Category Archives: law

Alabama Committee Passes Bill to Eliminate Marriage Licenses, Nullify Federal Control in Practice

Vox Day reports and comments:

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“All requirements to obtain a marriage license by the State of Alabama are hereby abolished and repealed.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.

I see the appeal of such a solution; it’s a way around giving in to the progs. Also, it would eliminate the system we have here in Canada where two people of the opposite sex who move in together are declared married according to ‘common law’ after six months or so of cohabiting, which I’ve never liked; why should two individuals who don’t want to get married either reap the benefits / suffer the negatives of legally being united.

Now, I don’t know what effect, in practice, such would have on how the courts would treat divorce, in terms of enforcing shared custody, alimony, division of assets, etc. I can imagine the possibility of legal chaos, flowing from such a change in legislation as this. Not sure, though.

For Alabamans’ (Alabamanians?) sake, if it passes, I hope the experiment goes well for them. Either way, hopefully it will be a decent test case.


Posted by on February 28, 2017 in America, law


Free speech needs some political prisoners

I just read about a case where someone said they’d been ‘working like a Hebrew slave’, and got fined $20,000 for ‘offending’ a colleague.

We’ve heard about various Christian bakers, florists, refusing to do work for gay weddings, ending up hauled in front of ‘human rights tribunals’ (inhumane wrongs kangaroo courts, more like it), and getting fined up to $100,000+, like Barronelle Stutzman in Washington state.

I would love, for once, someone to refuse to pay the fine, on the grounds that the sentence is unjust and unfair.

I would love to see others follow suit.

Not because I want them to suffer unjustly, but they already are going to suffer unjustly if forced to pay exorbitant fines, so (a) let the system pay for them instead of them taking a financial bath, and (b) let more and more people learn about such outrages, and be inspired to work to overturn tyrannical P.C. regimes / legal systems.

It would be my hope that people recognize such imprisoned victims of P.C. tyranny for what they would be – political prisoners – and accordingly be outraged that such things are happening in our supposedly free societies, and work to change things.

Just a thought.


Age of consent should be teenage years

God made humans sexually mature, i.e. physiologically adult, capable of reproducing, when they become teenagers, more or less (can start earlier, but by the time they’re 13, they’re certainly all into puberty, and girls can certainly get pregnant at that age).

In centuries past, many people did marry quite early on; this is documented. There are other cultures where this is still the case; they do not have any conception of ‘adolescence’.

Our extended adolescence and delay of adult responsibilities is stupid. Our laws punishing sexual relations between someone over 18 and someone under 18 but bearing secondary sexual characteristics, able to reproduce, are irrational.

If parents want to protect their children, they need to bring them up right with proper values, and keep them at home until they consider them marriageable. Maybe for some, that isn’t till 18, or 26; for others, maybe at 14, they’re ready. No reason why 18 should be the age; that’s completely arbitrary, and it isn’t when people become physically capable of reproducing.

The laws should be changed. Teach your girls not to be sluts, if you don’t want them fornicating. Encourage them to marry while their fertility is at its peak, rather than delaying for the sake of education and career.

P.S. There should be no such thing as ‘jailbait’; if a teenage girl flirts with an older man, and seduces him, he shouldn’t be criminally liable for engaging in consensual activity with her. Again, if fathers want to protect their daughters, it should be up to them to bring them up right so they don’t fornicate; it shouldn’t be the state’s role to punish men who take advantage of willing, consenting slutty teenage girls.


Posted by on February 24, 2017 in law, Sex


Making bathrooms great again!

Great news on the bathroom wars front of World War T:

The Trump administration will rescind guidance enacted by his predecessor in favour of transgender students, the White House has said.

The Obama-era rule directed public schools to allow transgender pupils to use toilets of their gender identity.

But critics said that guidance was government overreach which threatened other students’ privacy and safety.


Last May, Mr Obama’s justice and education departments instructed public schools to allow transgender students to use whichever bathroom corresponded to their gender identity.

Though not legally binding, Mr Obama’s order warned schools they could lose funding if they did not follow the new guidance.

The directive sparked a backlash across the country, prompting legal challenges from 13 states and a Texas federal judge’s preliminary injunction blocking the department’s position in August.

The Obama administration’s guidance was based on its interpretation of Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education.

Mr Obama argued that protection extended to gender identity.

But Mr Spicer said the previous administration’s guidelines were confusing and too difficult to implement.

During his presidential campaign, Mr Trump said transgender students should be allowed to use whichever bathroom “they feel is appropriate”.

But he reversed his stance after facing Republican criticism.

Conservative activists praised Mr Trump’s impending order, saying it protected student rights to privacy.

“Our daughters should never be forced to share private, intimate spaces with male classmates, even if those young men are struggling with these issues,” said Vicki Wilson, a member of Students and Parents for Privacy.

“It violates their right to privacy and harms their dignity.”

Anyone think Jeb Bush or Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio would have overturned Obama’s legislation?


This is another great victory that the #NeverTrump folks would have denied, letting Hillary continue the Obamadness.


Again, you #NeverTrump types don’t get to celebrate this, because it wasn’t on your ilk.


Praise God, for the Deplorables!


All hail Pepe! 🙂



A fight over an order that would rescind protections for transgender students in public schools has erupted inside the Trump administration, pitting Attorney General Jeff Sessions against the secretary of education, Betsy DeVos.

Ms. DeVos initially resisted signing off on the order and told President Trump that she was uncomfortable with it, according to three Republicans with direct knowledge of the internal discussions. The draft order would reverse the directives put in place last year by the Obama administration to allow transgender students to use the bathrooms of their choice.

Mr. Sessions, who strongly opposes expanding gay, lesbian and transgender rights, fought Ms. DeVos on the issue and pressed her to relent because he could not go forward without her consent. The order must come from the Justice and Education Departments.

Mr. Trump sided with his attorney general, these Republicans said, telling Ms. DeVos in a meeting in the Oval Office on Tuesday that he wanted her to drop her objections. And Ms. DeVos, faced with the choice of resigning or defying the president, has agreed to go along. The Justice Department declined to comment on Wednesday.

Assuming this reporting is true, I am pleased that the president sided with AG Sessions. Though he is broadly pro-LGBT, Trump surely knows that ordering public schools to let transgenders into the bathrooms and locker rooms is not the place to take a stand. Still, it is fascinating — and important — that Betsy DeVos threw down with Jeff Sessions over this stuff. It shows that even within the broad community of conservative Evangelicals, there is no unanimity on this issue. Think about it: the fact that allowing boys who believe they are girls into a high school locker room is even an issue between conservative Evangelical Christians is a sign of the times.

Yes, it is a sign of the times, isn’t it… Evanjellyfish can’t all be counted on to stand firm; apparently not even Trump appointee DeVos! (Let alone #NeverTrump twits like Russell Moore…) But thank God some evangelicals, like Trump appointee Sessions, do…


Polygamy will be legalized; traditionalist Christians will likely be the only religious group to oppose it

Remember the Law of Merited Impossibility: It will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it.

From the comments, we can see one group who won’t join with traditionalist Christians in opposing it:

And no doubt members of any faith which still accepts polygamy won’t oppose its legalization.

(As for other non-Western religionists: did they vocally join in opposing SSM? No. ‘Nuff said.)

Will trad members of The Tribe stick their neck out and join us in opposing it? As with the aforementioned commenter (and as he pointed out), their ancestors used to practice it; I doubt they care that much. And with their more liberal brethren like the author above making the case for it, they’re even less likely to get involved.

Other than some individual allies here and there, we’ll likely be largely alone in our opposition.

Same as we have been, mostly, in all the other culture war battles. (And Democrat-/Liberal-voting racial and ethnic minority Christians are useless, because notwithstanding their personal opinions, they never let such affect their continued solidarity voting for parties which most ardently fight on the other side in the culture war. So it’ll mostly be white Christians fighting the good fight, without even Моrmons on our side in this case.)


Brexit Bill passes!

The expressed will of the British people moves a step closer to becoming reality.

Britain passed the point of no return in its historic battle to cut ties with Brussels tonight as MPs backed the Brexit Bill.

The Commons endorsed the legislation by 498 votes to 114 after the government saw off a desperate bid by more than 100 Remoaners to block it.

In the first of a crucial set of votes in the Commons, a ‘wrecking’ amendment that would have effectively killed the law was defeated by 336 to 100.

The House then gave the Bill its second reading by another huge margin, despite the opposition from Labour MPs, the SNP and most Liberal Democrats.

One Labour MP yelled ‘suicide’ as the result was read out in the chamber.

Go ahead, Remoaner! We won’t stop you. 😉


Posted by on February 1, 2017 in Fuck Yeah!, good news, government, law, The Kulturkampf


Austria to ban full-face veil in public places

Excellent news! 🙂


Several European countries have imposed a full-face veil ban and others are considering it

Austria’s ruling coalition has agreed to prohibit full-face veils in public spaces such as courts and schools.

It is also considering a more general ban on state employees wearing the headscarf and other religious symbols.

“The Faith is Europe and Europe is the Faith.” – Hilaire Belloc