Marriage Privatization:

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Rudy

It still remains a VOLUNTARY CONTRACT. There is no penalty for not sighning over headship to the government.

Prove the license is a contract.

Prove that a marriage without a license prevents the state from doing anything except collecting a fee.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You apparently didn't read a thing I said.

But that's par for the course.

Let me repeat for the readers: The LICENSE confers upon the State no power they don't already claim. It confers upon the couple no obligation whatsoever except maybe a 72 hour waiting period (laws differ by state - feel better?) before getting married.

Ah, but a marriage through the state (a civil marriage) does require a couple to go before a state official representing the authority of the court to get permission to form their union (civil marriage). And they are also under legal obligation to dissolve their union before the authority of the court, does it not?

This was a concern of the early Quakers who did not believe that civil government united a man and woman, nor did they believe in believers being required to settle divorces or grievances before the secular courts of the world in accordance to, I Corinthians 6:1-8.

The issue at hand is that an increasing number of Christian couples want the government to be involved as little as possible concerning their unions. And as demonstrated in the links presented earlier in this thread, an increasing number of Christian pastors (primarily conservative) are not wanting to serve as agents of the state with regards to marriage.

So, does a couple have the right to form a private marriage that doesn't require state involvement? Many are already doing this without criminal charge or penalty. So, the answer is "yes", indeed they do have the right to do this.

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Prove the license is a contract.

Prove that a marriage without a license prevents the state from doing anything except collecting a fee.

Drive without a license---penalty


fish without a license----penalty.


get married without a license---nothing.


CONTRACT.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Rudy

Drive without a license---penalty


fish without a license----penalty.


get married without a license---nothing.


CONTRACT.

Sorry, brother, but you simply do not understand what a contract is. Marriage is a type of contract. A license is not a contract. You cannot have a contract if both parties do not understand it is a contract. You cannot have a contract if there is not an "agreement to do something". And a marriage license doesn't obligate you to do anything.

The marriage license does NOT grant the state any power or jurisdiction they don't already claim. Why y'all can't see this is beyond me. No state will suddenly intervene in a marriage and claim the license gives them jurisdiction. If it did, you would not be required to FILE A PETITION to divorce! Because they would already have jurisdiction.

Instead, you have to petition a court and prove it has jurisdiction. And in doing this you do NOT present a license, but rather proof of marriage taking place in the court's jurisdiction, and proof of residence.

I'm not arguing people should get a marriage license. I'm just against false information of ANY kind.

[Aquila]

A license is only permission from an authorized authority to enter a civil marriage. Once filed with the state and the necessary state issued marriage certificate is issued, one's relationship is, by civil contract, strictly under the authority of the state. It cannot be dissolved privately and all civil laws governing income, property, and spousal support are under the authority of the courts.

This is entered into voluntarily. But more and more people are becoming leery of this civil institution.

A growing number of clergy do not wish to act as agents of the state in a system that now recognizes gay marriage. Also, a growing number of Christians do not wish to have to go before the civil courts to dissolve their unions, should it be necessary. Nor do they wish the civil courts to have absolute jurisdiction over their property or authority to impose spousal support. Nor do they wish to be subject to laws that govern Social Security benefits or Medicare benefits. These Christians prefer a private union that is a contract that is strictly between themselves and their partners.

[Rudy]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Sorry, brother, but you simply do not understand what a contract is. Marriage is a type of contract. A license is not a contract. You cannot have a contract if both parties do not understand it is a contract. You cannot have a contract if there is not an "agreement to do something". And a marriage license doesn't obligate you to do anything.

The marriage license does NOT grant the state any power or jurisdiction they don't already claim. Why y'all can't see this is beyond me. No state will suddenly intervene in a marriage and claim the license gives them jurisdiction. If it did, you would not be required to FILE A PETITION to divorce! Because they would already have jurisdiction.

Instead, you have to petition a court and prove it has jurisdiction. And in doing this you do NOT present a license, but rather proof of marriage taking place in the court's jurisdiction, and proof of residence.

I'm not arguing people should get a marriage license. I'm just against false information of ANY kind.

Respectfully you are all over the place on this issue.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Rudy

Respectfully you are all over the place on this issue.

Respectfully you aren't on the right page on this issue. I have repeatedly pointed out that the marriage license confers no power to the state that it doesn't already claim even over "common law" marriages. There is no case that I have ever heard of in which the state declared the existence of a marriage license made any difference whatsoever in the disposition of a marriage, EXCEPT in cases of either claimed bigamy or other unlawful marriages, which would be unlawful marriage license or not.

Nobody here arguing about the supposed powers of the marriage license have supplied any data or information whatsoever to support their claims. Nobody arguing that a marriage license is some supposed "contract" has provided a single shred of supporting documentation.

Obtaining a marriage license is purely a matter of personal preference. By obtaining the license the parties are stating they recognise the state's authority to authorise the marriage, or at least are stating they have no intention of objecting to the state's power of authorising or forbidding marriages. From the state's point of view, the marriage license is nothing but a revenue scheme that also conveniently helps reduce the instances of bigamy and other unlawful marriages (such as incest).

So just repeatedly posting that I am wrong, with absolutely nothing to show for it but your own claim that I am wrong, clearly demonstrates you have not actually studied the legal issues concernimg marriage licenses. Rather, you are likely parroting information you read on the internet from those who oppose the marriage license.

I spent YEARS researching at law libraries the subjects of law, the UCC, Title 26, the income tax, driver's license issues vs Right To Travel, sovereign citizenship, Constitutional vs Federal Code of Federal Regulations issues, the corporate entity of DC and "States" vs these united States, issues of citizenship (state vs federal vs 14th amendment etc), the "flag issue", etc. I have spent hours and hours researching the actual court cases in the Federal and Supreme Court records, the congressional record, state cases including hours pouring over Vernon's Texas Statutes, Annotated. I have also put myself on the line IN court and AT federal offices arguing law vs regulation, jurisdiction, "contract", admiralty law and UCC, etc. I was doing this back in the 90s. I know what I'm talking about.

And when I say this hubbub concerning marriage licenses is riddled with factual errors and "patriot mythology" I am 100% right. Lots of people have actually gone to jail arguing old, outdated, incorrect legal arguments which include this "marriage license is a contract" idea. Thankfully, I've never known anyone to go to jail specifically in regards to the "contract theory of the marriage license" since the issue simply doesn't come up in court and if it does it's all cut and dry (again, almost always restricted to cases of bigamy or other unlawful unions).

Now, if I am wrong, then by all means break out Black's Dictionary and Blackstone's Commentaries and cite the relevant case law that proves your point. Otherwise...?

[Aquila]

Esaias, would you say that the following is true regarding marriage licenses?

- Having a marriage license requires a couple to go before the civil courts to dissolve their union should they decide to end their marriage.
- It also places the Christian marriage under the same unbiblical legal statutes that recognize gay marriage.
- It requires pastors to act as agents of the state.

Many Christians, do not believe in going before unbelieving courts to settle legal disputes (including divorce) based on, I Corinthians 6:1-8. Therefore, they believe that to become entangled in a legal system of this world, that doesn't even manage marriage biblically, is in violation of both Scripture and conscience. And many pastors are having reservations about being licensed "agents of the state". Many states also have statutes on the books that prevent state licensed ministers from performing purely religious marriages. They see this as a violation of religious liberty, and a way to control what unions a pastor might choose to bless.

While I agree with you, there is quite a bit of "patriot mythology" out there, these concerns are legitimate. Are they not?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Esaias, would you say that the following is true regarding marriage licenses?

- Having a marriage license requires a couple to go before the civil courts to dissolve their union should they decide to end their marriage.
- It also places the Christian marriage under the same unbiblical legal statutes that recognize gay marriage.
- It requires pastors to act as agents of the state.

Many Christians, do not believe in going before unbelieving courts to settle legal disputes (including divorce) based on, I Corinthians 6:1-8. Therefore, they believe that to become entangled in a legal system of this world, that doesn't even manage marriage biblically, is in violation of both Scripture and conscience. And many pastors are having reservations about being licensed "agents of the state". Many states also have statutes on the books that prevent state licensed ministers from performing purely religious marriages. They see this as a violation of religious liberty, and a way to control what unions a pastor might choose to bless.

While I agree with you, there is quite a bit of "patriot mythology" out there, these concerns are legitimate. Are they not?

If you are in a state recognized marriage - including a "common law" marriage - divorce procedures are the same, whether you obtained a license or not. There is no "common law divorce" to my knowledge. A couple who get married via common law, and who then split apart on their own terms, with no courts involved, CAN be subject to bigamy charges if either of them remarry. Again, if the state recognizes your marriage as valid, then divorce via the courts is the only state recognized way to dissolve the marriage (excepting death).

ALL marriages that are recognized by the state as valid, including Quaker or common law marriages, are under the state's laws regarding marriage rights, property rights, and divorce decrees, etc. NOTHING CHANGES by not having a license or by not filing a certificate with the state.

If the state does NOT recognize the marriage, then as far as the state is concerned you are not married, period.

The reason NOT to get a license and file a state marriage certificate is purely idealogical, to make a statement that you believe the state has no authority to forbid marriage or allow marriage. It CAN have consequences in case one partner dies unexpectedly (probate here you come) and it MIGHT have consequences for filing taxes.

BTW, we've always filed jointly as husband and wife yet I have NEVER shown ANY agency a copy of our marriage certificate except I think an insurance company to establish beneficiary rights. And I'm not even sure about that. lol

Its like not having a high school diploma. I got a GED and NEVER have had to show it to ANYONE except when signing up for college.

It all depends on how much of a nuisance you want to be. I know guys who drive around with no insurance, no vehicle registration, and homemade "Republic of Texas" license plates. They know the score, but have an Idea they want to stand for, so they rolls the die and takes their chances. They've been doing it for YEARS and still do. (I think the local po-po just ignore them, too much paperwork lol.)

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Esaias

If you are in a state recognized marriage - including a "common law" marriage - divorce procedures are the same, whether you obtained a license or not. There is no "common law divorce" to my knowledge. A couple who get married via common law, and who then split apart on their own terms, with no courts involved, CAN be subject to bigamy charges if either of them remarry. Again, if the state recognizes your marriage as valid, then divorce via the courts is the only state recognized way to dissolve the marriage (excepting death).

ALL marriages that are recognized by the state as valid, including Quaker or common law marriages, are under the state's laws regarding marriage rights, property rights, and divorce decrees, etc. NOTHING CHANGES by not having a license or by not filing a certificate with the state.

If the state does NOT recognize the marriage, then as far as the state is concerned you are not married, period.

The reason NOT to get a license and file a state marriage certificate is purely idealogical, to make a statement that you believe the state has no authority to forbid marriage or allow marriage. It CAN have consequences in case one partner dies unexpectedly (probate here you come) and it MIGHT have consequences for filing taxes.

BTW, we've always filed jointly as husband and wife yet I have NEVER shown ANY agency a copy of our marriage certificate except I think an insurance company to establish beneficiary rights. And I'm not even sure about that. lol

Its like not having a high school diploma. I got a GED and NEVER have had to show it to ANYONE except when signing up for college.

It all depends on how much of a nuisance you want to be. I know guys who drive around with no insurance, no vehicle registration, and homemade "Republic of Texas" license plates. They know the score, but have an Idea they want to stand for, so they rolls the die and takes their chances. They've been doing it for YEARS and still do. (I think the local po-po just ignore them, too much paperwork lol.)

LOL

All good points.

You are correct. In states that still recognize common law marriage, a marriage can still be legally recognized by the state if the couple meets the state's minimum requirements for common law marriage. And yes, if recognized by the state, the couple must divorce through the courts the same way those in civil marriages have to go through the courts.

The only states that still recognize common law marriages are:

◾Alabama
◾Colorado
◾District of Columbia
◾Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
◾Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
◾Iowa
◾Kansas
◾Montana
◾New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
◾Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
◾Oklahoma (possibly only if created before 11/1/98. Oklahoma’s laws and court decisions may be in conflict about whether common law marriages formed in that state after 11/1/98 will be recognized.)
◾Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
◾Rhode Island
◾South Carolina
◾Texas
◾Utah

In states where a common law marriage isn't recognized, those who wish to have a "government free marriage" are free to do so without concern that the state will get involved.

You made an excellent point when you said,

The reason NOT to get a license and file a state marriage certificate is purely idealogical, to make a statement that you believe the state has no authority to forbid marriage or allow marriage.

I'd only add this...

While there is an element of truth to that, if one examines older Christian traditions, it wasn't uncommon for groups such as Amish, Mennonite, Quakers, etc. to refuse to involve themselves in civil courts or anything that might unnecessarily entangle them with the civil court system. They took I Corinthians 6:1-8 very seriously. These groups actually won the right not to take any oath in court, and to only affirm the truth if forced by law to testify. They even won the right to maintain their hats in the courtroom and in some cases not to rise when the judge entered the chamber. These Christians took their separation very seriously, and their position was quite controversial at the time in some instances. So, it can be more than a mere ideological statement. For some, it can be a core NT doctrine relating to the Christian's relationship with the systems of this world.

It CAN have consequences in case one partner dies unexpectedly (probate here you come) and it MIGHT have consequences for filing taxes.

Very true. Couples who take the path of government free marriage need to do their homework and realize what limitations their union will have. For example, they cannot file their taxes jointly. Nor can they take advantage of any tax breaks for married couples. Since the state doesn't recognize their union, they must file their taxes as individuals. In addition, they should establish all durable and medical powers of attorney to give one another legal authority over one another's finances and medical. In addition, they should have all wills properly written out, in detail, with proper witness signatures, notarized, and filed with the court. Cohabitation agreements can also establish terms and conditions for various aspects of each of the above. It takes a little more homework, paperwork, and footwork than the rubber stamp provision of civil marriage... but for many couples who wish to manage their own lives and issues privately, it is necessary to secure various rights and protections. A government free marriage is very different from just "shacking up". There is a bit more paperwork involved than most have to worry about who seek a civil marriage.

For many libertarian types and those who have experienced real or perceived injustices in the divorce courts, this gives individual couples more control over their unions, assets, and even their divorces.