Mississippi Lawmaker Floats Getting Rid Of Marriage Licenses Altogether

House Judiciary Committee B Chairman Andy Gipson, R-Braxton, asks members — particularly those who are attorneys — to study and comment on the proposed changes to Senate Bill 2681, the "Mississippi Religious Free... House Judiciary Committee B Chairman Andy Gipson, R-Braxton, asks members — particularly those who are attorneys — to study and comment on the proposed changes to Senate Bill 2681, the "Mississippi Religious Freedom Restoration Act" before he decides whether to bring the bill up for a vote during a meeting of the committee Thursday, Feb. 27, 2014, at the Capitol in Jackson, Miss. A subcommittee proposed removing parts of the bill that would allow people to refuse service to others based on religious beliefs. If the full committee accepts the changes, the bill would say state government cannot infringe on religious practices. (AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis) MORE LESS
Start your day with TPM.
Sign up for the Morning Memo newsletter

Now that the Supreme Court has ruled that same-sex couples have a right to marry, some state officials are looking into opting out of issuing marriage licenses entirely.

Republican Mississippi state Rep. Andy Gipson, the chairman of the state house judiciary committee, told the Clarion-Ledger that the state is looking into eliminating state marriage licenses.

“One of the options that other states have looked at is removing the state marriage license requirement,” he said. “We will be researching what options there are. I personally can see pros and cons to that. I don’t know if it would be better to have no marriage certificate sponsored by the state or not. But it’s an option out there to be considered.”

Clerks in Mississippi were ordered on Friday not to issue marriage licenses to gay couples until the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals lifts its stay on gay marriage.

Lawmakers in two other states have considered bills that would nix state marriage licenses. Oklahoma legislation would eliminate marriage licenses and instead allow officials to sign off on marriage papers.

A bill in Alabama that would have directed officials sign off on marriage contracts rather than issue marriage licenses died in the state house earlier in June. And two counties in Alabama have stopped issuing marriage licenses following rulings on gay marriage.

In his first comments on the ruling, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) on Sunday also suggested that the government simply stop recognizing all marriages.

“The government should not prevent people from making contracts but that does not mean that the government must confer a special imprimatur upon a new definition of marriage,” he wrote in an op-ed in Time Magazine. “Perhaps the time has come to examine whether or not governmental recognition of marriage is a good idea, for either party.”

Latest Livewire

Notable Replies

  1. Avatar for buck buck says:

    Is this what they’re talking about when they claim SSM will destroy “traditional” marriage?

  2. So, will the State of Mississippi recognize only marriages performed by a church? Do these geniuses not understand that doing that might present just a bit of a Constitutional problem? Or will the State simply remove all laws that grant any sort of preferential status to married people, like tax breaks, inheritance, spousal privilege when giving testimony, etc., etc.?

  3. Avatar for jinnj jinnj says:

    and there were some places where integration “destroyed” the town pool … because once the pool was forced to be open to all residents, the reactionary town fathers closed & bulldozed it so there would be no ‘mixing’ … and that is the convoluted erroneous logic that is being spewed here.

  4. Avatar for jinnj jinnj says:

    uh huh …yep… and when the various major corporation that do business in Mississippi start to say ‘oh you are so crazy, we are moving out of here …’ how long will this last?

  5. Man…this is some seriously petty bullshit, but it falls squarely into the same category as the obstructionist or “we’ll show you!!!” bullshit these bigot motherfuckers tried to pull after Brown v. Board.

    It’s like the 4 year old child who is soooo enamored with a toy when he’s the only on who has it…lording it over everyone on the playground and in the neighborhood and not letting them touch or play with it…but then when everyone gets their own, he suddenly couldn’t give a fuck about it because not being the only one to have it means it’s essentially “broken.”

Continue the discussion at forums.talkingpointsmemo.com

75 more replies

Participants

Avatar for littlegirlblue Avatar for swirlystar Avatar for ncsteve Avatar for radicalcentrist Avatar for fargo116 Avatar for sundancer Avatar for trnc Avatar for xyxox Avatar for steviedee111 Avatar for inlabsitrust Avatar for carlosfiance Avatar for sherlock1 Avatar for ralph_vonholst Avatar for joelopines Avatar for borisjimbo Avatar for ellidc Avatar for Talibaptist Avatar for starquest Avatar for zrx1100 Avatar for linustoo Avatar for darrtown Avatar for buck Avatar for jinnj Avatar for misterneutron

Continue Discussion
Masthead Masthead
Founder & Editor-in-Chief:
Executive Editor:
Managing Editor:
Associate Editor:
Editor at Large:
General Counsel:
Publisher:
Head of Product:
Director of Technology:
Associate Publisher:
Front End Developer:
Senior Designer: