| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
 Posted - 12 Apr 2003 : 01:43:06
|
Do you and your spouse have a state issued Marriage License? If so, why?
Why have you made the State the head of your family rather than God?
Early last week in the state of Michigan, a school counselor tried to give Ritalin to a 9 year old boy. The boy informed the nurse that she wasn't allowed to do that because his daddy had filed a UCC-1 on the family. The nurse asked what that was. The Principal was called in, and asked the boy if he was sure about what he had said. The Principal then called the boy's mother and asked if this was true. The mother replied yes. The Principal then asked if the mother and father had a state marriage license. The mother replied no! They had a Covenant marriage witnessed by the church elders. The mother asked the Prinicpal if she wanted to see the Covenant. NO, was the answer. The Principal then asked if the boy had a birth certificate. The mother again replied NO. She and her husband had refused to co-operate and no birth certificate had been filed. The Principal then said, "well then this is a private matter and we can't proceed." In the following days, the mother and father of the boy received calls from some dozen or more government agencies. On Monday, April 7, they received a call from the Secretary of the State for Michigan. He offered to give the parents $800,000.00 if they would sign liability releases for the state. They have so far not agreed, because they don't know what is behind the offer, or what rights they may be signing away.
So 2 points here. Don't let the State run or ruin your marriage and control your children, and don't sell your children into slavery, drug addiction, or who knows what else by applying for a birth certificate for them.
Peace to all in the name of Jesus our Lord,
Lewis |
|
|
doer
Advanced Member
uSA
198 Posts |
Posted - 12 Apr 2003 : 21:57:33
|
Lewis,
This is excellent! We need to follow up on this matter, with more specific evidence of our true status when obtaining licenses. We also need remedies in Common Law -- both to avert being violated by Caesar's minions from the beginning, and to correct any errors that we may have made in being seduced into his System. Anyone knowledgeable in these matters is entreated to respond.
Be Well,
Doer |
 |
|
|
godslawissupreme
Regular Member
Canada
30 Posts |
Posted - 13 Jun 2003 : 13:26:54
|
Dear Fellow Brothers & Sisters,
As The truth is Revealed, the more the State Corporations are going to attempt to silence You.
Be cautious as I was involved in 2 Common Law Marriages and the State of New York Still asserts
that Common Law Marriage has been ABOLISHED, THEY ARE LIEING, THATS WHY MY COMMON LAW WIFE WAS TRICKED INTO A BIRTH CERTIFCATE AND SOCIAL SECURITY CARDS FOR OUR COMMONLAW BOYS.
I HAVE FILLED MY UCC 1 WITH MY MINOR CHILDEN AS DEBTORS TO THEIR FLESH N BLOOD FATHER.
YOU CAN DO THAT ALSO, EVEN IF YOU GOT CAUGHT UP IN THE SCANDALS AND LIES FROM THE BANKRUPT
STATES THAT YOU LIVE IN.
NEED MORE INFO: PLEASE REPLY BACK AND ILL BE HAPPY TO HELP YOU OUT. GOD BLESS |
|
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 09 Mar 2004 : 14:31:44
|
I just received this via e-mail and thought it worth sharing:
>> Subject: State Contracts
>>
>>
>> About 15 years ago, my former wife of 26-1/2 years, filed for divorce. We
>> had seven children, five daughters and two sons. Our youngest at the time,
>> our second son, was five years old.
>>
>> At the time, I prepared a counterclaim to the Petition for Dissolution her
>> attorney filed in Domestic Relations (DR) court. I met one afternoon with
>> the head of the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage License Bureau,
>> in downtown Phoenix. The marriage license bureau was headed
>> by a young woman of about age 25. I asked her to explain to me he general
>> and statutory implications of the marriage license. She was very
>> cooperative, and called in an Assistant, a tall Black man who at the time
>> was working on an Operations Manual for internal departmental use.
>>
>> She deferred for most technical explanations to her Assistant. He walked
>> through the technicalities of the marriage license as it operates in
>> Arizona.
>>
>> He mentioned that marriage licensing is pretty much the same in the other
>> states -- but there are differences. One significant difference he
>> mentioned was that Arizona is one of eight western states that are Community
>> Property states. The other states are Common Law states, including Utah,
>> with the exception of Louisiana which is a Napoleonic Code state.
>>
>> He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license. He
>> said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the
>> parties and the State. The State is the principal party in that Secular
>> Contract. The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties. The
>> Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal,
>> and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract. He said, in
>> the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife
>> and God. But in the Secular Contract with the state, reference to God is a
>> dotted line, and not officially considered included in
>> the Secular Contract at all. He said, if the husband and wife wish to
>> include God as a party in their marriage, that is a "dotted line" they will
>> have to add in their own minds. The state's marriage license is "strictly
>> secular," he said. He said further, that what he meant by the relationship
>> to God being a "dotted line" meant that the State regards any mention of
>> God as irrelevant, even meaningless.
>>
>>
>> In his description of the marriage license contract, the related one other
>> "dotted line." He said in the traditional religious context, marriage was a
>> covenant between the husband and wife and God with husband and wife joined
>> as one.
>>
>>
>> This is not the case in the secular realm of the state's marriage license
>> contract. The State is the Principal or dominant party. The husband and
>> wife are merely contractually "joined" as business partners, not in any
>> religious union. They may even be considered, he said, connected to each
>> other by another "dotted line." The picture he was trying to "paint" was
>> that of a triangle with the State at the top
>> and a solid line extending from the apex, the State, down the left side to
>> the husband, and a separate solid line extending down the right side to the
>> wife, a "dotted line" merely showing that they consider themselves to have
>>
>> entered into a religious union of some sort that is irrelevant to the
>> State. He further mentioned that 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 decends
>>
>> from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, 600 A.D.,
>>
>> written by the Spanish jurisconsults.
>>
>>
>> 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."
>>
>> Now, back to the explanation by the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage
>> Bureau's administrative Assistant. He went on to explain that every
>> contract must have consideration.
>>
>>
>> The State offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself --
>> the piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage. The other part of
>> consideration by the State is "the privilege to be regulated by statute."
>> He added that this privilege to be regulated by statute includes all related
>> statutes, and all court cases as they are ruled on by the courts, and all
>> statutes and regulations into the future in the years following the
>> commencement
>>
>> of the marriage. He said in a way the marriage license contract is a
>> dynamic or flexible, ever-changing contract as time goes along -- even
>> though the husband and wife didn't realize that. My thought on this is can
>> it really be considered a true contract as one becomes aware of the failure
>> by the State to make full disclosure of the terms and conditions. A
>> contract
>> must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully
>> informed consent. Otherwise, technically there is no contract. 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.
>>
>> 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 throughout 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 States has on people
>>
>> At the end of our hour-long meeting, I somewhat humorously asked if
>> other people had come in and asked the questions I was asking? The Assistant
>> replied that in the several years he had worked there, he was not aware of
>> anyone else asking these questions.
>>
>>
>> He added that he was very glad to see someone interested in the legal
>> implications of the marriage license and the contractual relationship it
>> creates with the State. His boss, the young woman Marriage Bureau
>> department head stated, "You have to understand that people who come in here
>> to get a marriage license are in heat. The last thing they want to know is
>> technical, legal and statutory implications of the marriage license."
>> (Laughter)
>>
>> I hope this is helpful information to anyone interested in getting more
>> familiar with the contractual implications of the marriage license.
>>
>>
>>
>> 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."
>>
>> Please pass this information along and share it as widely as possible.
>>
|
|
|
|
x87
Junior Member
USA
20 Posts |
Posted - 11 Mar 2004 : 01:01:05
|
This is a great topic and particularily relevant to my current situation. I have been studying marriage for awhile now in preparation for the time when I will be joined in Holy Matrimony. The subject has been in my prayers and I believe the Lord is revealing the Truth to me as I pursue this matter. Upon looking at the situation now, it seems completely obvious the difference between a state/secular contract marriage and a Holy Coveneant Marriage. One comes from God and one comes from the State. One is a right from our Creator and one is a privilege granted by the state. The state of course being a fiction created in the minds of man.
However, unfortunately this concept seems to be lost upon most people, even some of those whom I know to be devout Christians. I know that my parents never differentiated between the two and impressed the idea upon me, because they themselves were not aware of the legal ramifications of signing paperwork of the state. I suppose in their minds, as with most people, they believed that because they were married in a "church" and by a "minister" the marriage was primarily religious in nature. The idea of legal contracts if any was of little consequence and basically "took a backseat" in the matter. The fact that you do not need a church, just a clerk or magistrate and paperwork is prima facie evidence that the arrangment is completely civil in nature and bound by contract.
The evidence for this lack of general understanding is evident in the myriad of stories and editorials I have read lately in the media regarding the concept of gay marriages. Their is much controvery on the matter and it seems to me to be because of semantics. We all use the word "marriage", but with different definitions. Alot of people feel same sex marriages are wrong and will destroy the sacred institution of marriage. But what marriage are they referring to ?-- A secular legal contract with state granted privileges and benefits OR a Holy Covenant Spiritual Marriage blessed by God? Is a legal contract with the state a sacred institution? Why should it be our concern if they legalize same-sex marriages? I do believe that eventually the day will come when we will see same sex legal marriages in America. As I see it, according to the goverment's own law it cannot decriminate against it's own people with it's privileges/benefits/civil rights because of race, religion, creed, sexual orientation, etc, etc. However, no same sex couple could truly enter into a Lawful Marriage, which is Holy and Spiritual in nature, being that The Lord only sanctifies and blesses the union between a Man and a Woman. So really there is no controversy other than whether or not for the state to discriminate with it's distribution of civil benefits and equity law contracts because of an individuals sexual orientation. Besides, do you really think they want to give up an opportunity to induce more people into their jurisdiction? However the religious overtones create an obstacle to this.
Anyway,this license situation is challenging for me. I have encountered some resistance or shall I say cognitive dissonance along the way. Upon presentation of my belief in marrying without a license some even believe that the concept is strange, probably primarily because it defies social/traditional customs. I mean everybody just does it, right? Fortunately, the Lord has blessed me with a very special girlfriend that understands and shares my understanding. Now her parents are a different matter altogether! Although it has not come up yet, I am sure that it will come up eventually and with some resistance of sorts. Time will tell... :)
J Stephens
|
|
|
|
William Donald
Regular Member
uSA
31 Posts |
Posted - 10 Jul 2005 : 16:15:08
|
I came on to ask for scripture reference that supports the old adage "Two wrongs don't make a right." I wish to post on a political (Christian) discussion forum on the issue of 'gay marriage.' My argument is "why play in 'Satan's' game" by supporting the institution of civil marriage. I had kinda forgotten reading this thread, Walter's post is great stuff. I'll use Brother Gregory's research as well. May God bless J Stephens and others acting with His Spirit in Truth.
Do you have scripture reference for my post to the politicos?
William
p.s. edit I am so not computer literate. How can I link this thread to others?
Total depravity (inability), Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, Preservation of the saints.
|
Edited by - William Donald on 10 Jul 2005 16:18:34 |
|
|
|
difranco
Regular Member
uSA
38 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2005 : 20:11:59
|
quote:
Originally posted by x87
Anyway,this license situation is challenging for me. I have encountered some resistance or shall I say cognitive dissonance along the way. Upon presentation of my belief in marrying without a license some even believe that the concept is strange, probably primarily because it defies social/traditional customs. I mean everybody just does it, right? Fortunately, the Lord has blessed me with a very special girlfriend that understands and shares my understanding. Now her parents are a different matter altogether! Although it has not come up yet, I am sure that it will come up eventually and with some resistance of sorts. Time will tell... :)
To my understanding the States did not start issue of marriage licenses until after the Civil War, intended to prevent or curb intermarriage of the races. (See Blacks Law Dictionary 3rd Edition).
|
|
|
|
David Merrill
Advanced Member
USA
1147 Posts |
Posted - 19 Jul 2005 : 21:00:13
|
Dear Readers;
Recently I was commissioned to process an abatement for misnomer on some felony charges against a man. I am not clear on the details because I really do not require that.
Anyway there are four stipulations in the default judgment:
quote:
4. "The woman, Cindy Rae, my wife, part of one flesh with Gerold Tarrence which no man is to put asunder (Gen 2:24, Matt 19:5-6: Mark 10:8, Eph 5:31) be returned to the place from which she was taken within forty eight (48) hours from the time of the filing of this document. The state has no lawful authority in the contract between Gerold Tarrence and Cindy Rae, because no marriage licens was obtained and the lare requires the husband will rule over the wive and not the state (Gen 3:16, I Cor 11:3, Eph 5:22, Col 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1)
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 20 Jul 2005 : 07:08:19
|
Greetings:
Peace be unto the house.
Question: Would not the STATE still be a PARTY, irrespective of whether this was a LICENSED MARRIAGE or not, as long as either one, or both, were 14th Amendment Slaves (voluntary), i.e. property of the STATE (HUMAN RESOURCES/RESIDENTS)? Note: We perceive that RES IDENTS means “things made identical”. So 'elohiym created man in their own image, in the image of 'elohiym created they them; male and female created they them.
If one is a 14th Amendment citizen (without breath), a resident of the UNITED STATES, and the other is a Citizen of Yahuwâh’s Kingdom (with breath), a resident of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, then it is a “mixed” (Heb 'ârab) marriage, which is unlawful (more or less).
Disparata non debent jungi. Unequal things ought not to be joined.
When this occurred in the commonwealth of Yisra’el, if and when they wished to return to His Jurisdiction, Yahuwâh apparently insisted that they leave behind the wives and the children of (originating from) these unlawful unions.
And when I heard this thing, I tore my garments and my robe, and plucked off the hair of my head and of my beard, and sat down stunned.
If they both are not 14th Amendment Slaves, and if their “works” match their “words”, and if they have the strength to stand fast...in the liberty, then we perceive that you could have a winner.
H6148
'ârab
aw-rab'
A primitive root; to braid, that is, intermix; technically to traffic (as if by barter); also to give or be security (as a kind of exchange)
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 20 Jul 2005 09:57:06 |
|
|
|
artsfree
Regular Member
Australia
38 Posts |
Posted - 16 Jan 2006 : 01:29:22
|
Hello dear friends and fellowseekers of truth.
Hard to break away from our "programming" isn't it?. Moral,immoral or guilt complexes created by the words of men or "slavespeak". Consider marriage in the light of the following.
Look to the inner programing placed within our breasts by our creator. Follow the Seven Natural Laws that later rewriters removed from the scripture concerning Jacob's Ladder. Seven beautiful steps to eternity. (Each of these seven laws has sublaws) Maybe 7 times seven? lol.
1. Free agency. We are all born as sovereign individuals with the right to choose our own path.
2. Cause and effect. Whatever we do or dont do, will be the cause for an effect. Good returns good and bad returns bad etc.
3. Resonance. All things "us included" have a specific frequency. Like people associate. As our frequency alters (spirituality)our circumstances change(water with applied heat may boil). Moses could only withstand observing part of our creator; to observe more may have destroyed him. If the correct frequencies are applied matter will disintergrate.
4.Forgiveness. Without which we are doomed to dwell in the past and to be filled with hatred and ill will thereby perverting the course he has laid before us to return to his presence.
5. Charity. The service we give from the bounty of our hearts and the goods that our creator has blessed us with. To provide service as the opportunity arises to our brothers and sisters. Every day to seek some opportunity to serve.
6. Love. To love others you must first learn to love yourself(self respect) only then may the fullness of love begin to really grow. If you cannot love yourself then how can you love others?
7. Transmutation. Upon passing from this existence to become "one" with the creator.(depends upon the other six tho doesnt it?)
If your decision on any matter does not align with these seven natural laws then it's not the right decision. It is my decision that plural marriage is ordained by god as "exampled" by the prophets and supported by the scriptures and that any grey area arising (varying circumstances) in between can be speedily decided by the seven laws application.
Regards Artsfree |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 17 Jan 2006 : 13:13:18
|
Genesis 28:12 And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of 'Elohiym ascending and descending on it.
artsfree: "Follow the Seven Natural Laws that later rewriters removed from the scripture concerning Jacob's Ladder. Seven beautiful steps to eternity." (Emphasis added)
We would like to see the evidence of this removal if you care to share it.
Thank you.
fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional USA.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19
An act done by me against my will is not my act. |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 18 Jan 2006 : 09:31:53
|
Greetings to all,
Amongst all, brother Robert, oneisraelite, brings up a good explenation:
"Disparata non debent jungi. Unequal things ought not to be joined."
It has been some time since the RULE of "I do, I do, until I sue" brings about the adverserial chaos of homocide squads turning unto divorce squads, which is a result of STATE SANCTIONED BARRATROUS encounters of those THINGS called ATTORNEY SUICIDE ASSISTED FAMILY WHORE/COURT-HOUSES. If there is truly a HOLOCAUST, it is on those BAR-INFESTED BLACK-ROBED GAS CHAMBERS tempting and rewarding one side, to further their drunken stupid and senseless slaughter to please their BANKSTER MASTERS.
I recall a man and his wife noticing some rats going to and fro the power lines, which at the moment of perception realized that by separating the families, the BANKSTERS and their BLACK-ROBED ATTORNEYS and following down the chain of destructive terror, more and more would fall prey to the hungry wolves satisfying their lusts for their STATE SANCTIONED AND FRAUDULENT LENDING PRACTICES further enslaving all. They premeditated the fraud that by "a house divided cannot stand" would lead to more usury, more slaves, more debtors.
So you see... all these kidnapping, extortion schemes and black mail/male, is but to quench the bloodthirsty glutton vipers to extend and balance their sheets and pyramid building racket.
Above all... be ye not yoked with the unclean. Let no man/woman come between you and deceive you. Call no man/woman JUDGE, for there is One Lawgiver, Judge and King which is supreme among all fake and false propheteers. Be aware of whores riding on the beast prostituting themselves mistakingly believing that they will end up with good company, finding on due course they too would reap their just rewards.
Does not past mistakes tell us that "and wo/men use their children to oppress man?" And does not the evil rulers know that for milleniums they have gotten to that womb to destroy the seeds? Does not past mistakes tell us that man too has fallen prey to that emotional blackmale... giving the beast the false power turning all unto MERCHANT-DICE?
I am,
Manuel
|
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2006 : 09:36:39
|
Greetings and salutations,
Peace be unto the house.
We highly recommend George Gordon's August 2006 radio archives numbers 7 through 12 on the subject entitled Marriage. We have currently listened through number two and have already picked up some very valuable information.
http://georgegordon.org/Radio_Archives.htm
Hope some of you also find some value in them.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 05 Sep 2006 09:40:27 |
|
|
|
krone
Regular Member
uSA
25 Posts |
Posted - 05 Sep 2006 : 22:21:07
|
Greetings in the Name of the Lord Jesus
I am interested in terminating my state issued marriage license. A divorce does not seem to be the answer. Illinois offers the option of annullment but I have not yet researched this. I suspect that the solution is to record a Notice with the county recorder that the secular marriage contract is terminated. Any other info out there?
Also, concerning the issue of Lawful marriages vs state licensed marriages, it seems logical to me that any marriage other than a Lawful marriage is not a marriage at all but a monogamous fornicating union. Anyone familiar with the acronym: Fornicating Under Consent of the King? Pardon the suggestion of vulgarity possessed by the f-word. I can't find a whole lot of information regarding this acronym, but I wonder if it has Christian origins! It effectively describes a state licenced marriage.
Peace to the ekklesia
Mark |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 06 Sep 2006 : 05:27:14
|
Greetings and salutations, Mark:
Peace be unto the house.
You wrote under an other topic here: "If we wish to terminate these contracts, thereby relieving our obligation to pay, then we must stop partaking of the benefits."
Is that you and your WIFE's[1] wish, to stop partaking of all the qualifying benefits of the STATE?
Endnotes:
[1] wife O.E. wif "woman," from P.Gmc. *wiban (cf. O.S., O.Fris. wif, O.N. vif, Dan., Swed. viv, M.Du., Du. wijf, O.H.G. wib, Ger. Weib), of unknown origin. Online Etymology Dictionary [Emphasis added] Beware of "unknown origins"!
As far as we have been able to ascertain, there is no Ibriy [Hebrew] word in the set apart Scripture for wife.
The first instance of this word in Yahuwah's Book of the Law (KJV) is found at Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man[H376] leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife[H802]: and they shall be one flesh.
When we rightly divide the word we find that 'ishshah, H802 - woman, is merely the feminine counterpart of 'ish, H376 - man. Thus we perceive that this verse perhaps should have been translated, Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his woman: and they shall be one flesh.
Some may also find it interesting that there was also, apparently, no Ibriy word for our English word married, which rears its ugly head a mere 18 times in the KJV. The word translated married, in this version, is the Ibriy word laqach, which means take, and is translated as participles of take, literally thousands of times, in the KJV.
Could this explain why Yahushua, our anointed King of Yisra'el, says this?
And Yahushua answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage...
And finally, we leave you this day, with these thoughts, matrimony, i.e. mother condition is the antithesis of patrimony, father condition.
Partus sequitur ventrem. The offspring follow the condition of the mother. This is the law in the case of slaves and animals; 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 167, 502; but with regard to freemen, children follow the condition of the father. - Maxim of Law taken from Bouvier's 1856 Law Dictionary [Emphasis added]
In cases of separation, which PERSON does the STATE generally prefer to give the children to, the mother or the father?
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 06 Sep 2006 06:11:17 |
|
|
|
Linc
Advanced Member
Canada
111 Posts |
Posted - 10 Sep 2006 : 03:22:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by oneisraelite
We highly recommend George Gordon's August 2006 radio archives numbers 7 through 12 on the subject entitled Marriage. We have currently listened through number two and have already picked up some very valuable information.
Nice to find another George Gordon listener on here. I find him to be 99% correct. Very inspiring. I've never seen him tackle the Trinity or the Lunar Sabbath or the Small Universe / Fixed Earth issues before. The few times I found him to be incorrect, it was in small side issues, not in anything major. |
Edited by - Linc on 10 Sep 2006 03:24:24 |
|
|
|
Oneisraelite
Advanced Member
uSA
833 Posts |
Posted - 10 Sep 2006 : 07:56:20
|
Greetings and salutations, brother Linc:
Peace be unto the house.
quote:
Originally posted by Linc Nice to find another George Gordon listener on here. I find him to be 99% correct. Very inspiring. I've never seen him tackle the Trinity or the Lunar Sabbath or the Small Universe / Fixed Earth issues before. The few times I found him to be incorrect, it was in small side issues, not in anything major.
Most times, "correct" is relative to what we already believe to be true, thus we try not to put him, or anyone else, in any percentile bracket for not seeing eye to eye with us.
On a more private level, we find many of his interpretations to be very agreeable to what we have discovered but can use few of his remedies because his status in the world seems[1] to differ greatly from our own.
brother George apparently[1] believes he is an Hebrew, as it pertains to bloodline, but his status is evidently[1] not that of an Yisraelite, i.e. he seemingly[1] does not perceive himself to be a fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el. To those who believe only in the governments of men, which includes the man-made STATE OF ISRAEL, the status of fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisra'el, with very little doubt, must appear utterly foolish.
Now we have received, not the spirit [mental disposition] of the world, but the spirit [mental disposition] which is of Yahuwah; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of Yahuwah.
Endnotes:
[1] We have prefaced our remarks with these words because we are not absolutely certain that we are correct in our evalutations and do not wish to misrepresent this man's beliefs.
brother Robert: fellowcitizen of the commonwealth of Yisar'el,
NOT the man-made, fictional STATE OF ISRAEL.
Ephesians 2:12 & 19 |
Edited by - Oneisraelite on 10 Sep 2006 08:16:19 |
|
|
|
Owenbrittont
Advanced Member
USA
86 Posts |
Posted - 18 Sep 2006 : 19:15:46
|
| Walter... or someone else... What is the title of the Arizona court case mentioned in Walter's response ?? |
|
|
|
JT
Junior Member
USA
20 Posts |
Posted - 08 Apr 2007 : 22:18:18
|
| Has anyone who has already entered into the licensed marriage contract with the state found a way to get out of the contract without having the "fruits" - children, come under the authority of the courts. In my situation, my wife and I received a marriage certificate from the state of Colorado (which recognizes common law marriages) about a month prior to our actual (God sanctioned marriage). We did not understand that we were placing ourselves and our future children under the authority or supervision of the state in doing so. However, since we do not wish to compromise our rights or the rights of our children, we would like an annulment of the contract somehow. However, we are remaining married under God. "Divorce" seems to give the State direct command over property and children, so that does not seem like an option. What about "annulment"? The laws say that we can have an annulment of the marriage license if we did not understand the nature or ramifications of the contract, but the implied meaning is referring to our commitment to each other, not the the part about placing ourselves and children under the jurisdiction of the State of Colorado. Anybody successfully got out of the marriage license without getting out of the marriage? |
|
|
|
Greg
Advanced Member
uSA
76 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2007 : 19:35:34
|
Just a thought. If you're children have "BIRTH CERTIFICATES" then they are already under the controlling purview of the STATE, and if they have Social Security numbers. If they have either of these it really doesn't matter how you and your wife interact with each other in reference to jurisdiction over the children.
Of course I don't give nor sell legal advice, just sharing the word. |
|
|
|
Bondservant
Forum Administrator
382 Posts |
Posted - 11 Apr 2007 : 20:47:47
|
| Greg, you are absolutely correct. If they have a SSAN, they belong to the legal STATE; If they have a BIRTH CERTIFICATE, they belong to the STATE. Both assumptions make the STATE their "legal" (NOT lawful) parents (look up the Latin word PARENS). As biological/spiritual parents, neither the ecclesiastic mother nor father have any authority under those conditions. |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
State Issued Marriage License
