| Author |
 Topic  |
|
sovprog
Regular Member
USA
27 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Aug 2003 : 16:50:40
|
After reading several articles online about marriage, it is urged by Christian patriots and the like that common law marriage is the only way to go when man and woman shall join as one. The consensus is that common law marriage is the right thing to do. Because under statutory law(contracts), a marriage license also "marries" you to the state. Therefore, in effect, your children can become wards of the state ultimately.
For those who have already gotten married under the statutory sense by applying for a marriage license from the state, what is the remedy for that? Is there a way to get out of that contract and still maintain an "official" married position?
Thanks.
|
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2003 : 17:39:01
|
I don't know if you came across my (less than perfect) compilation of definitions on the subject of marriage, but you can find it here: http://home.earthlink.net/~walterk12/Xian/Studies/Matrimony.html (This subject was raised here before, whence I started that article.)
One want to have matrimony, not marriage.
I have no first-hand experience with this, but I beilieve you want to rescind your signatures on the marriage license. Others here should have better things to say than I, however. |
 |
|
|
sovprog
Regular Member
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 05 Aug 2003 : 20:05:08
|
Walter,
Do you know where information on rescinding the signatures might be found? Or, perhaps a starting place to look?
Thanks. |
|
|
|
Walter
Advanced Member
USA
144 Posts |
Posted - 06 Aug 2003 : 12:36:00
|
| I don't know. I do know that the UCC has one section that allows local-law remedies to be used; I presume that rescinding a signature is in that somewhere. But surely someone else here knows already??? |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 07 Aug 2003 : 12:00:32
|
sovprog,
I believe you go to the county recorder where the marriage license was recorded and do the rescinding there.
Lewis |
|
|
|
sovprog
Regular Member
USA
27 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2003 : 23:59:11
|
Livefree,
Here's what one can do in the state of California. Have the woman change her name legally first with a filing at the Superior Court in her county. It will require 4 weeks of public notice in a newspaper, 2 months processing, and then a swear-in date at the courthouse. Once she has these official papers of a legal name change, she can then take that paperwork to the DMW and have her name rightly changed. Of course, she will need to have her name changed on record everywhere else including IRS, FTB, SSA, credit cards, bank accounts, real estate title, etc.
|
|
|
|
Surveyor
Regular Member
USA
31 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2003 : 19:00:38
|
I fail to see the purpose or what could be accomplished by any of this process. By the license the State is a party to the marriage before the ceremony and by the common law certificate the State is made a party after the ceremony.
And if the individuals are subjects of the State then the State automatically has an interest in their marriage. Common law rules made applicable by statute is only statutory authority in disguise. |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 25 Aug 2003 : 21:03:22
|
Greetings In the name of Jesus, The Christ.
For the purpose of those who are not aware of contract law, the "marriage license" places man and family under the jurisdiction of the STATE and its services. It is my understanding, from a Blacks law dictionary, that the "intention" of the marriage license was introduced under the vail of keeping track of "intermarriage."
That track has reared its ugly head towards their ultimate intentions, DESTRUCTION OF THE FAMILIES. Under the "shadow of that law," they have taken children (which many now call kids), and have actually mentioned on courts many times that the children are the wards of the STATE. They know that by cutting the head of the family, the rest will fall to their pit. Proponderous evidence indicates that they despise the father and the son, and ultimately drag the wife. A few months ago, there was a maxim I quoted here which stated, "In a legitimate marriage, His Children always follow the condition of the Father... however, with animals, the offspring follow the condition of the mother."
Lest we forget... as the families go, so does the nation.
It takes two to tango though, so don't dance to their music.
Dios con vosotros,
Manuel
|
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2003 : 05:29:15
|
There are several layers of trouble here.
First, with Caesar it is all or nothing. Not wanting a marriage license from Caesar but wanting one of his fancy driver's licenses means that he gets ALL of you anyway. The only way to win this game is to learn how to cut ALL ties. We should never be asking Caesar's approval for any reason. He only approves of "illegal" behavior by licensing it. If we are engaged in lawful activity and doing our Father's will, then we have approval from the highest authority already.
The second layer is the real kicker. This determines where your heart is. Who do you look to for the protection of your treasure? Having all of Caesar's paperwork in order so that he can protect your treasure from greedy relatives (or others) simply means that you are giving him permission to take it instead. If you "own" nothing, then there is nothing for the relatives (or Caesar for that matter) to come after. If your husband/wife is living this same reality, then there should be no problem should some realtive ever try to use Caesar to extort anything on their behalf. Acts chapter two is the one place that NO ONE wants to go, for it requires giving up everything that is "mine."
This takes some real spiritual discernment, but in the end there is only one thing we are trying to prove with credibility: who owns us? Caesar says he does, and presently there are very few who daily rebut that presumption by their actions. |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2003 : 12:55:53
|
Here is another perspective. We should never "own" anything. Owners are debtors. We are not debtors, Jesus paid all our debts.
Instead, we should simply be the caretakers of what He has given us to watch over. It is His, not ours. And if we keep that point of view in respect to all earthly things, He will take care of all of us. Do not look to Caesar for protection. He can not give it.
Go in Peace,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2003 : 12:59:17
|
Here is another perspective. We should never "own" anything. Owners are debtors. We are not debtors, Jesus paid all our debts.
Instead, we should simply be the caretakers of what He has given us to watch over. It is His, not ours. And if we keep that point of view in respect to all earthly things, He will take care of all of us. Do not look to Caesar for protection. He can not give it.
Go in Peace,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Caleb
Advanced Member
Philippines
209 Posts |
Posted - 26 Aug 2003 : 16:34:03
|
Lewis,
Thank you for that simple, yet profound insight. When you said an owner is a debtor, I went to my Concise Oxford Dictionary and there it was as plain as day: the root of the word "own" is "owe." So when the police ask you if you are the "owner" of the car you are in, they are really asking you to identify yourself as a debtor who they can drag into their collection agency.
Here's another. We should all know that a "resident" is a "thing, identified." But how about definition #5 from Oxford: an intelligence agent in a foreign country.
So when the police ask if you are a resident, they are really asking you to identify yourself as a spy. No wonder they are so eager to arrest you!
Livefree, there are other options to what we think of as ownership. Strive to have all earthly goods controlled by the ecclesia. This consists only of those who hear and do the will of your Father in heaven, so the "things" He has provided for you shelter, etc. will be truly protected. It is a question of who we trust. Caesar takes jurisdiction because most people trust him more than they trust their fellow believers. A sad testimony indeed. |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
19 Posts |
Posted - 25 Feb 2004 : 23:41:17
|
| I was wondering if anybody had any advice for me...I was very young when i had my first child.Her father and I had a wedding planned, but with lack of family help we were unable to make that a reality..We ended up getting papers signed stating we were common law married so we could be held out as married....I was very young as i mentioned, now my husband and I have been married for almost 9 years. The advice i am seeking is, I didnt realize I could have taken his last name when this occured. So i always just used mine, now i want to know what I have to do , without having a ceremony to take his last name.I am in a state where they recognize common law marriages, I just didnt know if I had to go to a lawyer, or what I need to do? Please give me any suggestions... thank you |
|
|
|
Lewish
Advanced Member
uSA
496 Posts |
Posted - 25 Feb 2004 : 23:59:40
|
Hello Samename,
While I don't give out advice, I will make you a suggestion. Go to the elders of your church body, not a Corporation Church, and tell them you would like to re-affirm your marriage in a Covenant Ceremony. They should provide you with the Covenant and then they will witness it after the Ceremony.
After that, you can use your husband's last name in clear conscience and in accordance with Common Law. Should anyone question the use of your husband's last name, you have the Covenant to show them as proof, just as you would have done had you gotten a State issued license. But, whatever you do, do NOT get a State issued license!
Peace be with you,
Lewis |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2004 : 09:50:02
|
Dear sister Samename.............
I think you care to wear your huband's family name. Also called a surname. And this is quite proper. A LAST NAME is for those who don't want the "new name".
You are; who you say you are...not who THEY say you are.
By the Way...this forum is part of the ecclesia, {Church}...the called out {of the system}, and has authority to hear matters concerning the Body of Messiah.
1 Corinthians 11:3.
Yahuweh bless you and yours, through the Son of His Love. |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 26 Feb 2004 : 15:56:40
|
Greetings,
being a Sheperd, one does not need to RECORD a Lawful union with the County Office of Records, to make things Lawful.
In a Scotch marriage, just two beings need Stand before the asemblige, proclaim their Union to their Neighbors...and it is a done deal. NOWADAYS, a typist can not discern between a CAPITAL LETTERED PERSON, and a CAPITALIZED PERSON. File the Notice in the Family scripture Book, the Book of Life.
The previous mentioned post wants you to jump through the hoop of a LEGAL defination. {gee...if we do things LEGALLY, then we are SEEN by the AUTHORITIES}. YaHuWeH is The Watchful Eye...not man. |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 29 Feb 2004 : 17:13:29
|
Greetings In His name Yahushuah, My Father,
Need we undertand more? Need we see and hear more proof?
I understand that many here reading the following is like preaching to the choir, but just in case some would use this to further teach others, then, herewith is provided, In Him, Manuel:
How Did Gov't Get Involved in "Marriage",
a Matter of Religious Tradition?
From: "Virgil Cooper" ultrac21@whitemtns.com
Sent: Saturday, February 21, 2004 1:04
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
the 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 Lousiana 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 irrrelevant 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 strictily 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.
Best regards from Virgil Cooper
|
|
|
|
Nurse_Mighty_Mom
Junior Member
USA
24 Posts |
Posted - 17 Mar 2004 : 17:30:35
|
| I hope someone can help me with the next step in this. I was married via marriage license. My husband filed for divorce, deceived the courts to obtain custody of our 4 children. The court awarded him temporary custody. After proceedings began, I learned of the marriage license making the State a 3rd party to the marriage, which was NOT disclosed on said application, constituting FRAUD. I sent my intent to rescind my signature from said application to the appropriate authorities in my State. They failed to respond. Silence equates agreement. I sent the rescission papers a second time. Again they failed to respond. I have a lawyer who refuses to present this information for fear of being laughed at! Can anyone help me with information on what I should do next to get my children back? I kept this short and simple. For more details or to send information, please contact me at Nurse_Mighty_Mom@yahoo.com Thank you ! |
|
|
|
kirkguardian
Junior Member
USA
20 Posts |
Posted - 20 Mar 2004 : 20:31:04
|
Sorry to hear of your predicament nursemightymom.
However, it's a frivolous argument to claim there was a lack of disclosure when you asked for a marriage license. The disclosure is easily found in every law library, and you don't need to look far to find it, nor do you even need to read any case law. Just look up the word "marriage" in any legal encyclopedia (e.g. American Jurisprudence, Corpus Juris Secundum, etc.). Furthermore, the Bar Association in every state publishes pamphlets on the subject of marriage which make it abundantly clear that "marriage is a civil contract," and "there are 3 parties to the marriage contract, husband, wife and the state."
It's not the government's responsibility to educate you about every legal contract that you enter into. It's your own responsibility to study the law for yourself. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" is the operative maxim in your case.
Comments have been made here by others in this thread about the alleged feasibility of rescinding and revoking the marriage contract. This too is another falacy. Revocation of any contract cannot be done apart from the agreement of every party to the contract. The state is a party to the contract ("marriage is a civil contract") of every marriage license. It would be nice if the state would agree to rescind the contract, but I seriously doubt that would ever happen (those who believe they can revoke their SSN should also carefully consider this important legal principle).
It would be nice if there were a legal remedy for every legal problem; but that's not always the case. If anyone has a real solution (not just more "patriot mythology") for getting rid of the marriage license, I for one would be most interested in hearing about it. |
|
|
|
Robert-James
Advanced Member
uSA
353 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2004 : 17:10:49
|
Well Kirk...one can die a civil death, meaning the MR. ALL CAP man never appears again. A marriage license is ALL CAP fiction, is it not?
I do know of a brother in messiah who divorced his WIFE legally, to rid himself of the fiction, and of course they stayed together...the STATE had kidnapped one of their children, and he and his helpmeet cut or untangled all those STATE contracts, so as to be able to have "clean hands". The STATE did not do an estoppal, and the last I heard, the family was out of the matrix doing well. "Old man", becomes the new man! |
|
|
|
Manuel
Advanced Member
USA
762 Posts |
Posted - 22 Mar 2004 : 20:49:21
|
Also, please be mindful that THE STATE, while IT imagines that IT holds the key to knowledge, is boastful of how they keep the "rule of law" when in all honesty they do not keep His Law, maxims In Law.
They also push their agenda through their STATE SCHOOLS, STATE 501 3 (C) CHURCH/SCHOOLS, NON-PROFITS, ETC., and all TIED to them. Oh... not to mention their ADVERTISING AGENCY, CBS, ABC, CNN, etc...
It is they who say, "BLABBER... BLABBER... BLABBER," but remember, do not do as they do.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
common law marriage or marriage license?
