Jump to content

The Protestant Community

Welcome to Christforums the Protestant Community. You'll need to register in order to post your comments on your favorite topics and subjects. You'll also enjoy sharing media across multiple platforms. We hope you enjoy your fellowship here! God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now


Christforums is a Protestant Christian forum, open to Bible- believing Christians such as Presbyterians, Lutherans, Reformed, Baptists, Church of Christ members, Pentecostals, Anglicans. Methodists, Charismatics, or any other conservative, Nicene- derived Christian Church. We do not solicit cultists of any kind, including Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Eastern Lightning, Falun Gong, Unification Church, Aum Shinrikyo, Christian Scientists or any other non- Nicene, non- Biblical heresy. God bless, Christforums' Staff
Register now
Sign in to follow this  

Alabama Senate Overwhelmingly Votes to Do Away With Marriage Licenses

Recommended Posts

The Alabama Senate passed a bill by a very large margin that aims at getting rid of the need for a marriage license and replacing it with a contract instead.


From Truth Revolt:


The Alabama Senate overwhelmingly passed a bill that would fundamentally alter the state’s approach to the institution of marriage. The bill—passed 22-3 by the senate and now heading for the house—would scrap marriage licenses and replace them with marriage contracts that do not require a marriage ceremony for validity. The move is being interpreted as an end-around to what many suspect will be a pro-gay marriage Supreme Court ruling.


The bill, SB377, ends the issuance of marriage certificates, instead requiring a contract filed with a probate judge. “Effective July 1, 2015, the only requirement to be married in this state shall be for parties who are otherwise legally authorized to be married to enter into a contract of marriage as provided herein,” the bill states.


WHNT19 News cites attorney Jake Watson, who said the bill would fundamentally change the way the state has handled marriage for over a century.


“It really does away with the traditional sense of a marriage certificate and what we’ve been dealing with in Alabama as far as marriage certificates for more than a hundred years, I believe,” said Watson.


The potential problem, he argued, is that the state would retain the right to define who is legally allowed to receive a contract.


Many folks on the right are starting to adopt this particular view themselves, believing it’s good to get the government out of marriage altogether in the spirit of limited government.


Marriage is an institution that was created by God and is not up for man’s reinterpretation no matter how hard they try to change it.


Whether the Supreme Court decides to support same-sex marriage or not, the bottom line is God doesn’t support it, and His law trumps man’s law.


That’s my two cents on the matter, not that you probably wanted it anyway.


Liberal outrage commencing in 3…2…1…

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alabama is trying to do the right thing in the face of Supreme Court tyranny.


The government should be a force of good, encouraging life-long marriages between men and women, not just for the sake of God, but to limit the burden of government (crime, welfare and other problems overwhelming comes from people raised outside of marriage).


But, the government has turned marriage into a weapon against the people, starting with the welfare state and tax code that punishes marriage. And, now with SSM accompanied by anti-discrimination laws. Even in other areas, like housing, the public is forced to assist in immoral lifestyles. One possible short-term solution is to get the government out of marriage. If the government insists on being a force for evil, then remove the government hooks, and leave marriage ceremonies strictly to a religious practice.


Christians themselves need to seriously rethink their priorities (hint, the middle-east shouldn't be one of them).


Edited by Cornelius

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the UK it started with civil partnerships where a same sex couple could effectively have the same civil rights (e.g tax and inheritance rights) as a heterosexual couple.


Then the Prime Minister (David Cameron) decided to push though a same sex marriage bill, that wasn’t in his election manifesto and wasn’t in the Queen’s Speech (the officially declared legislative programme for a Parliamentary year). There was no need for this and it caused a lot of controversy and problems.


Perhaps the civil authorities should stick to civil unions (even if some religious groups disagree with them) and leave marriage as a religious ceremony with all the meanings that implies to the particular religion involved. Alabama seems to be moving down that path in advance of a Supreme Court ruling.


The problem is though that we are not immune from the effects of such sin as laid out in Rom 1:24-32. And we (Christians) are supposed to be the leaven in society turning it all away from sin.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
In the UK it started with civil partnerships where a same sex couple could effectively have the same civil rights (e.g tax and inheritance rights) as a heterosexual couple.



In the US, very shortly after the invasion Iraq under false pretenses, the state court of Massachusetts legislated from the bench SSM, our Republican leaders (warmongers posing as Conservatives, like President G. W. Bush) at best ignored what was going on. A few other states, notably the giant state of California, passed laws (without a public vote) to create SSM called civil partnerships with all the same rights as marriage. Soon, a homosexual judge ruled that it was unconstitutional under state law for homosexal partners not to have the title "married." The voters voted to change the state constitution to define marriage as a man and a woman. Eventually the federal Supreme Court ruled that it's unconstitutional for marriage to be defined as a man and a woman (I'm unclear as the details, but that was the effect), a 5-4 activist decision that set the precedent for SSM to be imposed on all 50 states -- which is certain to be spelled out in an upcoming ruling this year.


No, homosexuals should not have recognized partnerships. Immorality should never be legitimized, even if it is tolerated (and, it was). And, it's a self-defeating compromise for any Christian to support civil partnerships. First, the word "partner" was being corrupted the way "gay" has been corrupted. It gave homosexuality a higher profile because every official mention of marriage was dutifully accompanied by mention of same-sex partnerships. It provided the same basis as SSM to punish the public for "discrimination" by choosing not to engage in supporting homosexual partnerships. And, finally, with the moral legitimation civil partnerships gave them, the title of married could not be denied them.


In the US, married people are punished through the tax code (married couple's income's are combined, and the tax code is progressive). And, inheritance can be handled through wills and trusts, If we feel so compelled to be concerned about sinners' success in their sin.


Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.