Thursday, July 24, 2014
How did one get married? Knowing what ancient traditions existed, knows the fundamentals of a lawful marriage. Lawful acts are that which if done, harm no one, without sin. Legal is what the government permits, sometimes immoral.
God may call it a sin to take a life, thereby making the act unlawful; government can permit a sin through legal channels, a license to kill i.e. no punishment by the government; still murder is a sin in God’s eyes and it is sanctioned by government; whom are we to obey, honor, and respect; whom are we subject to, God or Government?
A prescriptive and lawful custom overrides the laws of men: therefore, a lawful marriage is God-centered. Whereas, legal marriage is government-centered, or in other words: God-less. The government may license anything, but congress cannot make any law respecting or establish a religion, thus separating church and state, which means, no-god in government licenses.
Ceremony is for community awareness, and witness; she is no longer single, keep your hands off, “give just cause why these two cannot be married, speak now or forever hold your piece”. With the creation of governments, against God’s wishes, as the word of God clearly states, that imposing a government is a rejection of God and world governments belong to the Devil
1986), thus comes the concept of one law for
everyone, for no one is above the law, and the law must be made recognizable by
the governments, of Kings, and of men. It should be noted that this government
has declared the Bible as the “Word
however, the Government cannot pass any law respecting or establishing a
religion. Man can control his own creations, his
own property or that which is his to control; and most often that which he has
no right to control he does so by deception. Render unto God that which is
There is also a sub-common law; tradition based celebrations, such as Hanukkah or Christmas, of which apply to certain communities or religions but not to everyone. Marriages have a Common Law aspect and various forms of sub-common law. We shall examine the Common Law aspect of Marriage, and not upon the varieties of celebrations, announcements, or community traditions.
The basic essentials of a lawful marriage: A man would take a woman into his parents tent, or into his own tent, and they become one. This is considered Common Law, as in any religion, culture, or tradition, this is common, and these undisputable common concepts are called Legal Maxims or Maxim of Law. Ceremonies for the occasion vary greatly between cultures, and religious surroundings differ, or the officiator in front of the two to be married may have different titles, but the act remains the same: the two become one, by consent and desire. The point being, be together as one in Love, you are married.
From the Declaration of Independence it is clear “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”; expressing the Common Law for all; it is a foundational document for the United States of America Constitution. The Constitution is a Common Law document; the Common Law is the Supreme Law of the land. Men control themselves, government controls commerce. Government creates man made laws for mammon-based transactions: commerce. The Common Law is what is common to all people. Examples of Common Law are found in the 10 commandments: example; We may have different opinions of what is a true or false God: no group believes they are to worship false gods; everyone is taught that truth is to be respected and honored: no people claim that it is ok to lie, at least not to their “own kind”; We all believe that life is precious: no group of people, honestly think it is ok to murder their own kind, their own “race”, or their own tribe: many believe it is ok to kill foreigners or aliens. I will not discuss if abortion is murder or not, but I will say that the Government permits this activity, license it, thus you must ask yourself, are you in favor of government license to permit this activity, or, do you choose not to participate in this activity? Only in politics, prejudices, and racism, can foreigners and aliens be created: only in politics can immorality be licensed: God created and Loves his children.
Many believe that “True Marriage” was “the union of one man with one woman for life, for better or worse, in sickness and health, for richer or poorer, in holy obedience to the law and purpose of God, and for the rearing up of pure, virtuous, and modest sons and daughters”. We will examine several situations in history to gain a prior contemporary view on defining what a marriage is; even one of history’s crusaders against corruption, a member of the Liberal Republican Party of the 1850’s; Horace Greeley, an activist, who defined his conception of marriage in a debate; and a look at Judge Valentine decision which took place 35 years later.
In 1853, Horace Greeley defended his conception of marriage as both State-sanctioned and indissoluble, except for adultery, as the only legitimate recognized grounds for divorce. From this conception, Greeley inferred, that if a relationship is not State-sanctioned and not indissoluble, then the marriage cannot count as marriage at all. If, by Greeley’s definition, marriage is a union that is legally indissoluble; and as current U.S. and State laws recognizes no fault divorce as an option, regardless whether or not that option is taken; that means everybody who has a marriage license today is not actually married
In 1886, Kansas’s free-love activists Lillian Harman and Edwin Walker announced their marriage by posting. The marriage is a “wholly private compact” of no concern to anybody but himself or herself. Harman and Walker had conducted their own marriage ceremony without involving either State or clergy. For this impertinence, they were imprisoned
(John, 2004). One of the
presiding judges in the case, Judge Valentine, raised the question whether the
couple’s crime was, living together as a married couple without actually being
married, or getting married but in an illegal fashion. Judge Valentine came
down on the side of living together as a married couple without actually being
married, but on somewhat different grounds from Greeley’s determination: of
which was the idea that a relationship has to be State-sanctioned (John, 2004).
Judge Valentine, unlike Greeley, granted that genuine marriage did not require any ceremony of the State: under Common Law “the mere living together as husband and wife, of a man and woman competent to marry each other, with the honest intention of being husband and wife so long as they both shall live, will constitute husband and wife, and create a valid marriage,” as long as the partners intend that it not be dissolved. In the opinion of Judge Valentine, the union between Edwin Walker & Lillian Harman was no marriage; the parties repudiated nearly everything essential to a valid traditional marriage, and openly avowed this repudiation at the commencement of their union
What “essentials” had Edwin Walker & Lillian Harman repudiated for a valid traditional marriage? In their marriage ceremony, Harman had refused to vow obedience to her husband, refused to vow love unto death, and refused the taking her husband’s last name: “I make no promises that it may become impossible or immoral for me to fulfill, but retain the right to act, always, as my conscience and best judgment shall dictate.” She also added: “I retain, also, my full maiden name, as I am sure it is my duty to do.” Walker for his part vowed, “Lillian is, and will continue to be as free to repulse any and all advances of mine as she has been heretofore. In joining with me in this love and labor union, she has not alienated a single natural right. She remains sovereign of herself, as I of myself, and we repudiate all powers legally conferred upon husbands and wives.” In particular he repudiated any right as husband to control his wife’s property; he also acknowledged his “responsibility to her as regards the care of offspring, if any, and her paramount right to the custody thereof should any unfortunate fate dissolve this union.” Harman’s father added: “I do not ‘give away the bride,’ as I wish her to be always the owner of her person”
(John, 2004). So
basically, they were arrested for living together: imagine how many today would
fill our prisons for living like Walker & Harman; better yet, imagine the
handful that would not be imprisoned.
“If Greeley and Valentine were to time warp their way to the present day, they would see no unions that they would recognize as marriages”
(John, 2004). Even if you
do not agree with either of their viewpoints on marriage, Greeley or Judge
Valentine’s, the fact remains, this couple rejected all aspects of a marriage,
by word, intent, and deed, but was it proper to be imprisoned? Whom did they
harm? How would this protect others? I leave this up to the reader.
I will say that the taking of the last name is a more modern tradition. Since about the 13th to 17th century was it common to have last or family names, or in some cultures, as in China, the first name is the family name, which started around 1600 BC. The last name designates the Estate, personal attributes, location of origin, occupation, parentage, patronage, adoption, or clan affiliation. Women take the last name as they become one with the husbands Estate. An estate is property and everything owned or in his possession, including his/her body.
Marriage has always been a Common Law action. Few States still recognize Common Law marriages; no State, Government, or community has ever outlawed a Common Law Marriage. The reality is, all that the man would have to say, “she is my wife”, and she claims, “he is my husband”; sign a registration in a hotel as Mr. & Mrs.; live together for 7 years, or claim you have. In other words, be together as one. A legal maxim of law is “consent, and not coition (or sharing a bed), constitutes nuptials (marriage), and people cannot consent before marriageable years.”
(Garner, 1999). Marriageable
years differ between States and Countries. Today, governments call living
together without a marriage license, “co-habitation”, it is the way of the
As kingdoms and men of wealth (commerce) had more to lose if someone is found out not to be their child, as fathers wanted to leave their wealth to their children, maximums of law were developed as follows: A lawful son and heir is he whom the marriage declares to be lawful; The father is the man whom the marriage indicates; This expresses the idea that a child born to a married woman is presumed begotten her husband; For lack of one blood, he cannot be heir; The blood of the father and of the mother are but one inheritable blood, and both are necessary to procreation of an heir; The lawful heir is the one whom the marriage indicates (i.e., who is born in wedlock)
In addition, men sometimes forced women to be their wives; as virgins were considered sacred, to lose ones virginity was considered the worse of sins out of wedlock for a woman. It was believed the husband could not rape his wife; even if by force, but one would have to have a valid marriage to begin with. Likewise, if a wealthy man cheated on his wife and had a bastard child, the child was still an heir; The law of England rules that the offspring always follows the condition of the father, never that of the mother
(Black, 1891). However, if
the couple was not married or she was unfaithful: The
offspring follows the condition of the mother (literally, the womb) (Black, 1891), as the
father would be unknown. The poor did not have inheritance liabilities.
What we can gather from this is that it does not have to be State sanction; your intentions are for life, in holy obedience to the law and purpose of God, and for the rearing up sons and daughters. You join as one flesh, you are one flesh, and unto death do you part. Retain the God given right of marriage of which has never been delegated to the States. No ceremony, no license, no clergy are needed; you declare you are married and become one as you stand before God. Those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder. You cannot challenge such a claim of marriage as that would divide the marriage, unless of course, one is mentally incompetent, underage, married to someone else, or some other valid disability to prevent entering into a marriage contract. If both agree they are married, who has the authority to challenge it? God said, let me people go, and he meant it. Speak now of forever hold your piece!
 The United States Constitution: 1st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
 1Samuel 8:6-7 But the thing displeased Samuel, when they said, Give us a king to judge us. And Samuel prayed unto the LORD. And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.
 Congress Declares The Bible “The Word Of God” Public Law 97-280 96 STAT.1211.
 The United States Constitution Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
 Mark 12:17 Jesus said unto them, Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s.
 Genesis 24:67 And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her: and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.
 Exodus 22:16 And if a man entice a virgin that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely pay a dowry for her to be his wife.
 Endowed: provide with a quality, ability, or asset.
 Unalienable: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor:
 The Common Law is the real law, the Supreme Law of the land , the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are “not the law”, Self v. Rhay, 61 Wn (2d) 261
 United States Constitution; Article VI paragraph 2: Supreme law of land.
 United States Constitution; Article I, Section 8 paragraph 3: The Congress shall have Power; To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.
 Born of parents not married to each other: illegitimate.
 ULC v. US 372 F.Supp. 770
 The United States Constitution Amendment IX: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
 The United States Constitution Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
 United States Constitution; Article I, Section 10 paragraph 1: No State shall make any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.
 Exodus 7:26: And the Lord spoke unto Moses, go unto Pharaoh, and say unto him, thus saith the Lord, Let my people go, that they may serve me.