So... Alabama.

That sounds very problematic even for supporters of traditional marriage. We're supposed to assume cases like domestic abuse is to be swept under the rug because of a "contract?"

 
I'm all for this.  To get married, you should not be required to get the permission of the government.

It should be a contract between two people, plain and simple.

 
Like I said in the other thread, if marriage is a contract between two consenting people, the government probably has no right or obligation to interfere with that. However, proponents of traditional marriage are trying to make it so big government can interfere with that which is pretty hypocritical of them in regards to governmental intrusion and personal rights. I wonder if the people who brought this case to the Supreme Court brought that issue up, especially when the media has done little educating the populace about what exactly is a marriage in the legal sense. I'm sure the verdict will be a usual screwup by the Roberts Court.

 
The legislation is crafted so same sex couples can not file the contract together (you have to be "legally able to marry" under Alabama state law).  It has nothing to do with "getting government out of marriage" and is just an end run around the federal courts (and potentially the SCotUS) saying that Alabama counties had to offer marriage licenses to same sex couples.  If Alabama honestly wanted "government out of marriage" then they would allow any two consenting adults to file the contract: heterosexual, homosexual, mother and son, brother and sister, whatever.  They don't want that, they just want a loophole to keep the gays from marrying.

It's not "getting government out of marriage", it's just homophobia with a ridiculous veneer of libertarianism.  Should the SCotUS vote in favor of SSM, someone will just sue Alabama on Equal Protection grounds and almost certainly win.

 
bread's done
Back
Top