Alabama's Antigay Senate Unanimously OKs Bill to End Marriage Licenses

[PupCamo]

https://www.advocate.com/politics/2019/3/22/middle-finger-gays-alabama-pushes-bill-end-marriage-licenses

Even though major homophobe Roy Moore is off the state Supreme Court, same-sex marriage remains controversial in Alabama, to the point that lawmakers are trying to eliminate marriage licenses altogether.

Under a bill approved 26-0 by the Alabama Senate Thursday, couples who want to marry would obtain and fill out a form at their county courthouse, but it would not be called a marriage license, the Associated Press reports. Probate judges, the county officials who have traditionally granted licenses, would simply record the form rather than issue a license.

The bill, which now goes to the state’s House of Representatives, is an accommodation to conservative probate judges, some of whom have ceased issuing marriage licenses to any couples in order to avoid approving them for same-sex couples.

Republican Sen. Greg Albritton, the measure’s chief sponsor, has put it forth in several sessions since the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2015 marriage equality ruling. The Senate has passed it previously, but it has always died in the House. Albritton expressed optimism that the House will pass it this year. He said it will get the state out of people’s private lives and assure that same-sex couples won’t face discrimination. Some House members have wondered if the elimination of marriage licenses would create problems for couples applying for federal benefits, but Albritton has said it would not.
*************************************
Democrats voted for this bill as well?

[Socal31]

1. What year do these fundies think it is???

[Renew Deal]

2. It's enshrining "marriage" as a legal agreement rather than a religious one.

[JI7]

3. that they are all sinners and all the kids are born of the devil

[Ms. Toad]

4. Sounds essentially like they are recording common law marriages.

The federal government already has practices in places to deal with common law marriages. In a sense, these ought to be easier becuase there will be a formal recording of it.

Once married (by common law - or by state sanctioned ceremony), how a couple came to be married is irrelevant. State & federal rights are tied to being married, not to the mechansm by which the couple married.

Aside from the offensive motivation, this isn't a big deal.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

6. Ummm, no.

Common law marriages aren't what you seem to think they are. Most states don't recognize common law marriage.

Alabama is trying a truly dumb end run around same sex marriages. The problem is, the old-fashioned heterosexual marriages (no doubt by far the majority of all marriages) will suffer.

Dumb, dumb, dumb.

I want to add this personal thing. I have long been in favor of same sex marriage. I think that marriage should be between two consenting adults. And you should marry only one person at a time. But for a long time I was somewhat hung up on how those same sex married couples should refer to each other. My ignorance.

Then, several years ago, I had the wonderful and enlightening experience of hearing a man casually refer to his husband, and a couple of hours later a woman likewise casually refer to her wife. Duh! If you're a woman and you're married you're a wife. If you're a man and you're married you're a husband. The gender of the person you're married to isn't the point.

I'm old enough at 70 to have been somewhat sheltered from some things, although for ten years I was an airline ticket agent which means that a significant number of the men I worked with were gay, which helped give me an early start on understanding LGBTQ issues.

I want to jump up and down in favor of human rights. Alas, there's not a smilie for that here.

[Ms. Toad]

7. I know exactly what common law marriages are.

I am an attorney, and have exensive experience in taxation (one of the places in which it is important to understand the practical impact of common law marriages). My marriage also began as a common law marriage. When Obergefell was decided, federal recognition was extended as far back as the amendment period for taxes (implying the marriage existed for federal purposes from its inception and the only barrier for tax purposes was the limited look-back for amending a return). We did obtain statutory recognition of our marriage in 2004, but prior to that we have documentation (via a published book and church records) that we believed ourselves to be married, held ourselves out to be married, and lived together as a married couple prior to 1991 (when the state in which we live stopped recognizing new common law marriages - and those were the three requirements to establish a common law marriage - as long as the couple was eligible to be married (as the federal treatment of Obergefell suggests we have always been).

It is unlikely we will ever need to rely on the common law formation of our marriage, since we've been married nearly 38 years, with statutory recognition for 15, but it would be trivial if we needed to establish a marriage longer than 15 years.

Common law marriages are marriages. Period. Once a couple is married at common law, they are married for all purposes (state and federal). if a couple with a common law marriages no longer wants to be married they have to go through a statutory divorce just like a couple married under a statutory scheme. If they just move apart, they are still legally married. If either party marries someone else then dies, the common law spouse (not the later statutory spouse) has intestate inheritance rights - and can elect against the will if there is a new will that names the statutory spouse. The common law spouse is entitled to the social security benefits (another federal entity that is well-versed in dealing with common law marriages).

You are correct that most states no longer permit the creation of new common law marriages - but if they ever permitted creation of them they recognize common law marriages that were legally recognized when and where they were created. Ditto for other states - if it was legally recognized when and where it was created, every state recognizes it as a marriage. So, for example, if a couple with a common law marriage established in Ohio prior to 1991 moves to Michigan (a state that never permitted creation of common law marriages), the couple is still legally married and would (for example) file their state tax returns as married.

So - the article did not provide many details - but it sounds like a scheme in which the couple would come in and register the existence of a marriage that was created wtihout the benefit of a statutory scheme. That's a common law marriage (which Alabama does recognize), with the added benefit that it will be easier to prove it exists because of the registration.

The motivation for this scheme is incredibly offensive. But the legal impact will be virtually non-existent.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

8. Thank you for that information.

As you probably know, a lot of people have a very wrong understanding of common law marriages. The essential thing I try to point out is that very few states ever recognized common law marriage, and almost none (maybe none at all?) recognize them today.

I often tell people that there are many benefits of being legally married, and that they should take advantage of them. I like to think I'm responsible for at least one marriage because of that.

Oh, and I'm speaking as a woman who was married for about 25 years when my now ex met someone else he decided he'd rather be with. Darn. Because we'd been married for so long, and then got divorced, once I reached age 66 I was able to collect Social Security on his account, then switched to my own last August, when I turned 70. Hooray for being legally married.

And I strongly believe that same sex couple should be afforded the exact same advantage.

[Ms. Toad]

9. Be careful using the word recognize

ALL states (and the Federal Government) currently recognize existing common law marriages, as long as they were formed in a state that recognized common law marriages at the time they were formed.

Very few states currently recognize the formation of new common law marriages. (Alabama did until 2016. Those that currently permit creation of a legally recognized common law marriage: Colorado, The District of Columbia, Iowa, Kansas, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Texas).

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

10. Exactly.

There have been very few states that ever recognized "common law marriages", and the misconceptions surrounding them are great.

[Ms. Toad]

12. Yes -

both as to how to create them (just living together doesn't, in most instances), and in their legal impact (they are just as much a marriage as one created by statute).

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

14. And only 8 states plus the District of Columbia

currently recognize new common law marriages.

There is so much mythology around common law marriages that really, really needs to be dispelled.

[former9thward]

5. What in the world is wrong with this bill?

Why should the government have to give you a licence to marry someone? What business is it of their's?

[onecaliberal]

11. So what does that mean? No one can be legally married in Alabama?

[Celerity]

13. here are the actual Alabama Senate links, it has not passed the House yet, this is the 5th attempt

The House always kills it.

26-0

all the Democrats and 1 Republican voted present

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/Alison/GetRollCallVoteResults.aspx?MOID=606358&VOTE=29&BODY=S&INST=SB69&SESS=1074&AMDSUB= 




http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/ALISON/SearchableInstruments/2019RS/FiscalNotes/FN-39060.htm

Committee: Judiciary Sponsor: Albritton
Analyst: Tonya Mitchell Date: 03/19/2019
FISCAL NOTE

Senate Bill 69 as introduced provides that persons legally authorized to be married may unite in marriage by submitting certain information for recording with the judge of probate, who shall remain responsible for filing and registering the information with the Office of Vital Statistics. This bill provides that the current fee of $10 for recording a marriage will be assessed and further provides that the filing fee for amending information will be the same as for filing original information. This could decrease receipts to the several counties by an undetermined amount, dependent upon the number of amended documents filed, assuming persons filing amended documentation would pay the $10 recording fee. Under current law, the fee to correct a record of marriage is $15.

This bill could increase receipts to the State General Fund, county general funds and other funds to which court costs are deposited dependent upon the number of civil actions filed to correct an error in marriage documentation under the provisions of this bill. Additionally, this bill would increase the administrative obligations of the Alabama Law Institute and Department of Public Health by an undetermined amount by requiring the preparation of a form to meet the minimum requirements of this bill.

Cam Ward, Chairperson
Judiciary


The Bill itself

1 SB69
2 196024-2
3 By Senator Albritton
4 RFD: Judiciary
5 First Read: 05-MAR-19

http://alisondb.legislature.state.al.us/ALISON/SearchableInstruments/2019RS/PrintFiles/SB69-int.pdf