Federal "diversity jurisdiction" exists to prevent unfair home-court advantage, so why doesn't it apply to family law?
My comments on proposed limited-scope representation rules; your comments due March 1

Alabama senate votes to abolish marriage licensing, celebration requirement, but NOT to separate marriage and state

Alabama's Senate has once again passed this bill, now numbered SB 13. It does not separate marriage from government, but couples will now simply register their marriages with the courts, instead of asking the courts to license them and having to have them formally celebrated and then recorded with the court. Having the marriage celebrated will be optional and the government will not be involved with that. But the state would still keep track of who is married, to the limited extent that it already does. Marriage would still have many legal consequences, including laws on bigamy, divorce and taxes.

UPDATE: It was approved Jan. 25 by a House Committee with an amendment that does not change what it does. Track its progress here.

Similar bills passed the Senate in 2016 and 2017, and one passed Oklahoma's House in 2015.

Currently, all U.S. states require marriage licenses. There is some disastrous misinformation out there saying that not all do, but that is based on some states recognizing common-law marriage, which is very different and can take years to establish; it is no sure substitute for licensing when you want to get married.



Michael Kevin Murphy

I think the Alabama Senate Bill makes good sense as I see no particular authority for any state to be “licensing” marriages. States license hunting angpd fishing and the operation of motor vehicles, among many other things because the state has a legitimate interest in controlling wildlife populations (whether behind the wheel or not). Would some county clerk properly deny a couple marriage license? On what conceivable basis?

The comments to this entry are closed.