Alabama Senate Passes

Bill to Effectively Nullify

All Sides on Marriage
MONTGOMERY, Ala. (May 23, 2015)
This week, the Alabama state Senate
passed a bill that would end the practice
of licensing marriages in the state,
effectively nullifying both major sides of
the contentious national debate over
government-sanctioned marriage.
Introduced by Sen. Greg Albritton (R-Bay
Minette), Senate Bill 377 (SB377) would
end state issued marriage licenses, while
providing marriage contracts as an
alternative. It passed through the Alabama
state Senate by a 22-3 margin on May 19.
When you invite the state into those
matters of personal or religious import, it
creates difficulties, Sen. Albritton said
about his bill in April. Go back long,
long ago in a galaxy far, far away. Early
twentieth century, if you go back and look
and try to find marriage licenses for your
grandparents or great grandparents, you
wont find it. What you will find instead
is where people have come in and
recorded when a marriage has occurred.
The bill would replace all references to
marriages licenses in state law with
contracts. The legislation would not
invalidate any marriage licenses issued
prior to the bill being passed.
The contract shall be filed in the office of
the judge of probate in each county and
shall constitute a legal record of the
marriage. A copy of the contract shall be
transmitted to the Office of Vital Statistics
of the Department of Public Health and
made a part of its record

Effective July 1, 2015, any requirement to

obtain a marriage license issued by the
judge of probate is abolished and
repealed.
PRACTICAL EFFECT
SB377 would accomplish two things.
First, it would render void the edicts of
federal judges that have overturned state
laws defining marriage. The founding
generation never envisioned unelected
judges issuing ex cathedra
pronouncements regarding the definition
of social institutions like marriage and the
Constitution delegates the federal
judiciary no authority to meddle in the
issue. Marriage is a realm clearly left to
the state and the people..
Second, the bill would get the state
government out of defining marriage
entirely as well, ending the squabble
between factions that seek to harness the
power of the state, thereby taking the
burden off government officials who may
be torn between what is legally required
of them and their religious convictions.
The intent or motives behind this bill are
a moot point. By removing the state from
the equation, no one can force another to
accept their marriage, nor can they force
another to reject that persons own beliefs
regarding an institution older than
government.
Licenses are used as a way to stop
people from doing things, said Michael
Boldin of the Tenth Amendment Center.
My personal relationship should not be
subject to government permission.
HISTORICAL BACKDROP

As a 2007 New York Times op/ed points

out, for centuries marriage was a private
affair.
For most of Western history, they didnt,
because marriage was a private contract
between two families. The parents
agreement to the match, not the approval
of church or state, was what confirmed its
validity. For 16 centuries, Christianity
also defined the validity of a marriage on
the basis of a couples wishes. If two
people claimed they had exchanged
marital vows even out alone by the
haystack the Catholic Church accepted
that they were validly married.
In fact, the use of state marriage licenses
for many years was a way of preventing
people from entering into interracial
marriages. Later, the NYT story recounts,
the licenses became necessary in order to
subsidize the welfare state.
The Social Security Act provided
survivors benefits with proof of
marriage. Employers used marital status
to determine whether they would provide
health insurance or pension benefits to
employees dependents. Courts and
hospitals required a marriage license
before granting couples the privilege of
inheriting from each other or receiving
medical information.
Something that is rarely considered by
those seeking to control the states
definition of marriage is that a marriage
license means a citizen requires the
permission of their government before
they can get married. A person cannot
drive a vehicle, aside from limited
circumstances, without a license. A
person cannot practice law without a
license, nor can they engage in medical
care.

Put another way, marriage is not a right,

or a religious institution, but a privilege
the state grants us if we meet the
conditions put upon us.
Consider this: In the same way a driver
can lose their license if they break certain
traffic laws, a man or woman,
theoretically, could one day find their
marriage license revoked for breaking
certain marriage rules, whether it
pertains to child rearing, or their religious
and political convictions.
Christopher Wesley, an associated scholar
at the Mises Institute, wrote that
marriage is most endangered when it
rests in the coercive hands of the State.
NEXT UP
SB377 would still allow for a formal
marriage to be contracted in front of at
least two adults, by an Alabama judge or
retired judge, or an ordained minister,
with limited exceptions. Alternatively,
applicants could simply file an affidavit
of common law marriage with the court
clerk signed by both parties.
Though the bill does not define marriage
specifically, the certificate only allows for
two parties and forbids them from
marrying if they are already married.
SB377 now moves to the state House,
where it must pass through the House
Judiciary Committee before it can receive
a vote on the House floor.
TJ Martinell contributed to this report
http://blog.tenthamendmentcen
ter.com/2015/05/alabamasenate-passes-bill-toeffectively-nullify-all-sides-onmarriage/