ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Getting the state out of marriage

Alabama takes the lead:
An Alabama bill that would abolish marriage licenses in the state, and effectively nullify in practice both major sides of the contentious national debate over government-sanctioned marriage, unanimously passed an important Senate committee last week.

Sen. Greg Albritton (R-Bay Minette) filed Senate Bill 20 (SB20) earlier this month. 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.

“All requirements to obtain a marriage license by the State of Alabama are hereby abolished and repealed. The requirement of a ceremony of marriage to solemnized the marriage is abolished.”

The Senate Judiciary Committee passed SB20 9-0 on Feb. 23.

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.
This is an excellent policy, and one which I have advocated since my WND days. The state does not define marriage. The state cannot define marriage. The state has never defined marriage; it is an institution that long precedes the state.

The state has the right to create whatever legal contractual relationships between whatever parties it likes, but those relationships are not marriage. The Alabama bill would clarify that, and would have the benefit of removing those whose marriages are religious in nature from the predations of the state's divorce courts.

If conservatives want to save marriage, then this is a policy they should take to the national level.

Labels: , ,

160 Comments:

Blogger Cataline Sergius February 28, 2017 7:11 AM  

I've been backing this idea for years.

What little good that came from giving a state the power to sanction marriage is no longer on the table.

Hell yes, every state should do this.

Anonymous Looking Glass February 28, 2017 7:15 AM  

@1 It was always a power play, even going back to the 1850s when State marriage licenses came about.

But, the fun part about this one, is we can put some nasty rhetorical screws into people with it. "Make Love Free!" "Freedom of Love!".

Anyone against Freedom & Love is clearly a Nazi. Obviously. Can't you see that?

Blogger Lazarus February 28, 2017 7:32 AM  

How would this affect common law espousal??

Anonymous VFM #6306 February 28, 2017 7:33 AM  

Roll Tide.

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable February 28, 2017 7:39 AM  

How would this affect common law espousal??

I'm guessing if you've registered a contract, you're married. If not, you ain't. It's not perfect: I'd still like to have the State have nothing to do whatsoever with it, other than maybe keep records.

Blogger peter blandings February 28, 2017 7:39 AM  

additionally, may it be noted that it was st. ronald reagan, while governor of california, who signed into law the first no fault divorce statute, which has done more damage to the family than rosie o'donnel. and that's just ONE of his sins. his sainthood should have been revoked decades ago.

Blogger The Kurgan February 28, 2017 7:40 AM  

This is an AWESOME development.
It's almost as if there are pirate kings of the VFM in the Bay Minette Area....

I wonder if they will trade with Venetian Warlords in due course.

Blogger FSL February 28, 2017 7:40 AM  

Looks like the bill falls short of completely separating religious from civil marriage. It only removes the necessity of a ceremony, but does not give explicit permission for religious ceremonies of marriage without a contract. Still it's a step in the right direction. When wives can no longer divorce their husbands and appeal to the state to fetch them the milk of food, clothing and shelter provided by the husband without having to buy the cow of sexual intimacy with their husbands, the world will be a happier place.

Blogger Jack Ward February 28, 2017 7:41 AM  

Not often Alabama hits the cutting edge. Good move this. A state license a loving marriage does not make. The opposite too often. Proud to live in Alabama.

Blogger PoseidonAwoke February 28, 2017 7:43 AM  

"... the benefit of removing those whose marriages are religious in nature from the predations of the state's divorce courts."

How? By not having the marriages be legal, only religious? If that is correct, then aren't there some desireable benefits to legal marriage (tax filings, loans for houses, etc) that they would lose?

I don't see how this "saves' marriage.

Anonymous ashv February 28, 2017 7:44 AM  

How is this not more libertarian retardation?

In ages past, the church was a cohesive structure that bound multiple communities together, so it was capable of recording and enforcing marriage vows. Even after the Reformation there were just a few different major groups in even the most cosmopolitan societies.

Today it's a shopping mall. Does Alabama want to be the new home of Drive-Through Celebrity Impersonator Wedding Chapels? There's currently no meaningful institution that the state can turn this responsibility over to. This isn't noble or pro-civilisation at all, it's merely a retreat from the field in cowardice.

I note that this still isn't "getting government out of marriage", since it merely relocates the state management of marriage vows to the courts overseeing civil contracts.

If Alabama _really_ wants to get out of the marriage business -- why not ask the top 3 church denominations to establish a joint Marriage Board and turn marriage and divorce proceedings over to _them_?

Blogger FSL February 28, 2017 7:49 AM  

Not even records of marriage should be kept by the state in my opinion, but records of birth and parentage. And no awards of financial obligation to the parent with custody from the other parent. Telling people they can either stay together, pay the bills of their kids on their own, or see their children become wards of the state would have the effect of keeping many families together, not out of affection but out of mutual necessity, which often breeds affection anyway by removing the repulsive barrier of pride.

Anonymous Steve Canyon February 28, 2017 7:56 AM  

I think this is a good first step.

Now getting the whole contract revocation bit out of anti-male divorce courts and into a civil courts like any other breach/dissolution of contractual situation might help ensure a more equitable result than the current "woman gets half the income and the real property in perpetuity" verdicts in the divorce court arena.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 8:01 AM  

The marriage license, is exactly that, a license, a grant of permission to marry. It's function is to prophylactically prevent certain marriages from taking place in the first place.

If the state issues the marriage certificate, it is a state marriage.

Specifically, in the original intent, marriage between blacks and whites. These could only take place with the approval of a judge. The requirement to obtain a license force couples to appear before the state to obtain such approval.

The license has nothing to do with state regulation after the marriage has taken place. It is registration of the marriage with the state that invokes the state contract.

Licensing and registration are two separate legal acts and revoking the need for a license to get married will, in itself, have no effect on state regulation of marriage and divorce.

Anonymous W. Lindsay Wheeler February 28, 2017 8:01 AM  

I disagree. The State has every right to control marriage if it wants. Marriage Licenses were created to stop interracial marriage. The State has every right to protect racial integrity! What do you think the miscegenation laws in the Old Testament were? Did not the Hebrew state control the marriages in their state.

I grant you that America is a false construct because it was not a natural ethnic state as was all of European countries. But America needs direction and what the problem is, is the loss of Teutonic Europeans as a people. We are under assault. The State is only the apparatus of the Ethnic State under normal circumstances. Miscegenation is a crime and like abortion that needs to be circumvented, the state has to circumvent miscegenation. But then America is a total mess, a farago. To base true political science upon the American experience is faulty. True political science must be based upon a true political entity--America is not that.

Anonymous Looking Glass February 28, 2017 8:08 AM  

I wonder what concern trolling is going to show up? Normally it's the Gamma-rage types, but there could be an outburst of Omega White Knighting. Never quite know, as removing the jackboot on the necks of American Men is normally a bridge too far for them.

From a perfectly legal standpoint, the current Marriage Laws are unconstitutional. They are a Bill of Attainder against Men, and thus expressly forbidden by Article 1, Section 9. The practice also violates both the 13th and 14th Amendments. Appeals to duty don't matter, which is all anyone ever comes up with.

The marriage laws have been a massive destroyer of the core economy, from a larger perspective. But that's a longer & more detailed discussion.

Blogger dc.sunsets February 28, 2017 8:10 AM  

Given that the original purpose of redefining marriage was mooted by proliferation of extending the legal privileges of spouses to "civil partners," this entire topic is absurd, the province of idealists arguing over meaningless minutiae.

Same-sex marriage was and remains an obsession of the Newspeak Dictionary, nothing more.

I'm more intrigued by how AL's proposed law will affect downstream statutes & contract law that uses marital status in the determination of rights & privileges. Unintended consequences may exist.

Blogger Lazarus February 28, 2017 8:17 AM  

dc.sunsets wrote:I'm more intrigued by how AL's proposed law will affect downstream statutes & contract law that uses marital status in the determination of rights & privileges. Unintended consequences may exist.

i.e., income tax calculations.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 8:18 AM  

". . . this entire topic is absurd, the province of idealists arguing over meaningless minutiae."

Yes. Marriage was replaced by defacto Civil Union some time ago. Only the noun has been retained to fool the innocents.

Anonymous grumblr February 28, 2017 8:19 AM  

Well I suppose Jim Donald is having an orgasm right about now. (The funk soul brother.)

There's certain circumstances in life, I believe, where two completely opposite and contradictory positions can both be right at the same time, depending how you look. This might be one of them. I don't have an opinion about this because I think there are 16 different ways of viewing it, and I have no idea which one makes the most sense.

But what I've seen so far sort of strikes me as argument by simple assertion. I'd like to see, from the people with a hard, concrete view of this, something that resembles a more coherent view of political philosophy. Libertarianism is a childish stance, 'becuz muh libertarianism' doesn't impress many folks in the old neighborhood. But there are of course some very serious thinkers around here who endorse this. Can you expand?

Blogger James Dixon February 28, 2017 8:24 AM  

> Does Alabama want to be the new home of Drive-Through Celebrity Impersonator Wedding Chapels?

Alabama doesn't care.

By removing the state sanction of religious marriages, it removes the standing of people to sue because a church refused to marry them. That's what this is all about.

Blogger Adm Trell February 28, 2017 8:27 AM  

This is an excellent first step. Next, they need to rewrite the law to abolish "family courts" and recognize the rights (and responsibilities) of fathers in custody cases & child support payments

Blogger Cail Corishev February 28, 2017 8:29 AM  

I don't see how this "saves' marriage.

It means Christians whose faith says they can't have sex and children without being married can now get married in the eyes of God without entering into a contract with the state.

It doesn't fix child support rape, which is a separate issue. Courts already come after the unmarried father (or the nearest man they can call the father, in some cases) regardless of marriage, so that won't change. But it should keep alimony and property division out of the courts, at least temporarily. I suspect that if this spreads across the country, the next step by the leftist courts will be to start adjudicating "relationship breakups" in lieu of divorce, and then there will be a battle over that.

Blogger Subversive Saint February 28, 2017 8:31 AM  

As an Alabamian I can assure you that you know not of what you espouse.

Blogger Harris February 28, 2017 8:35 AM  

Someone please explain to me why this is a good thing. To me, it looks like a retreat from defeat in the culture war.

Blogger Subversive Saint February 28, 2017 8:35 AM  

The southern baptists here will probably kill this like they did the lottery.

Blogger James Dixon February 28, 2017 8:39 AM  

> The southern baptists here will probably kill this like they did the lottery.

I doubt that very much. They're probably one of the main supporters.

Anonymous Joe Doakes February 28, 2017 8:40 AM  

@22, not going to happen. The state will assert that it has an obligation to look out for the children of parents who split up. If Alabama doesn't have marriage licenses and divorce court, they'll have partnership agreements and dissolution-of-partnership courts because somebody has to decide where the kids live and who supports them.

Also, the gay lobby is probably lining up lawyers right now, seeking to sue under the Full Faith and Credit clause of the Constitution, hoping to force Alabama to recognize gay marriages from other states as valid under Alabama law. The federal courts haven't tended to be sympathetic to states rights since, well, the last time Alabama asserted them.

Clever idea, solves nothing.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 8:49 AM  

I note that the linked article itself confuses things by equating the marriage license with the marriage certificate.

The only time you have to present a marriage license is at your wedding, to allow it to legally take place.

For issues of marital law it is the marriage certificate that you must present as proof that a legal wedding has already taken place.

If the state is the issuer of the certificate, it is still the state that is regulating extant marriages, up to and including refusing to issue the certificate and recognize the marriage in the first place.

All this law will do is circumvent certain Federal regulations regarding the specific issuance of a license, not a certificate. All other laws regarding marriage will remain exactly as they are in code.

Blogger Elocutioner February 28, 2017 8:52 AM  

When same sex 'marriage' was being heavily promoted I said the libertarian position should be one of removing state regulation. But most of my principled libertarian friends demanded the state assertively fix the 'inequality.' A few changed their facebook image to the gay pride flag and such. Oddly, they couldn't be argued out of their positions.

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 February 28, 2017 8:53 AM  

W. Lindsay Wheeler wrote:I disagree. The State has every right to control marriage if it wants. Marriage Licenses were created to stop interracial marriage. The State has every right to protect racial integrity! What do you think the miscegenation laws in the Old Testament were? Did not the Hebrew state control the marriages in their state.

I grant you that America is a false construct because it was not a natural ethnic state as was all of European countries. But America needs direction and what the problem is, is the loss of Teutonic Europeans as a people. We are under assault. The State is only the apparatus of the Ethnic State under normal circumstances. Miscegenation is a crime and like abortion that needs to be circumvented, the state has to circumvent miscegenation. But then America is a total mess, a farago. To base true political science upon the American experience is faulty. True political science must be based upon a true political entity--America is not that.


And that might be a good idea, up until the Supreme Court decides that interracial marriage is now mandatory.

This is a power play by the state of Alabama in response to the Federal government.

Blogger pyrrhus February 28, 2017 8:56 AM  

Alabama presumably requires that you be an Alabama citizen to register such a contract. I most States that requires residence for a minimum of one year. So it won't be a Las Vegas situation.

Anonymous Big Bill February 28, 2017 8:56 AM  

This is brilliant! Follow the Jewish lead. This is the way marriage worked just a few hundred years ago and still does in Israel.

Israel closely follows the Ottoman practice. Each faith community makes and enforces its own family law.

The benefit to us is that it threatens the power of the family courts. If the marriage contract is something that the parties negotiate, then the courts have less leeway in enforcing a standard contract (e.g.:"on divorce she gets the kids and half your loot").

Right now, the standard terms of the government marriage contract are found in hundreds of thousands of legal decisions that give wives incredible power.

The Muslim Ummah and the Jewish Nation are going to love this, too. Their holy men are going to come up with standard contracts that the US courts will ultimately be forced to respect.

In the multiracial, multi-ethnic empire that the US has become, it only makes sense.

Why should the government enforce a standard, one-size-fits-all marriage contract?

Why should some white Christian [eww!] marriage contract be forced on Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindoos, Buddhists, Shintos, homos, and Wiccans?

We are all about Celebrating Diversity, right? Let each lump in the American stew pot (as lefties say, we are NOT a "melting pot") have and enforce its own marriage contract!

Obviously, feminists have not twigged to the deeper significance of this legal change or they would be freaking out right now. But believe me, the Jewish and Muslim religious authorities are watching very, VERY closely. The old Jewish and Muslim grey beards are going to come up with standard contracts that re-establish their traditional power over their respective breeding pools.

This is just the start. Once the state decides to get out of the marriage business it will soon move into the child custody business, the alimony business, the divorce business, and the inheritance business. They are all related and were all controlled by ecclesiastical law and authorities until quite recently. For Catholics, Jews, and Muslims the entire family law infrastructure is sitting there, gathering dust, just waiting for the states to get out of the family law business.

We truly live in interesting times!

Anonymous Bobby Farr February 28, 2017 8:57 AM  

@31 Of course. What good is a principled and philosophically defensible position that addresses the concerns of the gay rights crowd if it doesn't allow virtue signalling, rubbing tradcon noses in shit and empower the state to use force against those who hold contrary opinions?

Anonymous Big Bill February 28, 2017 8:58 AM  

Sorry, make that "soon move out of".

Anonymous Kevin February 28, 2017 9:01 AM  

So what happens when these contracts dissolve and children are involved? The same system that manages divorce will manage these contracts as if they were marriages. The courts will manage them as if they were marriages. And for all but the very richest these will be standardized contracts. While there might be some advantage by abandoning the field to legal contracts but it also doesn't matter. It's mostly a retreat after gays got what they wanted. This will likely further dissolve marriage among the under classes.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 9:01 AM  

"This is a power play by the state of Alabama in response to the Federal government."

Which the Feds can respond to by realizing they've left a hole in their legislation and rulings and patch it up with a bit of new language.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 9:07 AM  

"It's mostly a retreat after gays got what they wanted."

This bit of legislation removes state objection to gay weddings.

Anonymous Bobby Farr February 28, 2017 9:08 AM  

@37 I disagree but it will depend on the content of the contracts. I doubt even a standardized contract will penalize men to anywhere near the extent of current law. At a minimum, the presence of a contract that explicitly states what men are signing up for is a significant improvement. Even if courts disregard the contracts, it will not be any worse than the current situation. And if courts explicitly refuse to enforce contracts, it will be a clearer warning to men that marriage is legally prohibited (except for the foolish few willing to forfeit all financial freedoms).

Anonymous VFM #6306 February 28, 2017 9:08 AM  

Anyone who sees defeat in this...will see defeat in anything. Because both "gay marriage" and "no-fault marriage" are nothing but creatures of the state and because actual marriage is only corrupted by state permission, if this is successful, it is the camel's nose under the tent.

A Sopwith Camel. The malState tent.

Open fire.

Blogger Guy Fox February 28, 2017 9:08 AM  

In my Catholic whitetopia the state most certainly will be regulating marriages, which will be nearly impossible to back out of, and most certainly end interracial and fag arrangements.

Anonymous Dan February 28, 2017 9:09 AM  

The way to reject SSM is simply recognize that it has no reality.

I will never acknowledge SSM as real, because there is no such thing. The number of people of the same sex who have ever gotten married to each other is zero, because the very idea is absurd.

I will live not by lies (Solzhenitsyn).

Blogger James Dixon February 28, 2017 9:09 AM  

> Which the Feds can respond to by realizing they've left a hole in their legislation and rulings and patch it up with a bit of new language.

Gay marriage wasn't created by legislation. It was created by judicial fiat. There's no legislation to patch.

Anonymous Grayman February 28, 2017 9:09 AM  

This is a step int he right direction. The state should have no involvement in the act of marriage, licensing or contractual.
In regards to children there is amore fundamental question that must be asked. Is a child the property of the state or the property of the natural parents. If the child in the property of the natural parents then the state has no say short of extreme abuse. As it stands at the moment a child is functionally the property of the state with the natural parents simply being the designated caregiver from the states perspective, with the state still holding ultimate authority over the child.

Look at the cases of child services coming after parents who home school or engage in any other activity that is not politically acceptable.

Blogger Michael Thompson February 28, 2017 9:11 AM  

"I disagree but it will depend on the content of the contracts. I doubt even a standardized contract will penalize men to anywhere near the extent of current law. At a minimum, the presence of a contract that explicitly states what men are signing up for is a significant improvement."

Any man who voluntarily enters into a marriage in 2017 is an idiot.

Blogger pyrrhus February 28, 2017 9:11 AM  

O/T Impoverishment as a tool for Democrats....https://www.theburningplatform.com/2017/02/28/the-curley-effect-why-the-left-wants-open-borders/#more-144224

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 9:16 AM  

"Anyone who sees defeat in this...will see defeat in anything."

I don't see it as any kind of defeat and it's something I've been advocating for decades. If I get what I want it must be accorded as some kind of victory.

It is, however, in the current legal climate, a bit of an advance to the rear. An anabasis.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan February 28, 2017 9:16 AM  

I go with what Big Bill wrote, dollars to donuts within a year muslims will be agitating for shariah compliant marriage under their control and the feminists comply (they're still women and they still want to submit and 99% of them will).

Blogger Azimus February 28, 2017 9:17 AM  

Generally I agree this is a good thing. I worry, though, that nature abhors a vacuum... would the states be unwise to try and give this authority back to the people, when it could be intercepted by the Feds and thus the 2nd state is worse than the first?

Anonymous Grayman February 28, 2017 9:21 AM  

Multiracial and gay marriage isn't a significant concern. Its a minuscule percentage relatively speaking and the increasing percentages are due primarily to social programming that is rampant.

Shutdown the neo-marxists nanny state and the "diversity" programming dies. Women respond to social pressure towards conformity and social benefit. In a mono-ethnic state there is generally no social benefit to interracial or gay marriage and short of social programming that driver alone shuts down the vast majority of interracial relationships.

Trying to outright ban interracial marriage is a pointless fight that is a Pyrrhic victory even if won. Its simpler and more effective to alter theunderlying mechanism that drives interracial marriage. Remove the mechanism and the 1 in 100,000 interracial marriages that would still occur become irrelevant and possibly act as further social stigma against doing so.

Blogger hooligan February 28, 2017 9:23 AM  

It does get government out of the marriage business simply by no longer treating it as a distinct type of civil contract. This also protects those churches that will refuse to perform same-sex ceremonies.

Anonymous Grayman February 28, 2017 9:26 AM  

Mr.MantraMan wrote:I go with what Big Bill wrote, dollars to donuts within a year muslims will be agitating for shariah compliant marriage under their control and the feminists comply (they're still women and they still want to submit and 99% of them will).


One could argue that this is a good thing. The clearer the lines are between cultures the easier it is to facilitate a mono-ethinc state. Let them start Sharia marriages then make sure the exact reality of that is well publicized, that only makes it harder for them to claim “ we are just like you”.

Anonymous Grayman February 28, 2017 9:32 AM  

While the state of marriage is a concern, interracial and gay marriage pales in comparison to the current welfare system that is functionally a minority breeding program. Marriage needs to be addressed, but one of the greatest current threats is getting welfare modified such that isn’t is a minority breeding program.
I have family members who work in non-profits that work with minorities on welfare. It’s ridiculous, you have 13 year old girls talking about who is going to get pregnant first as though it is a badge of honor and looking at it as a paycheck. The children are seem as little more then you or I would see a pet. Actually we generally provide better care for our pets then they do for their children.

Anonymous Dan February 28, 2017 9:33 AM  

"Any man who voluntarily enters into a marriage in 2017 is an idiot."

That's a dumb mentality. Unless you've got a time machine we are stuck playing the hand we are dealt.

Give up, you are saying. As for me, I will fight on.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 28, 2017 9:35 AM  

@FSL
"...ould have the effect of keeping many families together..."
It's almost as if incentives work, or something. Financial incentives for divorce = more divorce.

Anonymous Hrw-500 February 28, 2017 9:35 AM  

@28

I guess the gay lobby had been played by the "government industrial complex" with an assistance of the "divorce industrial complex" as Aaron Clarey alias Captain Capitalism might said. It was a trick mainly for more sales taxes revenue. http://www.taxrates.com/blog/2014/10/17/gay-marriage-weddings-sales-tax-revenue/
and the big winniers seems to be the lawyers when they'll divorce.
https://www.mgtowhq.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=9139
https://www.pinterest.com/pin/234468724321878161/
https://imgflip.com/i/nhe2v

Blogger mushroom February 28, 2017 9:36 AM  

Totally agree with the OP.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) February 28, 2017 9:37 AM  


Any man who voluntarily enters into a marriage in 2017 is an idiot.


Men entering into marriage and having children is the only way to save western civilization.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 28, 2017 9:40 AM  

@kfg
Very clearly put. Thanks.

Blogger allyn71 February 28, 2017 9:42 AM  

Roll Tide

Anonymous Bobby Farr February 28, 2017 9:45 AM  

@54 So your definition of "fighting" is entering into state-defined relationships and subjecting your future to the activism of the courts. Smart.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 9:53 AM  

It is clear to me how this legislation would protect certain government officials denying the issuance of a license, but I'm a bit hazy on how it would protect churches denying a wedding.

"Men entering into marriage and having children is the only way to save western civilization."

That doesn't mean that the man isn't also an idiot. Too much ground has been lost already and it's a lose/lose proposition.

The only way Western Civ can be restored by marriage is by restoring Western Civ to restore Western marriage. The two go hand in hand and a man is faced with a two front war, because feedback loops are like that.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 28, 2017 9:54 AM  

@Elocutioner

"...my principled libertarian friends..."

Sounds like the "principle" in question was "support the narrative."

Anonymous dagwood February 28, 2017 9:56 AM  

If this is all going to boil down to contracts, I propose that all the contracts be written by Christian Grey.

Anonymous Dan February 28, 2017 9:57 AM  

Bobby, you are a weakling.

The God Emperor, who probably is smarter than you even when he is fast asleep, has gotten on the saddle three times, with an awesome clan as the result. Things don't always work out but outcomes can still be terrific.

If you are such a weakling, things wouldn't have worked out for you anyway, even under the old marriage rules.

Anonymous W. Lindsay Wheeler February 28, 2017 9:58 AM  

As the Neo-nazi, William Pierce said back in the 80s(?) said the plan of the technocrats of America is to create a mud people. That certainly is happening. America is turning into Brazil with many white trash women having children with black men. European women are being taken by foreigners. Who is replacing the white men when white trash women are bedding down with Hindus, Latinos and blacks. They want to bed down with everybody but white men!

Second, the Christian Church, Protestant and Catholic, are NOT standing up to Miscegenation.

Furthermore, Miscegenation is a form of genocide! One Rabbi glorified in the fact that Miscegenation will wipe out the European! I'm so glad that there is not a Single f*cking authority, secular or religious, that will demand that people marry their own. So, having a libertarian society will stop that! what a joke America has become!

Anonymous Grayman February 28, 2017 9:59 AM  

@54 & @61

Rebuilding white culture is critical but given then current high risk state of marriage, any man getting married should be doing so with a rock solid pre-nup. Yes the girl will probably be upset about that at first but they get over it. The peace of mind it provides if worth every penny. It also takes that threat our of the relationship and makes things more amicable if you encounter a rough spot.

Anonymous Teapartydoc February 28, 2017 10:02 AM  

Government issued marriage licenses did not exist prior to 1543 in Geneva. They are a relic of primitive Calvinist theocracy. Needless to say, since we are not living in a theocracy, and can only hope for one, it makes sense to have the state as little involved in our personal affairs as possible.

Anonymous Grayman February 28, 2017 10:04 AM  

@66 Lindsay

For the most part the church in the west is DEAD. Look at the pope. Look at the church sanctioned pedophilia. Look at the churches running the muslim immigrants into the us for $$$. the majority of western religion now worships mammon. There are a few bright spots left, but they are few and far between.

The church reflects the people is arises from. Until white culture is rebuilt and whites once again respect themselves as a society the church will not lead the way.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 28, 2017 10:06 AM  

@Big Bill
"Israel closely follows the Ottoman practice. Each faith community makes and enforces its own family law."

Not only that, isn't it the Orthodox who pretty much control the regulation of marriage for Jews in Israel? No lesbian Reform rabbis running things there.

The whole idea of having, like Israel, no civil marriage, only religious marriage, is a good one. I'm pessimistic as to its actual prospects for implementation, but we'll see. But the state willingly giving up on family law as a tool to destroy families, and giving g up the associated power and shekels? That's not going to happen through peaceful means.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 10:06 AM  

" . . .any man getting married should be doing so with a rock solid pre-nup."

And a fairy god-mother, a unicorn and a genie.

In nearly all States a pre-nup has the value of a used piece of paper.

Anonymous Dan February 28, 2017 10:08 AM  

Pre-nup? As in terms of dissolution? If you are a billionaire, perhaps. But for regular folks, just plan to succeed.

Young men should not be such cowards. In the possible event that you find yourself single again as a man in your forties, if you have taken good care of your body and career, the marriage market the second time around will be even better. Don't plan to fail, but no need to live in fear!

Blogger Cail Corishev February 28, 2017 10:09 AM  

In nearly all States a pre-nup has the value of a used piece of paper.

IANAL, but if you're up against a woman-favoring judge, I suspect a pre-nup will have negative value, as he (or she) will see it as an attempt by the man to "control" the marriage and overrule the judge's authority.

Anonymous ZhukovG February 28, 2017 10:09 AM  

I see nothing to moan about where this is concerned. If it passes, it will be a victory.

Even the ‘Destruction of Army Group Center’(Operation Bagration), did not cause the immediate capitulation of the 3rd Reich. We are still fighting on the outskirts of Moscow using the rifles dropped by our fallen comrades. It will be a long hard fight before we raise the Red Banner over the ‘Globalist’ Reichstag.

But winter has come for our enemies and its ferocity has totally surprised them. Our defense at Gamersgate halted their offensive. Our counterattacks with Brexit and Trumps election have thrown them back from the edge of victory in disarray.

But the enemy still has a lot of fight left in them. We will lose battles and we will win battles. But, ultimately we will be victorious.


Deo Vindice…. Oh and uh… Roll Tide.

Anonymous BBGKB February 28, 2017 10:10 AM  

Instead, probate judges would simply record civil contracts of marriage between two individuals based on signed affidavits.

So Obama could marry the auto signing pen?

i.e., income tax calculations. married usually pay more in the US

Does Alabama want to be the new home of Drive-Through Celebrity Impersonator Wedding Chapels?

When "Don't Garrote Fewer Felons Than A Fagg0t" goes off the air maybe El Guapo will move to Alabama and open a wedding/florist/cake shop.

"It's mostly a retreat after gays got what they wanted."

Only gay gold diggers wanted it for alimony.

Any man who voluntarily enters into a marriage in 2017 is an idiot.

You let feminists destroy marriage before gays could be married anywhere in the US.

any man getting married should be doing so with a rock solid pre-nup."And a fairy god-mother, a unicorn and a genie

Wouldn't that be polygamy?

Blogger Valtandor Nought February 28, 2017 10:11 AM  

This is an interesting development. But we mustn't assume that the removal of the requirement for government or church permission to marry means that the contract as actually signed by the spouses will be enforced in all its glory.

In my own country, employment relationships are regulated by a bundle of statutes. These statutes cover all "contracts of service"; but the question of whether an agreement or arrangement is or is not a contract of service is not addressed by those statutes, nor does it rely on the wording chosen by the parties. Instead, the courts have developed various tests that mostly look at the behaviours and expectations of the parties. But having a document that explicitly calls itself an "Employment Agreement" (or similar) makes it much more likely that the arrangement will be found to be a contract of service.

Once an arrangement is found to be a "contract of service" – usually, but not always, because the employee claims that his rights and protections as a worker have been denied him – both parties have to work with that. Contract terms that violate employment law will be held unenforceable, even if they might have been enforceable if the agreement were an "ordinary" contract.

I would envisage the same sort of thing happening in Alabama. That is, having a thing called a "marriage contract", or an agreement by which Alice and Bob each agree to marry the other, will make it more likely that a dispute between Alice and Bob is dealt with as a matrimonial dispute, or a matter for family law. But if such an agreement is missing (or is oral only), or even if there is a document that explicitly says, "This is not a marriage contract, and Alice is not marrying Bob, and Bob is not marrying Alice," expect the courts to find that a marriage does exist, that it existed from the moment the relevant tests were satisfied, that Alice and Bob's relationship and disputes arising under it are to be dealt with under family law, and that any terms in the agreement that are repugnant to family law (or, of course, any other statute or court ruling) will be found to be unenforceable.

In short, expect more relationships, not fewer, to be found to be marriages; and expect that simply avoiding "marriage" will not save a man from the family courts.

Blogger JDC February 28, 2017 10:13 AM  

Good job Alabama. In our church we added a statement to our constitution, which was a recommendation from the synod that reads:

The marriage policy of _____________________, a member congregation of The Lutheran Church—Missouri Synod, is and always has been consistent with the Synod’s beliefs on marriage. We believe that marriage is a sacred union of one man and one woman (Gen. 2:24-25), and that God gave marriage as a picture of the relationship between Christ and His bride the Church (Eph. 5:32). The official position of The Lutheran Church— Missouri Synod, as set forth in 1998 Res. 3-21 (“To Affirm the Sanctity of Marriage and to Reject Same-Sex Unions”), is that homosexual unions come under categorical prohibition in the Old and New Testaments (Lev. 18:22, 24; 20:13; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; 1 Tim. 1:9-10) as contrary to the Creator’s design (Rom. 1:26-27). These positions and beliefs can be found on the LCMS website, along with other statements, papers and reports on the subject of homosexuality and same-sex civil unions and “marriage.” Our pastors will not officiate over any marriages inconsistent with these beliefs, and our church property may not be used for any marriage ceremony, reception or other activity that would be inconsistent with our beliefs and this policy.

It has caused a bit of a stir when members find out they have to get the legal document signed by another, but, we are no longer participating in this sham.

Anonymous Bobby Farr February 28, 2017 10:15 AM  

@65 Great attitude Dan. Pretty sure Trump had carefully prepared pre-nups and asset organization and didn't just get married thinking it was risky but "Things can still be terrific" Some of us take rational actions based on reality. There are ways to have family without subjecting yourself to risks of divorce rape but wishful thinking morons like you will continue to end up penniless and pass off your irresponsibility as "fighting" and being "strong". I hope that comforts you when you're in a studio apartment with no visitation rights.

Anonymous Northern Observer February 28, 2017 10:16 AM  

The next fight is going to be 'the wedding cake battle'.

If the baker isn't free to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then the same arguments will be used to force pastors to perform gay weddings, church facilities to host gay weddings and denominations to bless gay marriages.

Freedom of association? Freedom of religion? Freedom of conscience? They're long gone.

Anonymous Teapartydoc February 28, 2017 10:18 AM  

When the native Algerians began to revolt against their French colonizers one of the first things they did was to stop registering their marriages with the French state. Marriage ceremonies began to take place in secret and the births as a result of those marriages went unregistered unless they took place in a government hospital. Anything that makes it more difficult for the government to recognize and control in a situation where government is oppressive is a revolutionary act.

Anonymous Bobby Farr February 28, 2017 10:23 AM  

@72 Your great advice continues. Pre-nups? Dems for duh fancy folk. Just expect everything will work out fine and plan accordingly. And if your marriage fails and you get screwed, don't learn your lesson. Take whatever is left of your health and assets and subject them to the same legal risks again!

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 10:23 AM  

@75: "Wouldn't that be polygamy?"

None of those things are human. You're focusing on the polygamy and giving the beastiality a tacit pass.

Blogger wired216 February 28, 2017 10:29 AM  

I think Vox would marry Spacebunny again in 2017. Maybe there is a lesson to be learned there.

Blogger Valtandor Nought February 28, 2017 10:30 AM  

Northern Observer (10:14),

I would expect that if something like that began to happen, churches that care about the issue would decide that from then on, their ministers would only preside over, and they would only permit their facilities to be used for, wedding ceremonies in which at least one party to the marriage, and possibly both, were members in good standing at the time of the ceremony.

I would certainly be in favour of that approach. And yes, it could provoke the government to pass laws curtailing the freedom of private associations of all kinds (including religious ones) to refuse to admit members, or to regulate the conduct of those who wish to remain members. But there is, I think, value in forcing the government to be explicit when it starts meddling of that sort.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 10:34 AM  

"Pretty sure Trump had carefully prepared pre-nups . . ."

Pretty sure Trump is a New Yorker and am certain that NYS explicitly refuses to recognize prenups.

It is not, however, a community property state. Technically you leave with whatever you brought. In practice, "best interest of the child" can override that. You can end up with situations where you own the house legally, and are thus responsible for it, but she has legal right of residence until the children are outside the reach of the family court (which in some instances is now as old as 24, graduate degree age).

Blogger Michael Thompson February 28, 2017 10:37 AM  

"Young men should not be such cowards."

Yes, far braver to spend several years in misery and suffer the eventual loss of most of my possessions and a significant portion of my income for the next couple of decades so that I enter into indentured servitude to the lofty ideal of 'western civilization.'

There may be more valid reasons for getting married, the most valid of which is probably that one is besot with emotion and just can't help himself, but whatever minimal amount of good my marriage would do 'western civilization' is a fairly weak rationale to do something that all probability points as ending up being more than a little detrimental to my life as a whole.

Anonymous Dan February 28, 2017 10:38 AM  

Castrated manlets such as Bobby Farr, afraid of their shadow and afraid of living, will be the end of civilization, more than gay marriage.

As for me and my growing clan, we will try to lead the way back. My beautiful wife has born me five smarties and she probably isn't done yet. There are arguments sometimes but I'm not retreating like a coward.

> I hope that comforts you when you're in a studio apartment

Project much, lol!

Anonymous Grayman February 28, 2017 10:41 AM  

A pre-nup if done well is not about protecting your vast industrial empire (we all have one right?). It is about creating a legal contract that states the "rules of engagement". This is a very smart thing to have in this day and age even if you have no real assets. Family and divorce courts will absolutely destroy a mans future and should not be underestimated from a risk perspective.
Having a pre-nup also changes the mental calculations a woman makes when she thinks she might not want to be married. It makes it clear that she does not have the ability to (easily) take what she wants or do what she wants without recourse. It forces her to "skin in the game"
That being said, no pre-nup is iron clad you certainly have activist judges and other challenges, but it sets the tone from the very beginning and eliminates the divorce path as a vindictive route of plunder for a woman. and forces both parties to deal on more equal footing.
If you are smart you also preface the pre-nup as a way to protect both of you and to make sure you have the same expectations from the marriage. It makes it less confrontational to the woman.

Anonymous Bobby Farr February 28, 2017 10:41 AM  

@85 NYS does not explicitly refuse to recognize prenups and will enforce them if the legal prerequisites are satisfied.

Blogger Cail Corishev February 28, 2017 10:42 AM  

I wonder what concern trolling is going to show up?

Some, but in the long run, they'll be outnumbered by the he-man woman-haters club. The latter are just starting to show up, since, not having nagging and costly wives, they're able to sleep in longer, of course -- plus they generally have some sky-diving or rock-climbing to do before getting online.

Anonymous Matatan February 28, 2017 10:45 AM  

Not sure I understand this correctly. Is marriage now only a religious matter? Meaning if you don't marry before the church your not married? Or the other way around?

Blogger Bill Smith February 28, 2017 10:46 AM  

Sit and whine Bobby and Michael. I am going through a mild version of the grinder now and it does really suck, but I would agree with our host (VD) that supporting civilization is more important than my own personal ease and pleasure.

I also have to answer to a Lord far more powerful than any judge for what I do with my life. You sound like soldiers who whine that they might get shot at.

I guess those on the first waves of D-Day should have run away instead.

Yeah, it is not the cakewalk many think and the risk is huge, but so what? I would rather attempt to do something and fail than hide in the corner.

I would have also done much better with my try had I known what I know now. Several red flags would have kept me from proceeding even though no one thought it was dangerous at the time.

Educate and train yourself. Then check things out before hand and outside of raging hormones. Few are really doing that and many are just whining.

I believe Vox also said to stop the whining some time in the past.

Anonymous South Ron February 28, 2017 10:47 AM  

Does this mean I can finally stop living in sin with my sister?

Anonymous Dan February 28, 2017 10:47 AM  

The majority of marriages do not end divorce. That is a myth. Furthermore, if you are college educated and not very-low-earning, the odds of divorce drop to perhaps 20 percent. And if it happens, you won't die. You'll pick yourself up and do even better next time.

Be picky and choose well, but don't retreat from the main event in life, which is family.

Arm yourself with knowledge to act smarter, not to rationalize to yourself your pathetic state.

Oohrah!

Blogger Bill Smith February 28, 2017 10:47 AM  

Cail,

They have some reasonable points, but they stretch them too far.

Anonymous Bobby Farr February 28, 2017 10:48 AM  

@87 haha. There are plenty among the low IQ demo cranking out 5-6 kids but this is the first time I have heard one claim he is doing it for civilization. Large families are only a positive when formed by people with good genes (you know, those fancy folks with a long time horizon who get prenups).

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 10:48 AM  

" . . . my growing clan . . ."

Apex fallacy. The fact that you are an Achilles is not an argument that Helots would be advised to engage in single combat against heroes.

Nor is it, for that matter, evidence of your own immunity. Under the current system of law complete strangers can stand on the well taking pot shots at your heel.

Anonymous Grayman February 28, 2017 10:49 AM  

@87 Dan

Congrats, really. However in a system as rigged as the one we currently have a pe-nup is a toll to set expectations up front.
In the current environment it is way too easy for a woman to get into a rough spot in a marriage and then think that since see ends up with everything more or less by default then there isn't much reason to work things out.
Its also shocking how often other woman will reinforce or suggest this route to woman who are in roughs pots in marriages. I have seen in many times.
Yes we have to clean up our culture but its generally a poor idea to not have a plan B for a high risk scenario.

Blogger VD February 28, 2017 10:54 AM  

Yes, far braver to spend several years in misery and suffer the eventual loss of most of my possessions and a significant portion of my income for the next couple of decades so that I enter into indentured servitude to the lofty ideal of 'western civilization.'

Men used to be willing to kill and die for their nation. Now they're not willing to risk losing half their toys.

This reflects, in part, the implosion of the nation. But it also demonstrates the inferiority of most modern men.

Anonymous BBGKB February 28, 2017 10:56 AM  

None of those things are human. You're focusing on the polygamy and giving the beastiality a tacit pass.

If you thought Mexican women were bad with male donkeys it turns out the Chinese one up them

Chinese People Eat LIVE DONKEYS Huo Jia Lu (literally "Live Donkey").
Donkey has its legs tied and its body held down, and someone cuts its flesh body and serve it right away #HBD Watch at your own risk

Determine if watching people eat Chinese food is safe for work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u4hMJ-GJ4ag

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) February 28, 2017 10:58 AM  

Men used to be willing to kill and die for their nation. Now they're not willing to risk losing half their toys.

This reflects, in part, the implosion of the nation. But it also demonstrates the inferiority of most modern men.


That's a sobering observation

Anonymous Bobby Farr February 28, 2017 10:58 AM  

“The most difficult aspect of the prenuptial agreement is informing your future wife (or husband): I love you very much, but just in case things don’t work out, this is what you will get in the divorce. There are basically three types of women and reactions. One is the good woman who very much loves her future husband, solely for himself, but refuses to sign the agreement on principle. I fully understand this, but the man should take a pass anyway and find someone else. The other is the calculating woman who refuses to sign the prenuptial agreement because she is expecting to take advantage of the poor, unsuspecting sucker she’s got in her grasp. There is also the woman who will openly and quickly sign a prenuptial agreement in order to make a quick hit and take the money given to her.” (“Trump: The Art of the Comeback”)

Anonymous Grayman February 28, 2017 11:00 AM  

Bill Smith wrote:……I would have also done much better with my try had I known what I know now. Several red flags would have kept me from proceeding even though no one thought it was dangerous at the time.

Educate and train yourself. Then check things out before hand and outside of raging hormones. Few are really doing that and many are just whining……….


Agreed, I ran a similar gauntlet with red flags ignored. It’s hard to recognize that we are unsulky the cause of our own unhappiness .i.e. taking the easy path as opposed to harder more rewarding path….
In my case there were plenty of harpies pushing my wife to “cut and run with the money”. The pre-nup was actually very helpful as it kept us both realistic and eventually able to move forward and end up happier than we were before working through the tough spots. Without the pre-nup the harpies may have been successful. I am in a very successful community and the “cash-out” divorce is definitely “popular” among a subset in any successful community.

Alas, everyone must make their own judgement call. Doing a pre-nup was probably the best advice I got from an elder gentlemen prior to marriage.

Blogger Michael Thompson February 28, 2017 11:03 AM  

"The majority of marriages do not end divorce."

Well, yes, divorce rates are lower now from when they were highest, but that isn't because somehow marriage is working better as an institution than it did 35 years ago. It just means that there are more people like me who end up never getting married in the first place. And as far as it being a pathetic existence, I've lived it for 47 years now, and it's actually quite an enjoyable one. The number of pointless arguments I have on a daily basis? Near 0. The amount of time it takes me to happen to want to do something, decide to do it, and actually leave the house to go do it? About 15 seconds. The amount of my money I get to spend on me? All of it except whatever the government decides is its fair share of what I earn, which admittedly is higher than someone with children, since the nanny state has decided to make having children an incentive for people by making them a tax break. Still, even so, the advantages of never getting married far outweigh the advantages of getting married, and no amount of shaming behavior on your part is going to convince me otherwise.

Blogger Pteronarcyd February 28, 2017 11:04 AM  

"The state does not define marriage. The state cannot define marriage."

True. The state has no right to interpret that which does not need interpretation.

"The state has never defined marriage; it is an institution that long precedes the state."

True, until state and federal courts recently usurped the authority to redefine marriage, an untenable redefinition I do not recognize.

That said, the state has a righteous role in respecting and promoting marriage. Marriage forms the basis of a stable family, and as such fosters the production and development of the state's most precious resource -- the next generation. The state had no right to grant no-fault divorce, just as it had no right to define marriage out of existence by recognizing so-called homosexual marriage.

The answer is not to partially remove the state from the marriage process (note that the state, under the AL proposal, is still involved in registering marital contracts -- primarily so it can control the process of divorce). The solution is a return to the status quo ante -- no homosexual marriage and no blameless, one-sided dissolution of a marital contract.

Blogger Michael Thompson February 28, 2017 11:08 AM  

"Men used to be willing to kill and die for their nation. Now they're not willing to risk losing half their toys."

Tell me what I would be losing half of my toys for and I might be willing to risk them. I'm not going to risk them just because someone tells me, 'this is the way it's always been done' if I look at it from the outside and form the opinion from my observation that it's a pretty stupid way to do it. Fighting and dying for my nation is not the same thing as willingly choosing to enter into an institution that has a greater than even chance of destroying my life just because people said, 'well, this is the way it's done.'

Blogger Bill Smith February 28, 2017 11:09 AM  

Grayman,

Mine were mostly that my wife did not want to be married and kept that thread throughout our almost 30 year marriage.

Vox,

This reflects, in part, the implosion of the nation. But it also demonstrates the inferiority of most modern men.

Exactly. Thanks for the clarification too. I am not sure what my own future will bring, since children of my own are unlikely now, but I can still play a role in helping civilization, even if it is just helping educate younger men on decreasing their risk and increasing the likelihood of success.

Anonymous Grayman February 28, 2017 11:10 AM  

Bill, VD

Part of my challenge was that I didn't take the redpill until well after being married. I would have done many things differently had I taken that pill at and earlier age.
Your points are valid from where and who you are. Whatever terms you want to use, cuck, beta, bluepill redpill, etc., where you are on that spectrum will very much impact the choices and path you take.
In all honesty my acting as a cuck was probably most of the problem and my stepping up and removing myself from that role is what made things better then they had ever been.

Blogger Bill Smith February 28, 2017 11:11 AM  

Go sit and suck your thumb in the corner Michael. Keep all your toys to yourself. Hopefully you have enough toys properly protected to take care of you when you are old and unable to do so, at least unable to do so to the same extent.

Our connections with others are an important part of life many have forgotten. Someone selfish will be selfish.

Blogger Timmy3 February 28, 2017 11:16 AM  

Alabama will still be required to recognize other states' marriages unaltered. Contractual law applies.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) February 28, 2017 11:17 AM  

Tell me what I would be losing half of my toys for and I might be willing to risk them.

I already offered up western civilization and you said no.

Anonymous Grayman February 28, 2017 11:18 AM  

@109 Bill

Having a little girl who sees you as her whole world is worth more than any quantity of money, possessions or power. It redefines your entire concept of what is important.
Frankly I didnt care much about the concept or viability of "white culture" until i had a daughter and had to think about what that implied for her future.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) February 28, 2017 11:19 AM  

Having a little girl who sees you as her whole world is worth more than any quantity of money, possessions or power. It redefines your entire concept of what is important.

Amen

Anonymous Gen. Kong February 28, 2017 11:20 AM  

Kevin wrote:
So what happens when these contracts dissolve and children are involved? The same system that manages divorce will manage these contracts as if they were marriages. The courts will manage them as if they were marriages. And for all but the very richest these will be standardized contracts. While there might be some advantage by abandoning the field to legal contracts but it also doesn't matter. It's mostly a retreat after gays got what they wanted. This will likely further dissolve marriage among the under classes.

I expect the underlying purpose of this is something you're missing: Should this bill become law, the LGBT-SJW nexus will have a much more difficult time forcing churches to allow ceremonies for gay marriages to be performed. (This was always the next step, by the way). #33 Big Bill's point raised is an interesting one and no doubt Orthodox Jews and Musloid graybeards will move to take control over their own marriages. Unfortunately, as someone else above noted, Christianity is dead for all intents and purposes in Alabama as it is in the west generally. Hi-Fellatin' Franny and his minions will be happy to allow performances of Sodomite marriages - though at first it would be only under a consent-decree to "accommodation" lawsuits like the one presently under way in OH. The rest of the institutional church is already largely owned by the Churchians and Cucks, whose noblest act is to bow before those who are dedicated to the final destruction of the church.

I expect the law will have scant effect on the family courts and their effect upon the marriages of nominal Christians, for the reasons above. Muslims and Orthodox Jews suffered far less under the SJW-operated family courts as it stood, and their positions will be enhanced. Keep also in mind how thoroughly converged law itself is. Things are nearly as bad as the old joke about the Almighty threatening to bring suit against Satan, whose immediate response was "…. and just where do you think you'll get a lawyer?"

Anonymous Bobby Farr February 28, 2017 11:20 AM  

@109 As you admitted a few posts ago to being in the process of going through the divorce grinder and making many mistakes, spewing insults from a high horse isn't a convincing pose. You could have responded to Michael that his fears are overblown and what you've learned from going through the process (apparently unprepared). Refusing to acknowledge the bias of the process and encouraging men to plow ahead, while dismissing prenups as whining and cowardly, is irresponsible.

Anonymous Eric the Red February 28, 2017 11:28 AM  

I don't see how this is winning anything for the right. Now instead of collectively suing churches to perform LGBTXYZ marriages, leftists will simply sue as required.

What would really torpedo the progressive agenda is the end of no-fault divorces. As it stands now, any greedy irrational so-called wife can take her unsuspecting husband to the cleaners for no reason whatsoever, and the state will cheerfully help her do it.

Anonymous The OASF February 28, 2017 11:32 AM  

"This reflects, in part, the implosion of the nation. But it also demonstrates the inferiority of most modern men."

Yes, and the few remaining real men have told the 100 percent divorce rate culture to go f*ck itself, and reasoned that "I'll just stick with eye candy in the passenger seat of the Dodge Hemi."

Good point Vox, well said!

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) February 28, 2017 11:44 AM  

Yes, and the few remaining real men have told the 100 percent divorce rate culture to go f*ck itself, and reasoned that "I'll just stick with eye candy in the passenger seat of the Dodge Hemi."

Real men have heirs

Blogger Nate February 28, 2017 11:54 AM  

"Yes, and the few remaining real men have told the 100 percent divorce rate culture to go f*ck itself, and reasoned that "I'll just stick with eye candy in the passenger seat of the Dodge Hemi."

Well that's some grade A bullshit right there.

I've been married for 20 years. My parents have been married for 60. Their parents, on either side, were never divorced. Generations of my line have never divorced.

100% does not mean what you think it means.

Blogger The Remnant February 28, 2017 11:54 AM  

The problem with "marriage" today is that, regardless of the success or failure of any particular one, the institution itself as it currently exists is evil. I don't fault men for refusing to partake in it, as men are tasked by God with identifying and resisting evil regardless of what fruits it might bear.

Yes, civilization depends on keeping the future generations coming. But civilization also depends on keeping a stern eye on promoting good and resisting evil. If a subset of men are choosing a solitary path similar to that of many early Christians, they indeed are doing their part in the fight for civilization.

Blogger Nate February 28, 2017 11:55 AM  

"Alabama will still be required to recognize other states' marriages unaltered. Contractual law applies."

you don't understand the point of the law.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 11:55 AM  

"Now they're not willing to risk losing half their toys."

If that's all it were a matter of you would be right. I have pointed out many times that even if a man loses all his toys, he is a man - he can go out and acquire new ones.

Many a man has put everything he has on a game of pitch and toss, lost, and started all over again to acquire a new fortune.

But that is not all that it is a matter of.

You need to do some research and perhaps gain some actual experience of the American family court system. I have appeared (not as a matter of my own divorce), an old friend specializes as a Guardian ad Litem and a family court judge has been a colleague.

The family court is not there to take half your stuff. It is there to destroy the family, destroy men and institute a matriarchy.

And it is utterly corrupt.

And for most men the juice is not worth the squeeze, because there is no juice. They can reproduce, but they cannot have children. Children are the property of the state and in the default custody of the mother.

To save Western Civ this system must be destroyed, because most men will be destroyed by it - even those men who think they are nowhere near it. They still live under the influence. Divorce is not the only symptom of a failed "marriage." It isn't even the primary symptom. The Duluth Model and VAWA fail all "marriages" by default.

Marriage in the west is dead. It was murdered. It does not exist. For men to get married, marriage must be restored.

What exists now is just a fucking meat grinder and taking the state contract is just volunteering to be ground.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) February 28, 2017 11:58 AM  

Yes I'm sure Vox needs you to educate him on the evils of the American judicial system.

So brave, thanks for this.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 11:59 AM  

"Real men have heirs"

No. Father's have heirs.

But if you dig down into the guts of the system, what you will find is that there are no fathers.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 12:00 PM  

"So brave, thanks for this."

You're welcome.

Blogger 1337kestrel February 28, 2017 12:01 PM  

Ashv, there are no "meaningful institutions" the state can turn power over to, because they ceased to exist when the state usurped their power.

Eliminate state marriage, and private marriage will come back. Institutions will be built. They will reflect real conditions, not feminist lobbying efforts.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 12:07 PM  

@126:

There ya go.

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) February 28, 2017 12:09 PM  

Yes, civilization depends on keeping the future generations coming. But civilization also depends on keeping a stern eye on promoting good and resisting evil. If a subset of men are choosing a solitary path similar to that of many early Christians, they indeed are doing their part in the fight for civilization.

If the mgtow want to take vows of poverty and chastity and dedicate their lives to prayer, bible study, and brewing beer, you would be correct.

Blogger Nate February 28, 2017 12:13 PM  

Dear God muh mgtow!!!!! Its the new sportsball.

Blogger Nate February 28, 2017 12:15 PM  

"
If the mgtow want to take vows of poverty and chastity and dedicate their lives to prayer, bible study, and brewing beer, you would be correct. "

MGTOW are the cuckservatives of the Alt-Right.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 12:16 PM  

"If the mgtow want to take vows of poverty and chastity and dedicate their lives to prayer, bible study, and brewing beer, you would be correct."

https://mundabor.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/crusader.jpg

Blogger Bill Smith February 28, 2017 12:48 PM  

If the mgtow want to take vows of poverty and chastity and dedicate their lives to prayer, bible study, and brewing beer, you would be correct.

Instead the dedicate themselves to their own pleasure.

Blogger The Kurgan February 28, 2017 1:16 PM  

Michael Thompson,
Your life is sad. And I speak as someone who has endless trouble more than you ever have had.

Blogger Robert What? February 28, 2017 1:21 PM  

I don't understand why people keep referring to marriage as a "contract". It has almost none of the attributes of a real contract. One of the major differences is the lack of legal "consideration". As a result, modern American marriage has effectively become indentured servitude for the man.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 28, 2017 1:26 PM  

@kfg
Sometimes there is no good answer, and you have to go with the least bad. But yeah, until the evils of the current system can be reversed, it's important to, at a minimum, go into it with your eyes open, and some knowledge of female psychology/ "game" if it does not come to you naturally. Not just your possessions, but your access to your own children, and your freedom, will be entirely subject to the whim of another.

"..because there is no juice." Not sure about that observation. The juice seem to be a major part of the current problem.

Blogger Redd Castle February 28, 2017 1:30 PM  

Not sure if the question has been asked but what happens to the rules of the second set of books handed to the man by the state upon divorce. How does the property, gifts and prizes now get handled?

Anonymous Cary February 28, 2017 1:35 PM  

Jennifer Roback Morse changed my mind on this by pointing out that the public function of marriage is to attach children to mothers and fathers. And that removing the state on the front end won't keep it from being even more involved on the back end, just as courts have gotten more involved in private lives post no fault divorce.

See her three articles in The Public Discorse where she lays out the argument starting here:

http://www.thepublicdiscourse.com/2012/04/5069/

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey February 28, 2017 1:40 PM  

@Robert What?

"It has almost none of the attributes of a real contract. One of the major differences is the lack of legal "consideration"."

True, though it does resemble a contract in some other ways. Perhaps the closest legal analogy would be a partnership? It does differ significantly in how it is interpreted by the court system. There are no "no fault" contracts. There is no contract where the party who breaks the terms of the agreement is rewarded by the court system for doing so.

For that matter, there is no other aspect of law that involves such frequent and capricious incarceration of one of the parties involved in a civil dispute.

Anonymous The OASF February 28, 2017 2:33 PM  

"Well that's some grade A bullshit right there.

I've been married for 20 years. My parents have been married for 60. Their parents, on either side, were never divorced. Generations of my line have never divorced."

Oh let me run for my kleenex box, the tears are just too much.

No wonder we kicked your ass in the Civil War, just ain't got that killer instinct no matter how hard you fake it!

And let my razor sharp memory harken back many years to when Mr. Day wrote on this blog that he DID NOT BLAME THE MEN OF THE WEST AT ALL FOR NOT GETTING MARRIED. ALTHOUGH, YEAH, HE GOT MARRIED... I could sift through the archives for the original post, but you get the jist?

I suppose that when the expatraite European paradise begins to fill up with those darn, pesky, murderous brownskins - then all marriage matters.

I could not care less about the flip/flop... but don't group all of we who reject the 100 PERCENT DIVORCE RATE CULTURE into yet another basket of deplorables.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 3:01 PM  

@135: "The juice seem to be a major part of the current problem."

I'm talking about heirs. A legacy. Perhaps even the chance at a dynasty. Let men be fathers and men will have children, build them houses and generate civilization.

Take away fatherhood, and they will play video games.

VD does not run VP because he is an average man. Nobody who comments here is an average man. But to win a population war the average man must have children. To win a civilization war those children must be raised civilized.

And that requires commodity and civilizational resources to accomplish. Resources that have been and are being stolen. When a man loses "half his toys," they aren't destroyed in battle, they are taken by the enemy to supply itself. When we send them to the schools of the other side, circa three quarters of them are lost to the other side.

Logistics, logistics, logistics. Do those logistics smell like victory to you? It will take 90% of men building real families to win. Throwing 90% of men into a meat grinder isn't a winning strategy, less so when every man down not only weakens our side, but strengthens theirs even more.

C'est magnifique mais c'est pas la guerre.

Equality is a myth. That goes for the men of our side as well. Just because there are men who can form an elite squadron of shock cavalry doesn't mean that all men can. The top 10% of men are going to have to fight to give the bottom 90% a chance in the following infantry battle. Thumbing your nose at the peasants as "losers" is not what will inspire them to fight.

Give them a reason. Something they can see to be gained by it. Then they'll fight.

Nor are we going to win any population war against Asia, Africa and Latin America. The West did not come to dominate the world because it outbred the world. It came to dominate the world because a handful of Western men could dominate millions not of the West.

The problem is that now it refuses to dominate even its own home. Give men of the West a home and they will fill it with family.

" . . . the public function of marriage is to attach children to mothers and fathers."

The function of marriage is to build inheritance, which builds families, which builds nations. It's all about heirs. So that there's some point to the whole thing beyond eating, shitting and fucking 'til you die.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 3:08 PM  

. . .ce n'est pas la guerre.

Anonymous Erle February 28, 2017 3:22 PM  

Its purely to do with gay marriage... now the state doesn't have to get involved in marriage -straight, gay or what ever flavor is next. Thats the way it should have always been. Its a civil union for all. if you want the religious sacrament, that is a different thin g all together.

It will not change divorce much -- although thinking on if a standard form contract is developed it could pre-negotiate the exit strategy/termination of the contract and save money on lawyers in some cases...

The Muslims have the most civilized divorce -- talag, talag , talag .... and then chop off her head for good measure in case she didn't hear you.....

Blogger Robert What? February 28, 2017 3:31 PM  

@Francis Parker Hockey,

You said a mouthful. There is also no way to determine when and if the terms of the "contract" have been satisfied. And the Termination Clause is a doozy - for him: death, for her: until she tires of it.

Anonymous Wes February 28, 2017 3:41 PM  

"Nor are we going to win any population war against Asia, Africa and Latin America. The West did not come to dominate the world because it outbred the world. It came to dominate the world because a handful of Western men could dominate millions not of the West."

Its never been a population war .. there a a billion Chinese, we always make sure we have 250,000x as many rounds of ammo (I saw an article which says the US army used 250k rounds per kill in iraq/afgan ,, and I thought NYPD were bad shots with 130 rounds to kill one immigrant). We don't win wars on population .. we have force multipliers that allow a few men to kill a lot of enemies... hell we don't even need to put elite men on the battle field anymore - you have pimpled face video game trained kid pilots back in Ohio flying drones in Syria...and if you haven't seen the Boston Dynamics robots yet-- we are just a few decades and a better power source away from not even needing soldiers.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 4:06 PM  

"I saw an article which says the US army used 250k rounds per kill in iraq/afgan ,,"

We do not fight to kill. The .223 round was selected for its low lethality.

When the West was at its peak, the West won because it had a top tenors, for sure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVW5rjA5O7U

When a sufficient number of Western men are willing to do this again in defense of their own homes, then the West can be restored. Even Pete Seeger endorsed the philosophy of defending civilization by putting a rifle behind every blade of grass around home.

Blogger Artisanal Toad February 28, 2017 4:07 PM  

Context is everything.

In 1878 the Supreme Court ruled in Meister v Moore that marriage licenses were "merely directory" because marriage was a natural right. "Directory" means it's nothing more than a polite suggestion with no invalidating consequences for the disregard of such a law. That is still current case-law and applies to every state of the Union.

My question is how this change in Alabama law would effect downstream determinations in courts, specifically with respect to child custody and child support. Judging from history, it's always the major republican (conservative) victories that bring about the huge changes for the worse. Witness the "Republican Revolution" of 1994.

The real issue in Alabama is Article 1 Section 20 of the constitution, which states:

"That no person shall be imprisoned for debt."

The fact is, the peonage laws made pursuant to the 13th Amendment of the Federal Constitution also forbid jailing individuals for debt, which means that any federal laws or regulations that might call for criminal penalties for non-payment of child support are null and void.

In order to get around the constitutional prohibition on jailing people for their inability to pay ordered child support, Alabama judges use the legal fiction of ordering the individual to pay and then jailing them for contempt when they can't obey the judges' order.

This is a class-action lawsuit of massive proportions just waiting to happen and I wonder how this change in making marriage licenses no longer a "requirement" would impact that.

Blogger Michael Thompson February 28, 2017 4:30 PM  

"If the mgtow want to take vows of poverty and chastity and dedicate their lives to prayer, bible study, and brewing beer, you would be correct.

Instead the dedicate themselves to their own pleasure."

Not, necessarily. Better to say they dedicate themselves to themselves. Life is certainly more enjoyable without someone else in my else, but that has very little to do with pleasure and more to do with peace.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 4:33 PM  

"Alabama judges use the legal fiction of ordering the individual to pay and then jailing them for contempt when they can't obey the judges' order."

And calling them "Deadbeat Dads" for not being able to meet an order that was literally impossible to comply with.

For many men it isn't about half your stuff, it's about all of your stuff, plus all of the stuff you will ever have, plus 10%, plus interest, then jail. Because the court orders your income.

With the support due continuing to accrue while you are in jail without income.

The system doesn't appear to make any damned sense, until you realize what its purpose actually is.

Hint: It ain't the support of children.

Blogger SirHamster February 28, 2017 4:49 PM  

Michael Thompson wrote:"... Instead the dedicate themselves to their own pleasure."

Not, necessarily. Better to say they dedicate themselves to themselves. Life is certainly more enjoyable without someone else in my else, but that has very little to do with pleasure and more to do with peace.


Themselves and their personal peace is their own pleasure. You're refuting one possible definition of "pleasure" and missing other applicable ones.

Not helping your case with that defense.

Blogger Michael Thompson February 28, 2017 5:03 PM  

SirHamster wrote:Michael Thompson wrote:"... Instead the dedicate themselves to their own pleasure."

Not, necessarily. Better to say they dedicate themselves to themselves. Life is certainly more enjoyable without someone else in my else, but that has very little to do with pleasure and more to do with peace.


Themselves and their personal peace is their own pleasure. You're refuting one possible definition of "pleasure" and missing other applicable ones.

Not helping your case with that defense.


I'm not really trying to make a 'case.' If you want to be married, be married. If you want to be divorced, be divorced. Basically, the only rationale anyone today has provided for entering into the contract at all is that it, in some small, nebulous way, will help 'western civilization,' which is a notion so abstract that it's nearly meaningless. Really? Even if we ignore all of the reasons I wouldn't want to be married, unless you can give me something a little more definite than that, I don't really see any benefit for anyone - not only for myself, but for whatever hypothetical woman who gets roped into this contract, or frankly for the society at large.

And if you want me to make sacrifices, you need to at least sell me on the notion that the sacrifice will be for some higher ideal. People give their lives for a nation because they believe in their nation. People don't sell themselves into indentured servitude for the next 20-25 years of their lives because traditionalists believe that married life is the only life worth having.

Anonymous kfg February 28, 2017 5:18 PM  

re Michael Thompson's comment #150:

Q.E.D.

In any case, there have always been confirmed bachelors and always will be. Some of them have given their lives for God and Country instead of to a family.

It isn't really Mr. Thompson you have to convince. It is women. If there are wives available, the bulk of men will take wives, but there is rather more to being a wife than simply getting married and rather more to being a mother than pumping out rugrats.

How do you suppose the left won in the first place? Read Engels. Then read Friedan. Do something about that and it won't matter if Mr. Thompson ends up taking a wife or no.

Enough men will.

Blogger RC February 28, 2017 6:18 PM  

Note that most of those who've divorced were not red-pilled before marriage. A fully red-pilled man who steps into marriage with the care it deserves has scant chance of having an unwanted divorce foisted upon him and for many reasons. Will. Not. Happen.

Blogger newanubis February 28, 2017 6:44 PM  

As a younger man I recall railing against the state's involvement in virtually every aspect of my day. It was no more highly pronounced than when we discovered a blood test would be required before my cupcake and i could marry.
Talk about a human head turning I.E.D..and the upshot was that I refused marriage being unwilling/unable to capitulate to the ominous edicts.

Blogger Joe A. February 28, 2017 7:07 PM  

Excellent policy. I wonder what the massive negro population in Alabama thinks of this.

Blogger Abyssus Invocat February 28, 2017 8:00 PM  

This is an important step. Beware however the path taken in New Zealand whereby simply cohabiting for a requisite period (usually 3 years) creates a de facto domestic partnership subject to the same predationsbof the divorce courts as a state sanctioned marriage.

Blogger Scott H. March 01, 2017 3:04 AM  

If the marriage isn´t state recognised then the dissolution of same should be a private matter (at most affected by any existing contracts between the two parties). Of course the state will swoop in an invalidate any contract it deems disadvantageous to any female so they got that going for them.

Blogger SirHamster March 01, 2017 3:41 AM  

Michael Thompson wrote:I'm not really trying to make a 'case.' If you want to be married, be married. If you want to be divorced, be divorced. Basically, the only rationale anyone today has provided for entering into the contract at all is that it, in some small, nebulous way, will help 'western civilization,' which is a notion so abstract that it's nearly meaningless. Really? Even if we ignore all of the reasons I wouldn't want to be married, unless you can give me something a little more definite than that, I don't really see any benefit for anyone - not only for myself, but for whatever hypothetical woman who gets roped into this contract, or frankly for the society at large.


If you can't even stand for the case you just made, why should anyone care what you think?

The future Western Civilization belongs to whomever shows up. If you want to opt out, have at it. No one cares about your inability to see any benefit.

Blogger InfoCoder March 01, 2017 10:09 AM  

Gays were used by Gramschi tacticians in trying to deconstruct traditional families. A new addition to bread and circuses.

Blogger BRANDY MELANY March 01, 2017 7:05 PM  


I am Kate James, I promise to share this testimony all over the world once my boyfriend return back to me, and today with all due respect i want to thank DR.MARVIN for bringing joy and happiness to my relationship and my family. I want to inform you all that there is a spell caster that is real and genuine. I never believed in any of these things until i loosed my boyfriend, I required help until i found a grate spell caster, And he cast a love spell for me, and he assured me that I will get my boyfriend back in two days after the spell has been cast. Three days later, my phone rang, and so shockingly, it was my boyfriend who has not called me for past 6 years now, and made an apology for the heart break, and told me that he is ready to be my back bone till the rest of his life with me. DR.MARVIN released him up to know how much i loved and wanted him. And opened his eyes to picture how much we have share together. As I`m writing this testimony right now I`m the most happiest girl on earth and me and my boyfriend is living a happy life and our love is now stronger than how it were even before our break up. So that`s why I promised to share my testimony all over the universe.All thanks goes to DR.MARVIN for the excessive work that he has done for me. Below is the email address in any situation you are undergoing a heart break, and I assure you that as he has done mine for me, he will definitely help you too. MARVINLOVESPLL011@YAHOO.COM .. or MARVINLOVESPELL011@GMAIL.COMthat is his email address bye or you can call is hot line on +2349059897314: his: website:https://marvinlovespells.wordpress.com/

Blogger DonReynolds March 02, 2017 4:25 AM  

One of my former bitter enemies who became one of my best friends was Edward Babbin, who was a combat infantryman in Europe during WWII. When the war ended, there was a considerable delay in getting all the troops transported back to the USA and he spent that time working for the APO (Army Post Office) in Paris. Also working there, were a number of Polish refugee women, who were also hired to handle the Army mail. One of them was named Olga. She and Ed became such good friends that they decided to get married. Because he was still in the US Army, and she was very Roman Catholic, and they were in France.....they had to get married three times on the same day. With permission from the US Army, they married by Army Chaplain. To satisfy the Roman Catholic Church, a French Priest had to perform his version of the marriage. And finally, secular France also required a civil official perform a marriage to satisfy French law. Three weddings in one day. It must have worked, they remained married for a rather long life and he kept delivering the mail, with a career with the US Post Office.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts