Darren Michaels
Private Attorney General - 42 USC 1988
Federal Witness - 18 U.S.C. 1510
Criminal Investigator - 18 U.S.C. 1512
Publicly Ordained Minister -18 U.S.C. 112 
305-647-5232 or 305-359-1122 or 941-822-4663

WWW.HOMESTEADSERVICESFLORIDA.COM - WEBSITE

INFO@HOMESTEADSERVICESFLORIDA.COM - EMAIL
 

Question:        DO I NEED A MARRIAGE LICENSE?

Answer:          NO !  WHY YOU SHOULD NEVER, EVER GET ONE!

 THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MARRIAGE VS HOLY MATIMONY

This topic is very detail and not based on conjecture, theory, or opinion but rather it is based on truth, law and facts. This topic is specific in nature but is generally related and associated with many other similar areas. There is nothing in the legal or financial arenas that happens by accident or mistaken but rather by a cleverly, pre-ordained, pre-conceived, pre-mediated agenda. There is an intellectual deceptive and enslaving purpose that was designed specifically for the so-called "marriage license" which underlying purpose is for conquest, taxation and jurisdiction. Just remember, open your mind to assume nothing especially on issues that you have previously been taught or heard. There is a huge difference in reading about a topic verses researching about a topic. Let's begin..

First, to define any word and its meaning exclusively, you need to look at the "legal" definition of a word and to expand on this little endeavor there is also the term "lawful" definition. Do you understand the difference between legal and lawful? Typically "legal" means statutory, i.e. statutes and "lawful" mean by right or by law. This is one clever design in hidden within the specific, not general, meaning of a word. When you truly begin to see, as contained within the article, the considerable distinctions is certain words that you have been brainwashed in believing should apply to you or define you

 For simple purposes on this particular topic, let's just stay to the term "legal".  

 Step 1 - let's break down term "marriage License" into "marriage" and "License".

 •1.      Marriage is given by the authority of the State in which you possess your lawful abode.

•2.      Holy Matrimony is by the authority of God and not a country, state or church.

 Some of the marriage traditions are actually based on the pagan tradition such as the wedding ring which is traded to the worship of Saturn or the God of Saturn El. Let's take it deeper, the roots of Judaism and its origin from Egypt that stems from three pagan gods; Isis, Ra, Saturn El  = Is+ra+el = Israel

 There are six basic (6) laws that are practiced in today's court rooms, they are:

•·         Equity Law (administrative),

•·         Law Merchant,

•·         Admiralty Law,

•·         Canon Law (ecclesiastical court / Law of Nature)

•·         Common Law. rarely practiced is

•·         Trust Law

What people do not realize nor do most attorneys, is that we are currently under to foreign laws in the United states of America - they are Roman Law, and Common Laws of England.

a) Roman Law - History. Of these two divisions, I is subdivided into: A. Persons; B. Things; C. Actions.

The most easiest way to distinuigh the use of Roman Law in today courts is how your name is spelt

"Marriage License".
Invokes the Corporate State to be the third party to your union and whatever you conceive is theirs and becomes their offspring (children).

That is why they can take away your children at any time at their discretion. The State leaves them in your custody and care unless or until they find reason not to.

Definitions from BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, 4th Ed:
"license"  "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."

"marriage license"
"A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry."

What if you apply and the State says "no"?

"Intermarry" is "Miscegenation"

"Miscegenation"
"mixture of races; marriage between persons of different races, as between a white and a Negro."

Some marriage licenses will actually state that its purpose is for interracial marriage.

"marriage certificate"
"An instrument which certifies a marriage, and is executed by the person officiating at the marriage; it is not intended to be signed by the parties, but is evidence of the marriage.
It seems that a certificate would be more appropriate than a license.

The State is the Principal or dominant party. The husband and wife are merely contractually "joined" as business partners, not in any religious union

this "religious overtone" is recognized by the State by requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either by a state official or by a minister of religion that has been "deputized" by the State to perform the marriage ceremony and make a return of the signed and executed marriage license to the State.

Again, he emphasized that marriage is a strictly secular relationship so far as the State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a "privileged business enterprise" various tax advantages and other political privileges have become attached to the marriage license contract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a religious covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman.

By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on marriage, one of the best is "Principles of Community Property," by William Defuniak. At the outset, he explains that Community Property law descends from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, 600 A.D., written by the Spanish juris consults.

In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business. To restate: In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture. Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have "borne fruit."

Another way to look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed "contract." Such a contract with the State is said to be a "specific performance" contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach.

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property. He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State. He commented that very few people realize this.

He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" - meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.

In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as "the contract bearing fruit," he said it is vitally important for parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s. The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to state it more bluntly - the State is the undisclosed true parent. Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children - the parents are only conditional caretakers. [Thus the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.]

He also added a few more technical details. The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State. Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts. They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise. The marriage contract acquires property through out its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value.

Also, the marriage contract "bears fruit" by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results the contract continues in existence. The "divorce" is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and

conditions of the contract. Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over children brought into the marriage.

That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls "divorce" a dissolution of the marriage because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form. He also pointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people.

, the marriage contract "bears fruit" by adding children. If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a "divorce" results the contract continues in existence. The "divorce" is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and

The marriage license as we know it didn't come into existence until after the Civil War and didn't become standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920. In effect, the states or governments appropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and in the process declared Common Law applicable to marriages "abrogated."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black's Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal."  We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State's permission? More importantly, why should we need the State's permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State's permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.

  2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true.

When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children.

As a minister, priest, pastor, rabbi, etc. one cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. If a minister, priest, pastor, rabbi, etc. cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so then they act as an agent of the State!  The priest, pastor, rabbi, etc. would have to sign the marriage license, and would have to mail it into the State. Given the State's demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it's unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for any priest, pastor, rabbi, etc. to do so.

When you marry with a marriage license, you are similar to polygamist. From the State's point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State.

  The most blatant declaration of this fact that can be found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under 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, as the case may be; and 3. the State ."

When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage?

The original purpose for the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons:        1). in the case of divorce,

2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery.

  In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor.  They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept.

  Marriage was instituted by God, not a state or country, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime. But jurisdiction is voluntarily given through contract, via marriage license. 

  History of Marriage Licenses in America

  George Washington and Abraham Lincoln was married without a marriage license.  So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?

  Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800's, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.

  Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black's Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages."
So why do the clergy (ministers, priests, pastors, rabbis, etc) and their churches require you and your spouse to obtain a marriage license?? So they will get their tax breaks and/or  deductions from the Federal Government instead of being an unincorporated, non-501c3 church !! In other words, they sold out their congregation to Caesar (Federal Govt) for 30 pieces of silver (tax breaks & deductions) like Judas (the clergy).

Holy Matrimony (by the authority of God.)

vs.

Marriage (by the authority of the State.)

Law, as distinguished from equity, denotes the doctrine and the procedure of the common law of England and America, from which equity is a departure. In respect to the ground of the authority of law, it is divided as natural law, or the law of nature or of God, and positive law."

"The union of a man and a woman is of the law of nature."

By these definitions and maxims we see that the union of a man and woman is a relative, yet, private and natural relationship; and as a natural relationship is subject to "natural law," natural law being "divine will... in contradistinction to positive law," positive law being that law "established, under human sanctions." The natural relation of Husband and Wife and its products, such as children should be relatively free of any interference by government and so it should be for, "Matrimony ought to be free."

"The laws of nature are unchangeable."

The word, "marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married."

First, it is clear that marriage is distinguished, essentially different, from both the "agreement to marry" and the "act of becoming married." Secondly, marriage is a civil status. Civil is a word used in "contradistinction to military, ecclesiastical, natural, or foreign; thus, we speak of a civil station, as opposed to ...an ecclesiastical station" It also explains that the obligations of the man and woman are not merely to each other but also to the "community" and that these civil duties are "legally incumbent." An incumbent is then defined as, "A person who is in present possession of an office; one who is legally authorized to discharge the duties of an office." The words "person" and "individual" are not synonymous. "Person" being defined as "a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes." The word "individual" in the book Language, found in the Volume Library, is treated as a word "frequently misused" and clarifies its meaning with the statement, "The word (individual) should not be used in the mere sense of person. The word is correctly used in ‘Changes both in individuals and communities.'"

"Every person is a man, but not every man a person,"

A person by definition is legally bound and connected to the community, while the individual seems to be equal to or on a separate footing from the community. The individual is apparently not obligated to the bureaucratic administration in the same degree as those in the legal community. The administrative system has coined the phrase "an individual person" or "natural person." As usual their attempt to alleviate confusion seems to have done more to add to the chaos.

"Man is a term of nature; person, of the civil law"

So, today's Domestic Relationship of Marriage is neither natural, remembering that the law of nature is "divine will," nor is it ecclesiastical, which is "distinguished from ‘civil' or ‘secular,'" but it is civil.

As spoken of earlier, in Bouvier's, the "private" relationships of "husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward" are not the same as the "legal" relationship granted by a Marriage license, which is clearly "public" such as "the relation of the magistrate and people."

"The laws of nature are most perfect and immutable; but the condition of human law is an unending succession, and there is nothing in it which can continue perpetually. Human laws are born, live, and die."

A "Marriage license:" is "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry,... By statute it is made an essential prerequisite to the lawful solemnization of the marriage." as opposed to ecclesiastical solemnization.

It should be becoming clear that there is at least two types of marriages and therefore at least two types of husband and wife relationships.

"Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties - the husband, the wife and the state."

"Marriage is often referred to as a civil contract, but the emphasis in such a reference is not on the word ‘contract' but upon the word ‘civil' as distinguished from ecclesiastical; since there is religious freedom in this country a religious ceremony, and rules of ecclesiastical organizations with regard to marriage have no legal significance.

In the first paragraph we see again that at least one type of marriage is "civil" or "public" as distinguished from another which may be "private," "ecclesiastical" or "natural." Ecclesiastical organizations have "no legal significance" and therefore no civil effect.

This statement sets a distinct division between religious freedom and the absence of it. On the one side he mentions religious freedom in relation to ecclesiastical marriage but it seems a simple step to realize the reciprocal conclusion. If the ecclesiastical authority to marry has no influence in the realm of civil marriages then a civil marriage would then have no influence in the realm of ecclesiastical matrimony. This principle applies also to the marriage between the legal churches and the state and the state which established it. The legal church is not operating under the religious freedom aspect of Law in America.

Religious freedom means freedom from dominion over religious practices which should include the law established by religious belief as well as rituals, ceremonies and customs. Religious practices are not merely incantations, sprinkling of water and smoky rituals. Religious practices includes almost every aspect of life itself.

However, a marriage performed by an "ecclesiastical organization" should not be confused with a marriage performed by today's churches which are incorporated entities¹⁹ of the state performing civil marriages as agents of the state. In most cases churches will not marry any couple who has not obtained permission to marry, through the purchase of a license, from the state prior to the ceremony. Almost all marriages performed in these churches are performed by the authority vested in those churches and ministers by the state in which they have agreed to act as an agent. This makes the minister an officer of the state carrying out the official duties of that state. Those marriage are not ecclesiastical because they do have legal significance.

What does it mean to have no legal significance?

Marriage by contract is still just as binding between Husband and Wife. It is the contract that binds the individuals. This is a right recognized by the civil state. A civil marriage is a three party contract between the state and the couple binding the couple to the ever changing terms of the state or enacted law. It is a prenuptial agreement with the state that imposes extraordinary or incumbent obligations and restriction upon the couple and is not required to establish a valid binding marriage contract as Husband and Wife. An ecclesiastical marriage can be just as binding between the couple and disputes may be resolved in ecclesiastical or civil courts if both parties agree at a later time. The couple are just as bound to each other before God. In an ecclesiastical marriage there is a mutual assent or agreement but the Church merely stands as a solemnizing witness and recorder of the contract.

The word ‘Church' in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word ‘ekklesia' which comes from two words ‘ek' meaning "out" and ‘kaleo' meaning to "call". Today's incorporated churches are not marrying couples ecclesiastically but are calling their people into an unequal civil relationship with the state.

In old English law "Marriage is used in the sense of ‘maritagium,' (qv) or the feudal right enjoyed by the lord or guardian in chivalry of disposing of his ward in marriage." This is also, in principal, how the word is used today. To clarify this relationship of ‘lord and ward' we may consider Clark's statement, "the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by law instead of by the parties themselves," shows that it is the third party known as the state that has the right to fix the extent of the privileges and duties by law, which is more than an equal position to hold in that three party relationship. The word law here refers to the legal system which has already obtained or at least assumed that it has obtained a jurisdictional authority over the parties by their consent, either before their application for license (permission) or at the time of its public solemnization.

Marriage is also defined as that which "signifies the act, ceremony or formal proceeding by which persons take each other for husband and wife." Note the use of the word "persons" and the lack of capitalization of the words "Husband and Wife." In the same law dictionary the word "for" is defined as "instead of" or "in place of." So the legal status of marriage by civil authority is where you take each other, assenting into a civil relationship with the state, not as Husband and Wife but "instead of" Husband and Wife or in other words for husband and wife and children, wards of the state.

"Each child belongs to the state."

The state can and will always consider itself a party in a civil marriage performed by its officers in accordance with the duties and obligations imposed by the permitting authority, but it has no jurisdictional authority over the natural matrimony by "divine will" between two free and natural individuals. It is the previous connecting contractual commitments to the legal society that bind a person's obedience to the commands of that legal society.

Note, that a "common law marriage" is simply when the state assumes and recognizes what did appear at first to be a "Husband and Wife" relationship At Law to be in fact a solemnized civil marriage of ‘husband and wife' and ‘state' in equity.

"A wife is not her own mistress, but is under the power of her husband."²⁷

According to the natural law and the common law, "All things which are the wife's belong to the husband." Not because of any misguided assumption that she is inferior but because she is one with her husband. It is understood in the natural law that the, "Husband and Wife are considered one person in law." Even in the definition of Husband and Wife it is called, "One of the great domestic relationships." That relationship, "being that of a man and a woman lawfully joined in marriage, by which, at common law, the legal existence of the wife is incorporated with that of her husband." In other words it is a lawful joining of the woman's status to the man.

The Church does not marry the couple, but they marry each other. Cannon laws clearly state in many denominations over the centuries that the Church gains no exercising authority over the marriage. In Civil marriages the states is a party and may gain an additional jurisdiction and control as a dominant party to the agreement to marry depending on the rites7 of that each state.

There is a legal distinction between a civil and ecclesiastical marriage. If your minister was performing a civil marriage by the license of the state, both for himself and the couple, then it was not an ecclesiastical ceremony. Since, there is separation of Church and State he can only act as agent for one institution, either civil or Church.

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs everything; and is therefore called in our law-french a fem-covert; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture." Sir William Blackstone Commentaries, Vol. 1, Chap XV.

"At common law a married woman's contract is absolutely null and void ab initio ... It is settled by the

decisions in this state that married women have no power, except such as is affirmatively given by statute, to bind themselves personally by contract." Saunders v. Powell, 67 S.W. 402, 403 (1933).

"Marriage is defined to be a covenant between a man and a woman, in which they mutually promise

cohabitation and a continual care to promote the comfort and happiness of each other. It is an institution of God, and a very honorable state. The Saviour honored it by his presence, and at such a solemnity wrought his first miracle: Buck Theo. Dictionary, 261, Lonas v. The State, 50 Tenn. 287, 308.

"It is well established that the failure to procure a marriage license does not have the effect of rendering the marriage void. The requirement of the license preliminary to marriage is wholly of statutory origin ... When a marriage has been proven there is a presumption in favor of its continuance." Browning v. Browning, 224 Md. 399 (1960)

"failure to procure a license does not invalidate a ceremonial marriage... In affirming the marriage as valid, the Court relied on the common law principle that a marriage without a license is universally held to be valid in the absence of an express declaration by the Legislature that such a marriage is void. Hollopeter, 52 Wash. At 45; see Weatherall v. Weatherall, 63 Wash. 526, 529, 115 P. 1078 (1911) (absence of license or failure to properly file a license would not invalidate a marriage otherwise valid.)"

"The rule stated in Hollopeter remains the rule today. In the eyes of the common law, marriage is a civil contract. As Blackstone put it, the law treats marriage ‘as it does all other contracts: allowing it to be good and valid in all cases, where the parties at the time of making it were, in the first place, willing to contract; secondly, able to contract; and, lastly, actually did contract, in the proper forms and solemnities required by law.' Picarella v. Picarella, 20 Md. App. 499, 316 A.2d 826, 832, n.10 (1974) (quoting 1 William Blackstone Commentaries, Book I, ch 15, section 433.) (Lewis's Ed.) "16

Here is the holding from the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Meister

v. Moore, 96 US 76 (1877): "As before remarked, the statutes are held merely directory; because

marriage is a thing of common right..." [emphasis added]

"If a ceremonial marriage is in fact established by evidence or admission it is presumed to be regular and valid, and the burden of showing that it was an invalid marriage rests on the party asserting its invalidity." Overton v. Overton, 260 N.C. 139, 143

Directory - A provision in a statute, rule of procedure, or the like, which is a mere direction or instruction of no obligatory force, and involving no invalidating consequence for its disregard, as opposed to an imperative or mandatory provision, which must be followed. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.

While the various state courts have prattled on for almost 200 years about what the laws of their states do and do not allow concerning marriage, the US Supreme Court cut straight to the heart of the issue in declaring that statutes controlling marriage can only be directory because marriage is a common right, which is not subject to interference or regulation by government. Or phrased another way, the

God-given right to marry existed prior to the creation of the states or the national government, and therefore it is beyond their purview to alter, modify, abolish, or interfere with, such a right.

In its decision in Meister, the Court refused to even examine the numerous state court decisions prior to making its own decision. While this was assailed by legal commentators of the day as an egregious choice, we can only agree with the Court in its choice because a state court opinion has no authority to affect a fundamental right that existed antecedent to the formation of the state.

It should be noted that Meister has never been reversed and is still controlling case law concerning the fundamental right to marry without state interference.

"Recognized" versus "Unlawful""

A lot of Americans hold the incorrect perception that common law marriage is unlawful. Nothing could be further from the truth. There is no state law anywhere that claims to make common law marriage "unlawful". Given the decision in Meister, such a law could not withstand the scrutiny of the US Supreme Court. And of course the exercise of a fundamental right is always lawful!

 It is true that in many states common law marriage is not "recognized". Given the fact that common law marriage is lawful, one might reasonably ask what it meant by "not recognized". Without getting into a lot of legal mumbo-jumbo "not recognized" means that in the eyes of the State "the marriage is not known /understood/ perceived to exist". We agree with that legal concept and we can see nothing in that matter to concern us.

 A "statutory marriage" is registered with the State as a result of the man and woman applying for a State marriage license and thus entering into a three-party contract with the State. Obviously the State keeps records of all contracts to which it is a party and therefore such a marriage is "known to exist" to State authorities. It is equally obvious that a private common law marriage would not be "known to exist" to State authorities. The problem arises from the erroneous view that "not recognized" is synonymous with "invalid". Because of Meister, no state can arbitrarily declare common law marriage invalid by legislation, and none have done so! To state the point most clearly - "not recognized" does not mean, "invalid".

The issues that a court may review in determining the validity of a marriage are:

??Consent of both parties.

??The existence of a marriage contract - oral or written.

??The existence of a marriage contract - present or future tense

??Prior marriages still in effect.

??Whether or not there is/was cohabitation.

??Solemnization or ceremony.

??Marriage Certificate providing evidence of a ceremony.

??A secret or deceptive marriage.

??A marriage based on false representations.

??Whether the scope and effect of an impediment produces an invalid marriage.

??Whether there are children that will be rendered bastards.

??Whether a religious figure performed the marriage ceremony.

 

The person who wishes to establish an incontrovertible record of a valid common law marriage should make sure to steer clear of areas that leave room for ambiguity. One who wishes to make an

incontrovertible record should:

1) Have both parties sign a marriage contract and have the document notarized.

2) Have a ceremony with witnesses present.

3) Have three witnesses sign a marriage certificate.

4) Memorialize the ceremony in photographs or on video.

5) Cohabitate after the contract has been signed or the ceremony performed.

6) Let friends, co-workers, and people in the community know you and your

spouse are married.

By applying each of these elements, there is no court in America that can declare your common law marriage invalid.

Property and Custody Right

There is a perception that there are no protections for property rights and/or child custody concerns in a common law marriage. That is one of the many inaccurate perceptions of common law marriage.

All marriages, statutory and common law, are based on a contract. In the case of a statutory marriage, the contract is between three parties - the husband, the wife, and the State - the State being the superior party of interest. In such marriages, if the husband and wife wish to dissolve the marriage they must do so through a court that is enforcing that State's Family Law Code. We say "must" because once the State was involved in the contract as the superior party of interest, the husband and wife are legally bound to obey the State in matters that are controlled by the State's Family Code.

In the case of common law marriage, there are two ways that property rights and child custody issues can be addressed. The first and most desirable method is to structure the contract to include the mechanism by which a termination of the contract shall occur. The parties to the contract (husband and wife to be) can sit down and agree on how they would want to dissolve the marriage if that circumstance were to occur. In a section of the contract concerning the dissolving of the contract, the parties can specify how property is to be divided and how child custody issues will be addressed. Often times constructing a framework for such matters when you're happy and in love will help provide a smoother road if the unfortunate occurs. We suggest structuring methods that involve submitting your possible disputes to your church elders or to a small panel of trusted friends. In this way the decisions that you're seeking will be rendered by people who know you and love you, rather than by some government bureaucrat in a black robe.

If pre-structuring a mechanism for divorce within the contract doesn't appeal to you, you always have the option of submitting your marriage to the jurisdiction of your State's family law court. And have no doubt, if you submit your marriage contract to the Family Law Court, it will assume jurisdiction. You should understand that if you take this route, you are surrendering your independence to the State. You cannot back out if you don't like what the court decides. You will be bound by the decisions of the court just as if you'd entered into a statutory marriage.

 

OBLIGATIONS OF MARRIAGE LICENSES

Roberts v. Roberts, 81 Cal.App.2d 871 [Civ. No. 15818. Second Dist., Div. Two. Oct. 17, 1947.]
[4] In all domestic concerns each state of the Union is to be deemed an independent sovereignty.  As such, it is its province and its duty to forbid interference by another state as well as by any foreign power with the status of its own citizens. Unless at least one of the spouses is a resident thereof in good faith, the courts of such sister state or of such foreign power cannot acquire jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage of those who have an established domicile in the state which resents such interference with matters which disturb its social serenity or affect the morals of its inhabitants.

[5] Jurisdiction over divorce proceedings of residents of California by the courts of a sister state cannot be conferred by agreement of the litigants.

[6] As protector of the morals of her people it is the duty of a court of this commonwealth to prevent the dissolution of a marriage by the decree of a court of another jurisdiction pursuant to the collusion of the spouses. If by surrendering its power it evades the performance of such duty, marriage will ultimately be considered as a formal device and its dissolution freed from legal inhibitions.

[7] Not only is a divorce of California [81 Cal.App.2d 880] residents by a court of another state void because of the plaintiff's lack of bona fide residence in the foreign state, but it is void also for lack of the court's jurisdiction over the State of California.

[8] This state is a party to every marriage contract of its own residents as well as the guardian of their morals. Not only can the litigants by their collusion not confer jurisdiction upon Nevada courts over themselves but neither can they confer such jurisdiction over this state.
[9] It therefore follows that a judgment of divorce by a court of Nevada without first having pursuant to its own laws acquired...
"Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties.  The husband, the wife and the state..."

Van Koten v. Van Koten, 154 N.E. 146; 5-97-0108 IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF ILLINOIS FIFTH DISTRICT ---WEST v. WEST No. 93-F-92 JUSTICE MAAG delivered the opinion of the court: This action was brought in April of 1993 by Carolyn and John West (grandparents) to obtain visitation rights with their grandson, Jacob Dean West. Jacob was born January 27, 1992. He is the biological son of Ginger West and Gregory West, Carolyn and John's deceased son...

However, this constitutionally protected parental interest is not wholly without limit or beyond regulation. Prince v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166, 88 L. Ed. 645, 64 S. Ct. 438, 442 (1944). "[T]he state has a wide range of power for limiting parental freedom and authority in things affecting the child's welfare." Prince, 321 U.S. at 167, 88 L. Ed. 645, 64 S. Ct. at 442. In fact, the entire familial relationship involves the State. When two people decide to get married, they are required to first procure a license from the State. If they have children of this marriage, they are required by the State to submit their children to certain things, such as school attendance and vaccinations. Furthermore, if at some time in the future the couple decides the marriage is not working, they must petition the State for a divorce. Marriage is a three-party contract between the man, the woman, and the State. Linneman v. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d 48, 50, 116 N.E.2d 182, 183 (1953), citing Van Koten v. Van Koten, 323 Ill. 323, 326, 154 N.E. 146 (1926). The State represents the public interest in the institution of marriage. Linneman, 1 Ill. App. 2d at 50, 116 N.E.2d at 183. This public interest is what allows the State to intervene in certain situations to protect the interests of members of the family. The State is like a silent partner in the family who is not active in the everyday running of the family but becomes active and exercises its power and authority only when necessary to protect some important interest of family life. Taking all of this into consideration, the question no longer is whether the State has an interest or place in disputes such as the one at bar, but it becomes a question of timing and necessity. Has the State intervened too early or perhaps intervened where no intervention was warranted? This question then directs our discussion to an analysis of the provision of the Act that allows the challenged State intervention (750 ILCS 5/607(b) (West 1996)).

cestui que trust n. (properly pronounced ses-tee kay, but lawyers popularly pronounce it setty kay) from old French. 1) an old fashioned expression for the beneficiary of a trust. 2) "the one who trusts" or the person who will benefit from the trust and will receive payments or a future distribution from the trust's assets. (See: beneficiary)

CESTUI QUE TRUST, A barbarous phrase, to signify the beneficiary of an estate held in trust. He for whose benefit another person is enfeoffed or seised of land or tenements, or is possessed of personal property. The cestui que trust is entitled to receive the rents and profits of the land; he may direct such conveyances, consistent with the trust, deed or will, as he shall choose, and the trustee (q.v.) is bound to execute them: he may defend his title in the name of the trustee. 1 Cruise, Dig. tit. 12, c. 4, s. 4; vide Vin. Ab. Trust, U, W, X, and Y 1 Vern. 14; Dane's Ab. Index, h.t.: 1 Story, Eq. Jur. Sec. 321, note 1; Bouv. Inst. Index, h.t. A Law Dictionary, Adapted to the Constitution and Laws of the United States. By John Bouvier. Published 1856.

2.01 - Common law and certain statutes declared in force.--The common and statute laws of England which are of a general and not a local nature, with the exception hereinafter mentioned, down to the 4th day of July, 1776, are declared to be of force in this state; provided, the said statutes and common law be not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States and the acts of the Legislature of this state.

•775.01    Common law of England.--The common law of England in relation to crimes, except so far as the same relates to the modes and degrees of punishment, shall be of full force in this state where there is no existing provision by statute on the subject.

The law of England, which inspired much of the law formed in the United States, was a mixture of canon law and Common Law (principles and rules of action embodied in case law rather than legislative enactments). Canon law and English common law borrowed heavily from each other throughout medieval times and together formed the basis for many of the legal procedures used in the United States. For example, canon law's influence is still visible in the concepts of the Grand Jury, presentment (a description of a criminal offense that is based on the jury's own knowledge), and some characteristics of U.S. marriage law.

Canon law has its origins in ancient church writings, decisions made by the general councils of local bishops, and rulings issued by the pope. These ideas were organized in the mid-twelfth century by an Italian law teacher, Gratian. He sorted the collection into religious law, penal law, sacramental law, and other categories. Along with a set of decisions by the pope called Decretals of Gregory IX, Gratian's work formed the main body of canon law for nearly eight hundred years. In 1917, Pope Benedict XV recodified (revised) the canons. Pope John Paul II reissued the Code of Canon Law in 1983-authorizing increased participation of laity in the church, recognizing the needs of disabled people, and making other changes. A related text, the Code of Canons of the Eastern Churches, was reissued by the Holy See (the seat of papal government) in 1990.

In the Middle Ages, canon law was used in ecclesiastical courts (church) to decide many types of cases that in modern times are decided by civil courts, including criminal offenses. This was because most English Christians did not make a great distinction between secular and spiritual offenses. Crimes that were tried by the church included Adultery, blasphemy, slander, heresy (opposition to official religious views), money lending, and gambling. From the late fourteenth to the early sixteenth centuries church courts also heard many breach-of-faith cases concerning contracts, as well as inheritance and marriage-related cases.

Canon law n. laws and regulations over ecclesiastical (church) matters developed between circa 1100 and 1500 and used by the Roman Catholic Church in reference to personal morality, status and powers of the clergy, administration of the sacraments and church and personal discipline. Canon law comprises ordinances of general councils of the church, decrees, bulls and epistles of the Popes, and the scriptures and writings of the early fathers of the church. Canon law has no legal force except within the Vatican in Rome, Italy, and in those nations in which the Catholic Church is the "official" church and where it prevails in religious matters which may affect all citizens (such as abortion and divorce). In Great Britain there is also a body of canon law dating back to pre-reformation in the 16th Century, which is used by the Anglican (Episcopal) Church. Canon law is not to be confused with professional canons, which are rules of conduct with no religious connection.

 

Canon Law Opinion

Excerpt from a Canon Law Opinion Outlining
the "de facto" Catholic Antenuptial Agreement

(submitted 8/23/04 by the defendant in an Ohio divorce case)

1. As Catholics, to enter into marriage in the Catholic Church is to be introduced into an ecclesial order of spouses (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church, Nos. 1631 and 1537).

a) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1631: "This is the reason why the Church normally requires that the faithful contract marriage according to the ecclesiastical form. Several reasons converge to explain this requirement:

· Sacramental marriage is a liturgical act. It is therefore appropriate that it should be celebrated in the public liturgy of the Church;

· Marriage introduces one into an ecclesial order, and creates rights and duties in the Church between the spouses and towards their children;

· Since marriage is a state of life in the Church, certainty about it is

necessary (hence the obligation to have witnesses);
• The public character of the consent protects the "I do" once given and helps the spouses remain faithful to it."

b) Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1537:
"The word order in Roman antiquity designated an established civil body, especially a governing body. Ordinatio means incorporation into an ordo. In the Church there are established bodies which Tradition, not without basis in Sacred Scripture, has since ancient times called taxeis (Greek) or ordines. And so the liturgy speaks of the ordo episcoporum, the ordo presbyterorum, the ordo diaconorum. Other groups also receive this name of ordo: catechumens, virgins, spouses, widows,...."

2. Among the effects of being incorporated into the ecclesial order of spouses is the assumption of certain rights and duties towards one's spouse and one's children. (See supra Catechism of the Catholic Church, No. 1631). These rights and duties are governed by canon law.

a) Code of Canon Law, canon 1059: "Even if only one party is Catholic, the marriage of Catholics is governed not only by divine law, but also by canon law, without prejudice to the competence of civil authority concerning the merely civil effects of the same marriage."

3. Among the rights and duties that bind those in the order of spouses are the duty and the right to preserve conjugal living unless a legitimate cause excuses them (cf. Code of Canon Law, canon 1151).

4. Before spouses may separate, the spouses have the duty and the right to follow the canons regarding the "Separation (of the Spouses) with the Bond Remaining," the substantive law of which is found in Code of Canon Law, canons 1151-1155, and the procedural law of which is found in Code of Canon Law, canons 1692-1696 (see below).

* * * * * * * * * * * *

CANON LAW

SEPARATION WHILE THE BOND REMAINS

Can. 1151 Spouses have the obligation and the right to maintain their common conjugal life, unless a lawful reason excuses them.

Can. 1152
§1 It is earnestly recommended that a spouse, motivated by Christian charity and solicitous for the good of the family, should not refuse to pardon an adulterous partner and should not sunder the conjugal life. Nevertheless, if that spouse has not either expressly or tacitly condoned the other's fault, he or she has the right to sever the common conjugal life, provided he or she has not consented to the adultery, nor been the cause of it, nor also committed adultery.

§2 Tacit condonation occurs if the innocent spouse, after becoming aware of the adultery, has willingly engaged in a marital relationship with the other spouse; it is presumed, however, if the innocent spouse has maintained the common conjugal life for six months, and has not had recourse to ecclesiastical or to civil authority.

§3 Within six months of having spontaneously terminated the common conjugal life, the innocent spouse is to bring a case for separation to the competent ecclesiastical authority. Having examined all the circumstances, this authority is to consider whether the innocent spouse can be brought to condone the fault and not prolong the separation permanently.

Can. 1153
§1 A spouse who occasions grave danger of soul or body to the other or to the children, or otherwise makes the common life unduly difficult, provides the other spouse with a reason to leave, either by a decree of the local Ordinary or, if there is danger in delay, even on his or her own authority.

§2 In all cases, when the reason for separation ceases, the common conjugal life is to be restored, unless otherwise provided by ecclesiastical authority.

Can. 1154 When a separation of spouses has taken place, provision is always, and in good time, to be made for the due maintenance and upbringing of the children.

Can. 1155 The innocent spouse may laudably readmit the other spouse to the conjugal life, in which case he or she renounces the right to separation.

CASES CONCERNING THE SEPARATION OF SPOUSES

Can. 1692
§1 Unless lawfully provided otherwise in particular places, the personal separation of baptized spouses can be decided by a decree of the diocesan Bishop, or by the judgment of a judge in accordance with the following canons.

§2 Where the ecclesiastical decision does not produce civil effects, or if it is foreseen that there will be a civil judgment not contrary to the divine law, the Bishop of the diocese in which the spouses are living can, in the light of their particular circumstances, give them permission to approach the civil courts.

§3 If the case is also concerned with the merely civil effects of marriage, the judge is to endeavor, without prejudice to the provision of §2, to have the case brought before the civil court from the very beginning.

Can. 1693
§1 The oral contentious process is to be used, unless either party or the promoter of justice requests the ordinary contentious process.

§2 If the ordinary contentious process is used and there is an appeal, the tribunal of second instance is to proceed in accordance with can. 1682 §2, observing what has to be observed.

Can. 1694 In matters concerning the competence of the tribunal, the provisions of can. 1673 are to be observed.

Can. 1695 Before he accepts the case, and whenever there appears to be hope of success, the judge is to use pastoral means to induce the parties to be reconciled and to resume their conjugal life.

Can. 1696 Cases of separation of spouses also concern the public good; the promoter of justice must, therefore, always intervene, in accordance with can. 143

The Five Types of Legal Argument succeeds both as a work of legal theory and as a practical guide to legal reasoning for law students, lawyers and judges. The five types of legal arguments (text, intent, precedent, tradition and policy

Every citizen ought to know the Law of the Land. There is no excuse for not knowing the law. It will not help a person defend him or herself in a legal crisis. Ignorance can never be explained away.

Even when you have not acted against the law, you might need to know the law in order to protect yourself from people who might violate the law. To know ones rights and privileges is not only beneficial, it is absolutely essential. You will never know when the information you have at your disposal might come in handy. Having it ready before any crisis strikes will help you take immensely wiser and more informed decisions which you will not regret later. Just as there are varied disciplines in the field of medicine, there is a wide range of divisions when it comes to law. For instance, everyone knows that you don't visit a general physician for a severe heart ailment. You want to consult a heart specialist in this case. Likewise, for every particular type of law, there are specific attorneys who specialize in that particular field. It really helps to search and identify the suitable attorney for your particular case, instead of heading to the nearest or most familiar attorney for every case.

 
      There are many ways in which a legal system increases its limited authority but it is most complete through the consent of the individual. In China they have "the one child contract." If you sign it, you will become eligible for many of the benefits offered by the government, such as free medical care, schooling and better paying jobs. If later the mother becomes pregnant and refuses to abort the child the family becomes responsible for paying for all the expense of the second child, paying back all the benefits they received for the first child and often suffer the loss of their present employed position and pay scale. In America the pressure to abort a child is often much more subtle.
      The same dealt subtly with our kindred, and evil entreated our fathers, so that they cast out their young children [fetus] 1 , to the end they might not live22 . (Acts 7:19)

      If children survive the financial and social pressure to be aborted, they must still overcome the strain of the mental, spiritual and contractual pressures society shall place upon them.
      Unfortunately, society as a whole is continuously degrading the family as a unit through economic, social and legal means even though the family is the foundation from which the society is built.
      If we want better people to make a better world, then we will have to begin where people are made --- in the family. 3

      Economic pressures may burden and exhaust the parents. Social Security often removes the grandparents from the family unit. School systems distance the parents from the mental development of the children as they are molded outside the family unit. The media and socially applied peer pressures add their own unique and varied distortions to the child's development.
      "When the foundation fails all fails."

      The few parents who feel compelled to protect their children from exposure to these pressures or simply feel a sense of responsibility to raise their children directly, often find their way blocked by a legal system that seems to be usurping the authority of the parents by assuming custody of children in the name of "The Law." Yet, is it usurpation or have we unwittingly waived custody of our children by some previous legal contract or consensual agreement.
      In Bouvier's definition of law we find stated that:

"3. An analysis of the science of law presents a view, first, of the rights of persons, distinguishing them as natural persons and artificial person, or body politic or corporations. These rights are deemed either absolute, as relating to the enjoyment of personal security, liberty, and of private property or, on the other hand, as relative, - that is, arising out of the relation in which several persons stand. These relations are either, first, public or political, viz.: the relation of magistrate and people; or, second, are private, as the relations of master and servant, husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, to which might be added relations arising out private contracts, such as partnerships, principal and agent, and the like."

"8. Law, as distinguished from equity, denotes the doctrine and the procedure of the common law of England and America, from which equity is a departure. In respect to the ground of the authority of law, it is divided as natural law, or the law of nature or of God, and positive law."4

    

  "The union of a man and a woman is of the law of nature.5

      Here by these definitions and maxims we see that the union of a man and woman is a relative, yet, private and natural relationship; and as a natural relationship is subject to "natural law," natural law being "divine will...in contradistinction to positive law," positive law being that law "established, under human sanctions." If we have identified these concepts properly it does seem that the natural relation of Husband and Wife and its products, such as children should be relatively free of any interference by government and so it should be for, "Matrimony ought to be free."6

      The laws of nature are unchangeable." 7
      Let us look at the word, "marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married." It "is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for the discharge to each other and the community of duties legally incumbent on those whose association is found on the distinction of sex." 8

      First, it is clear that marriage is distinguished, essentially different, from both the "agreement to marry" and the "act of becoming married." Secondly, marriage is a civil status. Civil is a word used in "contradistinction to military, ecclesiastical, natural, or foreign; thus, we speak of a civil station, as opposed to ...an ecclesiastical station" 9

      It also explains that the obligations of the man and woman are not merely to each other but also to the "community" and that these civil duties are "legally incumbent." An incumbent is then defined as, "A person who is in present possession of an office; one who is legally authorized to discharge the duties of an office." 10

      The words "person" and "individual" are not synonymous. "Person" being defined as "a man considered according to the rank he holds in society, with all the right to which the place he holds entitles him, and the duties which it imposes." 11

      The word "individual" in the book Language, found in the Volume Library, is treated as a word "frequently misused" and clarifies its meaning with the statement, "The word (individual) should not be used in the mere sense of person. The word is correctly used in `Changes both in individuals and communities.'"

      "Every person is a man, but not every man a person," 12

      A person by definition is legally bound and connected to the community, while the individual seems to be equal to or on a separate footing from the community. The individual is apparently not obligated to the bureaucratic administration in the same degree as those in the legal community. The administrative system has coined the phrase "an individual person" or "natural person." As usual their attempt to alleviate confusion seems to have done more to add to the chaos.

      "Man is a term of nature; person, of the civil law" 13
      So, today's Domestic Relationship of Marriage is neither natural, remembering that the law of nature is "divine will," nor ecclesiastical, "distinguished from `civil' or `secular,'" 14 but it is civil.
      As spoken of earlier, in Bouvier's, the "private" relationships of "husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward" are not the same as the "legal" relationship granted by a Marriage license, which is clearly "public" such as "the relation of the magistrate and people."
      The laws of nature are most perfect and immutable; but the condition of human law is an unending succession, and there is nothing in it which can continue perpetually. Human laws are born, live, and die.15

      A "Marriage license:" is "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry,...By statute it is made an essential prerequisite to the lawful solemnization of the marriage."16 as opposed to ecclesiastical solemnization.
      It should be becoming clear that there is at least two types of marriages and therefore at least two types of husband and wife relationships.

      "Marriage is often referred to as a civil contract, but the emphasis in such a reference is not on the word `contract' but upon the word `civil' as distinguished from ecclesiastical; since there is religious freedom in this country a religious ceremony, and rules of ecclesiastical organizations with regard to marriage have no legal significance. Though mutual assent is necessary to enter into a marriage the marriage itself is a status or relationship rather than a contract, the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by the law instead of by the parties themselves. Hence marriages are not within the provision of the United States Constitution forbidding a state to impair the obligation of contracts.".17

      In the first paragraph we see again that at least one type of marriage is "civil" or "public" as distinguished from another which may be "private," "ecclesiastical" or "natural." Ecclesiastical organizations have "no legal significance" and therefore no civil effect.
      This statement made by Clark sets a distinct division between religious freedom and the absence of it. On the one side he mentions religious freedom in relation to ecclesiastical marriage but it seems a simple step to realize the reciprocal conclusion. If the ecclesiastical authority to marry has no influence in the realm of legal marriages then a legal marriage would then have no influence in the realm of ecclesiastical matrimony. This principle applies also to the marriage between the legal churches and the state and the state which established it. The legal church is not operating under the religious freedom aspect of Law in America.
      Religious freedom means freedom from dominion over religious practices which should include the law established by religious belief as well as rituals, ceremonies and customs. Religious practices are not merely incantations, sprinkling of water and smoky rituals. Religious practices includes almost every aspect of life itself.

      However, a marriage performed by an "ecclesiastical organization" should not be confused with a marriage performed by today's churches which are incorporated entities18 of the state performing civil marriages as agents of the state. In most cases churches will not marry any couple who has not obtained permission to marry, through the purchase of a license, from the state prior to the ceremony. Almost all marriages performed in these churches are performed by the authority vested in those churches and ministers by the state in which they have agreed to act as an agent. This makes the minister an officer of the state carrying out the official duties of that state. Those marriage are not ecclesiastical because they do have legal significance.

What does it mean to have no legal significance? (see Law vs. Legal).

      The word `church' in the New Testament is translated from the Greek word `ekklesia' which comes from two words `ek' meaning "out" and `kaleo' meaning to "call". Today's incorporated churches are not marrying couples ecclesiastically but are calling their people into an unequal civil relationship with the state.
      Clark states that this civil marriage contract is a "mutual assent." As is the case with all contracts there must be mutual consent and valid consideration. In a natural joining of a man and a woman as Husband and Wife there is a mutual consent and consideration, but if one or both are persons and have a "legal status" and are obligated to another, then there cannot be a valid consideration without the permission of the one to whom the party is subject. In old English law "Marriage is used in the sense of `maritagium,' (qv) or the feudal right enjoyed by the lord or guardian in chivalry of disposing of his ward in marriage."

      This is also, in principal, how the word is used today. To clarify this relationship of `lord and ward' we may consider Clark's statement, "the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by law instead of by the parties themselves," shows that it is the third party known as the state that has the right to fix the extent of the privileges and duties by law, which is more than an equal position to hold in that three party relationship. The word law here refers to the legal system which has already obtained or at least assumed that it has obtained a jurisdictional authority over the parties by their consent, either before their application for license (permission) or at the time of its public solemnization.
      Marriage is also defined as that which "signifies the act, ceremony or formal proceeding by which persons take each other for husband and wife."20

      Note the use of the word "persons" and the lack of capitalization of the words "Husband and Wife." In the same law dictionary the word "for" is defined as "instead of" or "in place of."21

      So the legal status of marriage by civil authority is where you take each other, assenting into a civil relationship with the state, not as Husband and Wife but "instead of" Husband and Wife or in other words for husband and wife and children, wards of the state.

 

""Wife and son are names of nature.""22

      In 1906, the Supreme Court of Nebraska stated that: "It (marriage) differs from all other contracts23

in its far-reaching consequences to the body politic itself, and for that reason, in dealing with it or the status resulting therefrom, the state never stands indifferent, but is always a party whose interest must be taken into account."24

      "Each child belongs to the state."25

   The state can and will always consider itself a party in a civil marriage performed by its officers in accordance with the duties and obligations imposed by the permitting authority, but it has no jurisdictional authority over the natural matrimony by "divine will" between two free and natural individuals. It is the previous connecting contractual commitments to the legal society that bind a person's obedience to the commands of that legal society.
      Note, that a "common law marriage" is simply when the state assumes and recognizes what did appear at first to be a "Husband and Wife" relationship At Law to be in fact a solemnized civil marriage of husband and wife and state in equity.

 

      "A wife is not her own mistress, but is under the power of her husband."26

      According to the natural law and the common law, "All things which are the wife's belong to the husband."27

Not because of any misguided assumption that she is inferior but because she is one with her husband. It is understood in the natural law that the, "Husband and Wife are considered one person in law."28

      Even in the definition of Husband and Wife it is called, "One of the great domestic relationships." That relationship, "being that of a man and a woman lawfully joined in marriage, by which, at common law, the legal existence of the wife is incorporated with that of her husband."29

In other words it is a lawful joining of the woman's status to the man.
      "And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh." (Mark 10:8.)

      This authority that a man holds at law over his wife is not a problem to a good woman as long as the husband truly loves, honors and cherishes her and she is as willing to humble herself to his will as he is willing to humble himself to God's divine will. As with all contracts there must be valid and mutual consideration.
      "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.... Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" (Ephesians 5:22, 25)

      Despite the fact that the husband is to have custody of his children the individual state governments and bureaucracies are constantly claiming regulatory right and custody. Are these claims of the state usurpations, without any basis in law, or is there an aspect to the relationship of a husband and a wife that is shared by the state?

"And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and the children; and said, Who [are] those with thee? And he said, The children which God hath graciously given thy servant." (Genesis 33:5)

      It was the custom that if a man and a woman were married as Husband and Wife, then the husband had custody of the children and held the wife's right to contract in a domestic trust.30

The common law also agrees with the natural law, for "at the common law the father had an almost absolute right to the custody of his children." 31

      "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:" (Ephesians 5: 28, 29)

      When a daughter wished to marry, she would obtain her father's permission and he in turn gave her in marriage. The son would also gain permission from his father if he wished to continue to take his father's name as his own. If the husband and wife are wards of the state then their children must obtain permission to marry from their parent's master. Unless they become adopted by a father who is not subject to the jurisdiction of their parent's master.

      "Fundamental, Bible believing people do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs, because we, the state, are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part of a one-world global society and their children will not fit in." 32

      Who is the father from whom permission should be obtained? By and under whose authority should a man and woman be joined together in the ceremony of Holy Matrimony?

      And what concord hath the Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that beleiveth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God: as God hath said, I will dwell in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
      Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean (thing); and I will receive you.And I will be a Father unto you, and ye shall be my sons and daughters, saith the Lord Almighty. (II Corinthian 6:15-18)

      It is, more often than not, the remedy and will of the public magistrates33 that husbands and wives under their jurisdiction divorce. It is the magistrate that decides the fate of the children in his custody in contradistinction to the law of nature and the common law.

      And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Mark 10:5,9)

      The implications of all this can seem to create confusion. We should see that neither a bride nor groom can obtain clear permission34 to marry from a father who has assented to the same restrictive legal civil status that they are trying to avoid. And the state by its very nature cannot offer permission to the God fearing couple to marry as a Natural Husband and Wife. These problems can seem to compound as we discover that no minister or priest is available to conduct a purely ecclesiastical ceremony which would exclude the state and its authoritarian and bureaucratic legal controls.

      Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (II Corinthian 6:14)
      Why should we give authority to the state over that which God has ordained? If we have faith in the Lord's blessing and authority why do we also ask for the government's blessing and authority?

Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (Romans 13:1)
      This is probably one of the most frequently repeated quotes from the Bible that is used by men holding positions of authority in societies today. If there is no power but of God and it is He that ordains the powers that are truly in authority then what criteria does God use to establish "the higher powers."
      Are we subject to a higher power or are we making the state a higher power by obtaining a marriage and or other licenses? If matrimony, through the Law of Nature and the Common Law of the Land, is the domain of God and our children are His gifts then why would we turn our family and ourselves over to the civil authority of the State? Is that not like rendering unto Caesar the things that are God's?
      The Bible mentions the word covenant over 300 times. It tells us many stories of the binding of man to man and man to God. It is made very clear that God requires the fulfillment of our agreements and compliance with our words. Paul has told us to let our yes be yes. Does he want us to enter into covenants, even quasi covenants, with those who do not follow the spirit of God and His Laws?
      Why should we ask others for permission to do that which God has ordained? Is God's permission and blessing not enough?

      For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are sons of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. (Romans 8:14,15)

      Does God want us to give custody of our children to the State? Does He want you to put your Husband and Wife relationship under the authority of a system that prefers and compels divorce as the most common solution to marital strife?

Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. (Romans 13:8)

      If God has given us the Holy Relationship of Matrimony, He therefore has dominion and authority over that relationship. So why should we render unto the state a legal authority over that relationship which rightfully belongs to God?

Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (Mt 22:21- Mr 12:17 - Lu 20:25)

      If you are married in Florida, England or Kuwait you are considered married in Oregon and everywhere else in the world, so why is not the Kingdom of God acceptable? In fact it is. An ecclesiastical marriage is a lawful marriage that offers no equitable or legal benefits, obligations or jurisdiction.
      It would seem that in this life we may choose in many ways who we would have over us. So, is the choice not ours?

Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. (John18:37)

      If we have been joined together in the name of God and by His authority then why must we call on any other name or authority? If we call on another will they assume a power and authority that will take away or parental rights?

      "Those who educate are more to be honored than those who bear the children.
The latter give them only life; the former teach them the art of living." 35

      Should you call upon another just to gain the financial and worldly benefits of a legal marriage?

And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Ac 2:21)

      Should we turn over the custody of the children that the LORD God has given us to a civil authority that does not follow Christ?

      What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:6).

      Are there other ways that we are going under authorities of men by making covenants?

And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that [were] round about them, [concerning] whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them. (2Ki 17:15)

      Have we returned to the bondage of Egypt and the covenants of Rome and the spirit of Babylon?

      And if we have entered into covenants with strange gods can we return to the LORD God?

But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I [am] the LORD. (Le 26:45)

 

FOOTNOTES