MONTGOMERY, Ala.
(Oct. 23, 2017) – A bill prefiled in the Alabama Senate would abolish marriage
licenses in the state and effectively nullify in practice both major sides of
the contentious national debate over government-sanctioned marriage.
Sen.
Greg Albritton (R-Bay Minette) prefiled Senate Bill 13 (SB13) in September. The
legislation would abolish all requirements to obtain a marriage license in
Alabama. Instead, probate judges would simply record civil contracts of
marriage between two individuals based on signed affidavits.
According
to the bill summary, SB13 would “eliminate the requirement for solemnization of
a marriage for it to be considered valid” and “specify that the judge of
probate would have no authority to reject any recording of a marriage, so long
as the affidavits, forms, and data are provided. must record certain
affidavits, forms, and data regarding the marriage.”
During
the 2017 legislative session, Albritton introduced a similar bill.
The Senate approved SB20 by a 22-6 vote, and the House Judiciary Committee
approved the legislation 10-4 along party lines with some technical amendments.
However, it failed to get a vote in the full House. A similar outcome occurred
in the 2016 legislative session.
The
proposed law would maintain a few state requirements governing marriage. Minors
between the ages of 16 and 18 would have to obtain parental permission before
marrying, the state would not record a marriage if either party was already
married, and the parties could not be related by blood or adoption as already
stipulated in state law.
Civil
or religious ceremonies would have no legal effect upon the validity of the
marriage. The state would only recognize the legal contract signed by the two
parties entering into the marriage.
In
practice, the state’s role in marriage would be limited to recording marriages
that have already occurred.
This
would be a return to the traditional Western custom in which the state had
little to no involvement in marriage, even though it was a legal contract as
well as a religious institution. Marriage in medieval Europe technically fell
under the legal jurisdiction of the Catholic Church, with priests officiating
weddings at the door of the community church. However, it was ultimately a
private arrangement that did not require a third party in order to be
considered legitimate.
In
“The Middle Ages: Everyday Life
in Medieval Europe,” Jeffrey Singman writes that proposed marriages
were announced at the parish church of both persons for three Sundays, but this
was in order to ensure problems such as preexisting marriage agreements did not
arise. Still, “not every marriage followed these formalities.”
Singman
writes:
According
to canon law, marriage could be contracted either by a vow of marriage
expressed in the present tense or by a statement of future intent to marriage
followed by sexual consummation. The latter sort of marriage in particular
could take place without the participation of church or community. Such
marriages were illegal, but not invalid; the although the couple might be
prosecuted in the church courts, they remained legally marriage.”
In
fact, state marriage licenses were initially used as a way to prevent
interracial marriages. As a 2007 New York Times op/ed points
out, licenses later 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.”
In
a modern political context, SB13 would reduce the state’s role in defining and
regulating marriage, which has become a contentious issue and places a burden
on government officials torn between the legal requirements of their jobs and
their personal religious convictions. By limiting the state’s role in marriage,
the legislation would allow Alabamans to structure their personal relationships
as they see fit without interference or approval from the government.
Something
rarely considered by those seeking to control the state’s definition of
marriage is that a marriage license means a person requires government permission
before getting married. In America, people generally cannot drive a vehicle
without a license. People cannot practice law without a license, nor can they
provide medical care. Put another way, under a licensing scheme, marriage is
not a right, nor a religious institution, but a privilege granted by the state
and limited by its requirements.
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.”
Constitutionally,
marriage is an issue left to the state and the people.
Removing
state meddling in marriage would render void the edicts of federal judges that
have overturned state laws defining the institution. The founding generation
never envisioned unelected judges issuing ex-cathedra pronouncements regarding
the definition of social institutions, and the Constitution delegates the federal
judiciary no authority to do so.
UP NEXT
SB13
will be officially introduced Jan. 9, 2018. At that time, it will be referred
to a Senate committee where it will need to pass by a majority vote before
moving to the full Senate for consideration.
TJ Martinell is a Seattle-based author, writer, and
award-winning reporter. His TAC article on the meaning of the Second Amendment
is currently ranked #1 on Google. His dystopian novel The Stringers depicting a
neo-Prohibition Era in the city of Seattle is available on Amazon.
Visit his personal site at www.tjmartinell.com. Join his Facebook page here.
Visit his personal site at www.tjmartinell.com. Join his Facebook page here.
