Marriage License

Today we have marriage license, it is the way of the world, and most people, have not a clue as to the history, reason, or origin behind the marriage license. This is the beginning of altering traditions for the betterment of people’s desire. Only in reality, altering their perception of what are valid marriages, and their relationship with God.

Beginning in the late seventeenth century, laws were passed forbidding marriage between whites and blacks, discriminating against the mixed offspring of informal liaisons (Caldwell, 2013). This shows how far some people will go to separate society, slaves, and masters. With slavery came the emergence of race. Socially, previously people’s appearance and origins had not mattered, particularly among the working class; religion was the reason for persecution, not race. If there were never any slaves, would race have been such a massive issue? “Extreme racist propaganda, which represented black males as ravening beasts lusting after white women, served to rationalize the practice of lynching” slaves or any black man (Caldwell, 2013).

The “license” root is from licentiousness:[1] licentious (adj.): “morally unrestrained: wickedness”. The legal definition of a “license” is permission to do an act of which without such permission would be illegal (or immoral): issued by a fiction (corporation, government entity, etc.) is a permit rendered to another fiction (legal entity) to do what would be otherwise against nature’s law: allow a fiction to rule over truth (Duff, 2013). A “marriage license” is defined as, “A license or permission granted by public authority (not God) to persons who intend to intermarry.” “Person” is defined as: a fictitious entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties. “Intermarry” is defined as, “Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages” (Garner, 1999): it is the way of the world, not God’s way.

Denying marriages of those that love each other, for no other reason than “race”, was considered the right of the State, Church, or community. As such, anyone can deny any service to anyone of an interracial marriage due to it being claimed as illegal or immoral. The claim of illegal or immoral marriages between those that loved each other allowed the denying of housing, food, jobs, and basic living: forcing people into criminal activity to survive. None-the-less, denial of the right to marry is against the right of “all men to pursue happiness” and thus repugnant. In addition, as all crimes are commercial,[2] of which is commerce, and the United States has the right to regulated commerce,[3] prevent criminal activity; therefore, agents of the government could step in to end the brutality of people toward interracial marriage by way of the license; giving the government the ability to control how their property is being treated. You cannot license what God controls.

Before 1923: the marriage license was not common, Common Law marriages were valid. All marriages were performed religiously or contractually and written in the records of the family Bible. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages “miscegenation” as long as those marrying received a license. This is not to say it was a bad idea; for at the time, as those whom God hath joined together let no man put asunder, was being put asunder by men and women who wanted to keep their race pure.[4]

When you enter into a license, contract, with the government, you become their property to control and how others treat you, i.e. you no longer belong to God. While you cannot force a Church to perform the marriage, nor a community to accept mixed marriages, the government could demand the States allow these marriages, and for businesses not to discriminate, as this is an issue in commerce, (mammonism) of which governments control. If, it for the protection of the people, then the “higher powers”, are doing God’s work.

Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act,[5] one law for all. By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws. Thereby, replacing God as the authority over the marriage, as one can only choose one master. Remember that annoying 1^st amendment, in which they cannot pass any laws respecting or establishing a religion? Therefore, the Marriage License Act is by its nature, is without God.

Today the world has changed, being more acceptable of mixed marriages, why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something, which God instituted?[6]  (Trewhella, 2001). In addition, if you are not considered a different “race”, you are bearing false witness before God Almighty by obtaining a license meant for the commercial protection of miscegenation and committing perjury to the “higher powers”.

Having the authority to marry also gives the right to prohibit or destroy (divorce). This is why the first amendment gives no authority over religion.[7] The State cannot grant a “God-given right to marry” without violating the 1^st, 9^th, 10^th, amendments, as well as State Constitutions. Therefore, the marriage license is not religious in any way, shape, or form; based on separation of Church and State. As long as the authorities are in alignment with the Common Law, i.e. the law of God, there is no conflict. However, the marriage license is based in false premise of “Races” fornicating; and is created by the State at the demand of the people: it is thus bound on earth[8] as a rejection of a God-centered marriage. When the laws of Man conflict with the supreme law of the land,[9] it is our duty to rebel against it,[10] or, at the very least, not participate in non-God centered activities.

A marriage license is made in the image of its creator, the government, i.e. State; which is an artificial entity; a fiction; a soulless creation; a corporation, i.e. “person.” Under Oregon Revised Statutes (ORS) 106.010 “Marriage is a civil contract entered into in person by males at least 17 years of age and females at least 17 years of age, who are otherwise capable, and solemnized in accordance with ORS…”. Males and females enter into a state of being in an artificial (soulless) entity, “entered into in person”: Governments are not to regulate people; they are to regulate commerce, businesses, and their own employees, thus they can issue a license to a fiction: your marriage: as you are Persons under the law.

Therefore, a marriage license issued by the State “Marriage is a civil contract entered into in person” is a rejection of God. The scripture is very clear that God is no “respecter of persons”:

·      2 Samuel 14:14: “For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; neither doth God respect any person: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him”.

·      2 Chronicles 19:7: “Wherefore now let the fear of the LORD be upon you; take heed and do it: for there is no iniquity with the LORD our God, nor respect of persons, nor taking of gifts”.

·      Acts 10:34: “Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons”.

·      Romans 2:11: “For there is no respect of persons with God”.

·      Galatians 2:6: “But of these who seemed to be somewhat, (whatsoever they were, it maketh no matter to me: God accepteth no man’s person:) for they who seemed to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me”.

·      Ephesians 6:9: “And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him”.

·      Colossians 3:25: “But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath done: and there is no respect of persons”.

The scripture says that if we have respect of persons, we commit sin transgress God’s Law:

·      Leviticus 19:15: “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor”.

·      Deuteronomy 1:17: “Ye shall not respect persons in judgment; but ye shall hear the small as well as the great; ye shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s: and the cause that is too hard for you, bring it unto me, and I will hear it”.

·      Deuteronomy 16:19: “Thou shalt not wrest judgment; thou shalt not respect persons, neither take a gift: for a gift doth blind the eyes of the wise, and pervert the words of the righteous”.

·      Proverbs 24:23: “These things also belong to the wise. It is not good to have respect of persons in judgment”.

·      Proverbs 28:21: “To have respect of persons is not good: for for a piece of bread that man will transgress”.

The dictionary defines “respecter” as a person who has a high regard for someone or something. Here is an example of what is meant by respecter of person.

·      James 2:1-9: “My brethren, hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with respect of persons. For if there come into your synagogue a man with a gold ring, in fine clothing, and there come in also a poor man in vile clothing; and ye have regard to him that weareth the fine clothing, and say, Sit thou here in a good place; and ye say to the poor man, Stand thou there, or sit under my footstool; do ye not make distinctions among yourselves, and become judges with evil thoughts? Hearken, my beloved brethren; did not God choose them that are poor as to the world to be rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he promised to them that love him? But ye have dishonored the poor man. Do not the rich oppress you, and themselves drag you before the judgment-seats? Do not they blaspheme the honorable name by which ye are called? Howbeit if ye fulfill the royal law, according to the scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, ye do well: but if ye have respect of persons, ye commit sin, being convicted by the law as transgressors”.

Does God contradict himself? Let us look more closely:

·      Leviticus 19:15: Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbor.

In other words, we are not to respect someone just because they are the president, or a police officer, or a banker, or a priest, or wealthy, these are the ‘persons of men’ We are to respect men because of what is in their hearts, not because of their image. Jesus did not accept the person of any, neither should we.

·      Luke 20:21: “And they asked him, saying, Master, we know that thou sayest and teachest rightly, neither acceptest thou the person of any, but teachest the way of God truly”. Person is not of God.

If the term “person” is synonymous with “man”, then there is a contradiction in the scripture, because throughout scripture, God specifically says he does respect man! For example:

·      “The LORD had respect unto Abel”: Genesis 4:4.

·      God had respect “upon the children of Israel”: Exodus 2:25.

·      I Am the Lord “For I will have respect unto you”, Leviticus 26:9.

·      “And the LORD was gracious unto them, and had compassion on them, and had respect unto them” 2 Kings 13:23.

·      God has “respect unto the lowly”: Psalms 138:6.

·      It is written, “Honor all men”: 1 Peter 1:17.

Therefore, “person” and “man” is not the same. However, in the same breath, Paul tells the first century believers to hold Timothy in honor: Philippians 2:29. Obviously, “persons” and “men” cannot be synonymous terms. As “Person” can be either the poor, lowly, or the mighty, it would have to be in conjunction with mammon, wealth. Corporations are created for the purpose commerce for profit. Profit is charging excess of the value. Persons of wealth tend to oppress men, James 2:5-5 “Hearken, my beloved brethren, Hath not God chosen the poor of this world rich in faith, and heirs of the kingdom which he hath promised to them that love him? But ye have despised the poor. Do not rich men oppress you, and draw you before the judgment seats?”

Therefore, if the Government grants the license, you claim the State owns you. You reject God being a part of your marriage, as you become “person” in a civil marriage. Government is about commerce, Mammon, wealth; God is about Love: How many masters can you serve? Since I have been given power of attorney to do all acts in the name of my King,[11] I therefore can create my own marriage certificate/license, either as officiator or Groom, and the “higher powers” (courts) have supported this. As long as it is in line with the Common Law, it is valid.

The courts view both sides. If you involved in commerce for profit, have rejected God, embraced mammon, subject yourself to man’s law, entered into a contract with the government (marriage license), you are a “person”. Just as the State-code says: entered into in person by males and females: not men and women. As all animals, monsters, creatures etc… are separated into male and female terminology. Be men and women that have God’s respect.

You not only marry your spouse with a state issued marriage license, you also marry the state.[12] This is proven in Ohio, published by the Ohio Bar association- the subtitle “Marriage Vows” states, “Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife; 3. The State of Ohio.” Whose has not heard “by the power invested into me by the State of…? I now pronounce you husband and wife” (Trewhella, 2001).

Thus, the government has authority over its creations, persons, or corporations, as it involves commerce, and the fruit (profit) of the corporation; this is where the state gets authority over your children (fruit or profit of the government created fiction). You do not like what the school teaches, what they are exposed to, what they may eat or do, “your marriage license and their birth certificates” give the state the authority to do as they will, even that which is against your beliefs; for they are your masters[13] ^{(Trewhella, 2001)}. This is not done in Heaven, it should not be done on Earth, and this is not the Will of the Father.[14] “If you were made free, by your death with Christ, from the rules of the world, why do you put yourselves under the authority of orders” (Ryrie, 1986).[15] Why is it illegal to have a God-centered marriage? Is the government at war with God? Who side are you on? If you do what the world does, what sets you apart as being different, one of God’s children?

When would a license be legitimate? Do I have the right to copy what others create for profit? Mickey Mouse is a well-known fictional character; could I copy the image and sell it to others without permission from the owner or one who has the copyrights? I would need permission from Disney, a license, to sell, create, or display these images for profit. United States regulates commerce; they can and will enforce, and protect copyrights laws. Disney may have a set of requirements before granting such a license; they may want a straight fee, a percentage of the profits, or some other arrangement. None-the-less, Disney, who is the owner of the images, needs to grant the license. Who is your master?

God intended daughters to have their father’s blessing (or that of a close male family member) regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers.[16] We have a vestige of this in our culture today: in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, “Who gives this woman to be married to this man?” This use to be a requirement from time immemorial, however, now it is just a motion we go through, if we do that much: some will elope; traditions lost. The marriage license allows the government to give permission, as master, parent, and owner, removing God-given parental authority.

I do not accept that the State has the ability to marry, or the right to determine anyone’s ability to marry anyone, or perform such activity. Where in the constitutions have the people given the government the ability to perform marriages of any kind? Where in the Constitutions have the people been denied the ability to perform marriages without the State’s approval? If they have the authority, and you are to blindly obey the authority, they can choose all aspects of whom and reasons for anyone to marry anyone of their choosing. As for me, God comes first regardless; anything repugnant to the Common Law is invalid. Anyone claiming authority to perform a marriage by the State is committing an act of treason to the constitution, and at WAR with God.

As the Supreme Court has invalidated a key part of voting rights act of the Civil rights era stating, “For a half century, a concerted effort has been made to end racial discrimination in voting. Thanks to the Voting Rights Act, progress once the subject of a dream has been achieved and continues to be made” (Liptak, 2013). Based on that and that the marriage license was in response to different “races” being married, to live in peace, raise a family; and that most modern countries around the world recognize the validity of different “races” legally being married; the marriage license should also be invalidated, if not by the Supreme Court, then by all Christians, or any religion, that believes God is the center of their lives. All anyone would need to do is live together as husband and wife: holy obedience to the law and purpose of God, with the honest intention of being husband and wife so long as they both shall live, and join her estate with his (take his last name); this will constitute them lawfully husband and wife, and create a valid marriage under Common Law, i.e. The law of God. Please understand that ceremonies are important, the witnesses, best man, bridesmaids etc. just the icing on the cake but, they are only secondary to what is needed in a lawful marriage.

Given the fact that states have legalized one-gender marriages and many do not see this as being valid, “If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license (Common Law marriage); who is really married? In reality, this contention that people are not married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist[17] we are in our awareness, how mammonism is in control. It is the way of the world.

We need to think biblically. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What is recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America (Trewhella, 2001).[18] If you want to keep marriage sacred, take away the authority of the State to marry others, or at the very least, deny your participation in the marriage license as a Citizen of the Kingdom of Heaven. You cannot control what others do, but you can take responsibility for your actions. The State or government should not do marriage itself, as governments are part of the World,[19] of which they have no authority over God. The government regulates commerce, and charges a fee for the privilege of certain benefits. Maximum of Law: Marriages ought to be free,[20] (Black, 1891) and between a man and a woman.

What do one-gender marriage couples want? The ability to inherit when a partner dies, to make critical decisions for their partner, and to receive benefits; they can already adopt and raise children. Give it to them; let them have the marriage license, it is the States business of which can be regulated and protect the couples. We are not to judge, we are not to condemn.[21] If we start to judge one-gender marriage and/or imprison them, then we must also judge, arrest, and imprison, divorced couples, fornicators, those that lust within their hearts over another, and the list goes on. Then we must wrap women up in burkas and prevent women from having or holding any public employment or office as to prevent temptation when the eyes of men are upon them.

On the other hand, we can be responsible for our choices, thoughts, and actions. We keep marriage sacred, based on man, woman, and God. This by no means is a call to cause injury or to harass anyone;[22] one-gender married or not, they are still our neighbors,[23] and in the image of God, his children, we therefore must love them and treat them as we must do anyone, with kindness and love. The State will validate one-gender marriages, as they ought to do, as all men are created equal and they cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation; people have the unalienable right to pursue happiness:[24] one gender marriages ought to be done with a State marriage license.

The government can alter its laws at any time; we can now divorce for any reason; often the judgment is for the obvious immoral party. If the marriage license were redefined to only protect marriages involved in commerce, then there would be little conflict. If there were no races, or if people were to hold onto the “loving thy neighbor” commandment, there would be no need of a marriage license at all. Racism divides the house. Therefore, the idea of Racism is immoral as it has emotional power to create a reaction of great harm, especially to ones sprit, respect for family, and towards God. In other words, stand up for God center marriages;[25] it is the way of the Citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven.

---

[1] 2 Corinthians 12:21 lest my God should humble me as to you when I come again, and that I shall grieve over many of those who have sinned before, and have not repented as to the uncleanness and fornication and licentiousness which they have practiced: Galatians 5:19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, licentiousness.

[2] 27 CFR § 72.11: Crimes are commercial, you are a debtor/sinner, you must pay your debt, or someone else pays it.

[3] 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.

[4] Inbreeding: breed from closely related people, esp. over many generations:

[5] Exodus 9:1 Thus saith Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me.

[6] Genesis 2:18 And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a help meet for him.

[7] United States Constitution: 1^st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[8] Matthew 18: Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

[9] “Law of the Land” means “The Common Law.” Taylor vs. Porter., 4 Hill140, 146. & State vs. Simon.,2 Spears 761, 767.

[10] “The Constitution of these United States is the supreme law of the land. Any law that is repugnant to the Constitution is null and void of law.” Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137

[11] Colossians 3:17 And whatsoever ye do, in word or in deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him; John 14:13-14 And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask anything in my name, that will I do; John 16 23-24 And in that day ye shall ask me no question. Verily, verily, I say unto you, if ye shall ask anything of the Father, he will give it you in my name. Hitherto have ye asked nothing in my name: ask, and ye shall receive, that your joy may be made full.

[12] Matthew 18:18 Verily I say unto you, what things soever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and what things soever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

[13] Exodus 9:13 Thus saith Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews, Let my people go, that they may serve me.

[14] Matthew 6:10 Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.

[15] Colossians 2:20

[16] Deuteronomy 22:16 and the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; Exodus 22:17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins; I Corinthians 7:38 38 So then both he that giveth his own virgin daughter in marriage doeth well; and he that giveth her not in marriage shall do better.

[17] Define as a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.

[18] United States Constitution: 1^st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

[19] Exodus 10:3 Thus saith Jehovah, the God of the Hebrews, How long wilt thou refuse to humble thyself before me? Let my people go, that they may serve me.

[20] “No state shall convert a liberty into a privilege, license it, and attach a fee to it.” Murdock v. Penn., 319 US 105

[21] Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven.

[22] Luke 6:37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:

[23] Mark 12: 28-31 What commandment is the first of all? Jesus answered, The first is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God, the Lord is one: and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength. The second is this, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

[24] “Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation, which would abrogate them.” Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425

[25] Matthew 6:10 Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done, as in heaven, so on earth.

Marriage

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,[1] 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[2] and world governments belong to the Devil[3]^{(Ryrie, 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 Of God”;[4] however, the Government cannot pass any law respecting or establishing a religion.[5] 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 God’s.[6]

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.[7] 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.[8]

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[9] by their Creator with certain unalienable[10] 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;[11] the Common Law is the Supreme Law of the land.[12] Men control themselves, government controls commerce.[13] 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 (John, 2004).

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 (John, 2004).

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 13^th to 17^th 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 world.

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) (Black, 1891).

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[14] 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;[15] 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[16] of which has never been delegated to the States.[17] 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?[18] God said, let me people go,[19] and he meant it. Speak now of forever hold your piece!

---

[1] The United States Constitution: 1^st Amendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

[2] 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.

[3] Luke 4:5-7 And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, shewed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. And the devil said unto him, All this power will I give thee, and the glory of them: for that is delivered unto me; and to whomsoever I will I give it. If thou therefore wilt worship me, all shall be thine; April 25, 2013 · 4:01 pm U.S. Military Declare Christianity “Hate Group”; Nazi Germany kill 20,946,000 Jews; The American Indian Holocaust, “500 year war” and the World's Longest Holocaust In The History Of Mankind And Loss Of Human Lives.

[4] Congress Declares The Bible “The Word Of God” Public Law 97-280 96 STAT.1211.

[5] The United States Constitution Amendment I: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.

[6] 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.

[7] 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.

[8] 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.

[9] Endowed: provide with a quality, ability, or asset.

[10] Unalienable: unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor:

[11] 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

[12] United States Constitution; Article VI paragraph 2: Supreme law of land.

[13] 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.

[14] Born of parents not married to each other: illegitimate.

[15] ULC v. US 372 F.Supp. 770

[16] 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.

[17] 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.

[18] United States Constitution; Article I, Section 10 paragraph 1: No State shall make any Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.

[19] 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.

Marriage License & Race

On the protection of Divine Providence, I express these views, not of my own thoughts but on the many men and women who walked before me in the light of wisdom, truth, and knowledge. It is with great care and love I place this information before you for your consideration. Consider the information carefully; review the footnotes and points of authority, before making any decisions.

Marriage & Race have been attacked, defended and cheered about for decades from one side or another, trying to maintain what it once had or improved, based upon and/or depending on the different view points. Christians have been told to obey their government, i.e. “higher power”.[1] Yet, every Christian that opposes the Supreme Court decision, i.e. “higher power” in Roe v. Wade, is in rebellion against the government;[2] or, we simply choose not to participate in this action. Yet, the vast majority has never even read what the decision was about. While most think that reversing Roe v. Wade will end abortion,[3] the decision was not about abortion as such.

Yet this “higher power”, 2000 plus years ago, is the same that murder innocent children to keep a prophecy from being born,[4] the target. Later, the government crucified countless followers of this target: the target being Jesus. If you support the government as a “higher power”, then you support the murder of innocent children and babies. Will you also worship the Anti-Christ when he is in power? When do you say “no” to government immoral influence?[5] Remember too, it was the religious leaders, who persuaded the people, who made the decision, for the government to crucify a sinless man: Mark 15:14-16 (Ryrie, 1986). However, it is also written in the Bible that our country is the Kingdom of Heaven[6] and we are to keep His commandments,[7] and traditions. This is the “higher power” we, the children of the Kingdom Of Heaven, are subject to.

Know that what I discuss here is based on “old traditions” i.e. long standing principals as the Common Law i.e. the laws of God: as well as, the Laws of Man, i.e. “higher powers” and Legal or lawful definitions. How can one obey, honor, or respect, if one does not comprehend? This is not about the validity of same-gender marriages, for theirs is a different situation, they are being attacked, and they need protection, especially from Christians. While one-gender marriages are touched upon, this document is about the validity and current definition of a marriage license, i.e. between a man and women: in addition to how it was once used and viewed. If we allow the Government to act as our God, then we make the Government[8] into a false God,[9] an Anti-Christ. I prefer a God centered life, not a government licensed life.[10] One should never mix politics and religion, for in doing so, one would discover lies in political matters,[11] or reject their faith by action or deed. You can only serve one master, for you will love one and hate the other.[12] The point being, we need to honor the leaders, respect their authority, and always put God first.

I use the term gender as oppose to sex. Sex is defined by Webster as “The distinction between male and female; or the properly or character by which an animal is male or female,” I am not an animal; sex also refers to the activity, or preference of a partner. Gender is the state of being male or female; to be clear, I will use man and woman. Just because one is married does not mean they are engaging in sex or that it is all about sex. Life with a partner is far more than it just being about sex, it is daily living, loving, and surviving.

Why the marriage license and race? How are they connected? Why is it important? When one discovers the source of hatred or the irrationality behind something, truly we can grow, expand, and become more loving towards our brothers and sisters. Only when we constantly bring race up in a negative way, does racism have emotional power to create a reaction of great harm. It is easier for some people to kill those we believe are of a different race, as they believe they are not our loved ones, they are not family.

One of the newest forms of racism is found in the commencement of love, i.e. the marriage license. First, we must comprehend what a lawful and a legal marriage is; second, how the marriage license is viewed legally; third, the long forgotten tradition of coverture, the central part of marriages from time immemorial, a now abrogated component of nuptials; fourth, the truth behind “race” and then a summary of the concepts. We cannot save a tradition if we know not what it is; we need to see why it existed. Neither can we hang on to it by some archaic ideology for unknown reasons. If we are to change any tradition, we need to know why it was changed.

---

[1] Romans 13:1-3 Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore, he that resisteth the power withstandeth the ordinance of God: and they that withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to the good work, but to the evil. And wouldest thou have no fear of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise from the same.

[2] “The court is to protect against any encroachment of constitutionally secured liberties.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436.

[3]  Privacy between Doctor and Patient. Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113.

[4] Mathew 2:13 for Herod will seek the young child to destroy him; Mathew 2: 16 Then Herod, when he saw that he was mocked of the wise men, was exceeding wroth, and sent forth, and slew all the children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the coasts thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently enquired of the wise men.

[5] Acts 4:18-19:And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus. But Peter and John answered and said unto them, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge you.

[6] Philippians 3:20 For our country is in heaven; from where the Savior for whom we are waiting will come, even the Lord Jesus Christ.

[7] John 14:15 if you love me, keep my commandments; Exodus 20:3 Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.

[8] Exodus 8:20 Thus saith Jehovah, Let my people go, that they may serve me.

[9] April 25, 2013 · 4:01 pm U.S. Military Declare Christianity “Hate Group”

[10] Matthew 4:10 Then Jesus said to him: Be gone, Satan; for it is written, that thou shalt worship the Lord, thy God; and him only shalt thou serve.

[11] Matthew 15:9; Mark 7:7 But in vain they do worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

[12] Matthew 6:24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.

Marriage License & Race

One day I was visiting my aunt and cousin when her daughter, who was a freshman at the time, showed me her paper on race. As I was reading it, it made sense to me and suddenly I saw the bigger picture of marriage and the marriage license. I decided to capture the flavor of what she wrote and add more of my own knowledge about marriage, coverture, license, common law, and governmental restrictions. While one reads this, this is not about same sex marriage, while a little is mentioned but the main focus is on the old tradition of marriage. At one point I was thinking about self publication and or selling it on eBay, but lack of knowledge only allows me to put it here. Let us begin....