it at a dodge, and not a step forward for a few reasons. "First, it would render void the edicts of federal judges that have overturned state laws defining marriage." "Second, the bill would get the state government out of defining marriage entirely as well" This all looks great if you assume that what replaces the "marriage license", a "marriage contract," will include equal rights for same sex couples. There is nothing to guarantee this. A state could, like any other contract, make laws to govern what must be included for it to be accepted by the state.
Will marriage contracts include tax benefits, healthcare options, joint custody, visitation, health decisions, etc.. for same sex couples? This remains to be seen. If it does, why bother changing the term? It gains nothing.
If the state is going to offer benefits for marriage contracts, then that contract - de facto - cannot be a private affair.
This is going to be interesting, because as a transplant to Alabama, they have been a pain insisting on my marriage credentials for all kinds of things.
Since my job is here, I am a resident of AL. My husband is a resident of another state. This has caused problems getting my car title transferred and getting resident tax rates for my residence. Even my AL insurance agent insisted on putting my spouse's name first on two policies when my spouse is not even listed as an owner for the property that is in my name only. He had to have a legal a marriage license for no reason I could determine.
Then, this last year, they changed the tax code to penalize couples who have one spouse who is not a resident. They insist you file separately for your federal and report that to them. They would not accept the joint federal.
I really think they are so paranoid that an illegal alien or gay couple might live here that they have been extraordinarily intrusive into my marital status. They are not very easy to work with if one spouse moves here for a job.
So, if they start this "no marriage license for anyone" business, they are going to have to redo everything they are doing in practice. How are they going to demand marital documentation if they don't issue legal marriages? Are they going to accept a marriage certificate from the Church of Dude for proof that a married couple has one spouse here and one in a different state?
Honestly, in their quest to make sure they keep gays down, I think they are shooting themselves in the foot. They will have a lot of policies, forms and instructions they are going to have to evaluate that depend on legal marriage. They have not thought this out.
SusieQ#1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > But they have a marriage contract, right? So, how > does that change anything. A divorce is dissolving > a marriage contract.
They're doing a "name change" sleight-of-hand thing in a desperate attempt to avoid having to (ooh, icky!) allow gays to have the same legal rights to "marriage" as everyone else.
This isn't progressive or a move to enable equal rights, it's their attempt to get around the law and continue to be bigots.
Another thing they may be trying to "prove" is that allowing gay marriages will destroy straight marriages. They've been claiming this a long time. It would be hilarious if through their intolerance and determination to keep gays out of the marriage club that THEY are the ones causing marriage in general to decline.