You can blame liberal "advocate" judges for this move. What this seems to be a case of is a minority of people seeking to impose their will upon a majority of people and when this happens it can create other unintended consequences that affect everyone.
You might have had an argument if it was a bill sponsored by a democrat. In reality, a minority of probate judges where trying to impose their will on a minority of people. Then all of us got caught up in it.
Senator Greg Albritton, R-Range, the sponsor of the bill said it would allow everyone to get married in their home county, even if the probate judge isn’t currently issuing licenses. Critics said the bill is nothing more than a workaround for judges who don’t want to follow the Supreme Court directive.
It's not the Alabama law itself that I was referring to being created by liberal advocate judges but rather it is my belief that such a work-a-round was created account of advocate judges who sought to redefine the long accepted definition of marriage as being between a man and woman. The minority I was referring to was, of course, homosexuals who sought to be married.
I actually have no problem, under the concept of freedom, if two people that love each other want to live together and thus achieve and get the exact same partner benefits as married couples but that is a function of the government. Marriage I see as a declaration and function of clergy or joining together with God's blessings and that I believe to be of a man and woman and not two of the same gender. I do not believe God ordained marriage between two like sexes or genders and I don't believe that marriage should be redefined because of that. Again if two same gender/sex people want to live together and thus experience the exact same benefits as a married couple experiences due to their union, then I fully support that but I do not support forcing the redefinition of "marriage" to accomplish this.
If we are going to redefine marriage account of like genders wishing to gain the same benefits or to be recognized as being married then why stop there? Why not allow multitudes to be "married" or allow two wives and one husband or two husbands and three wives? Why not allow a man and his dog or cat to be counted together as there is true love there as well. When you open that door to allow redefining of marriage then where do you redraw the lines and what then becomes taboo and what becomes the standard by what this is judged? Again why define marriage as just one individual to one other individual?
In this instance and case marriage was essentially, I believe, redefined by court action rather than legislative action and to that point I suggested that the credit (or blame) for the turmoil and problem is upon liberal advocate judges who seek to redefine long established (by legislation) norms and laws. Again I'm not arguing for declining and refusing two like gender people who wish to live together, as a couple, benefits for those are defined by the government. Marriage though I see as defined from a Spiritual source and thus not subject to interpretation based upon a judges whim.