The Marriage Contract
 

Everybody gets all up in arms over the proposed homosexual marriage agenda.
If they really knew what getting a marriage license in our country meant, perhaps they would rethink their stance?

I knew that the state had a different view of marriage than we the people did. I just did not know how that view was defined. Most of us view marriage as a union between a man and a woman before God.

Uhhh...the state does not view it as such.

The author of this article wrote that a certain man met one afternoon with the head of the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage License Bureau, in downtown Phoenix to ask explanation of the marriage laws. His wife was filing for divorce and he was preparing a counterclaim to the Petition for Dissolution her attorney filed in Domestic Relations (DR) court.
What he found was what would be astonishing to most of us. I even think that most pastors who join together a man and a woman in holy matrimony don't even know how the state views marriage...just why people must get a marriage license and the preacher sign it.

Excerpt:

...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, he 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.


http://www.lawfulpath.com/ref/secularmarriage.shtml


So....in this context...although most of us do not agree with legalizing gay marriage...in the state's point of view, it has no religious connotations...but a contractual relationship between the three entities.

Since Romney was the first to sign gay marriage into law in Massachusetts and several more states since jumped on that bandwagon, I foresee that this entire country will end up having to recognize gay marriage just as all the states recognize heterosexual marriages from other states.

Just so you know...and be getting ready for it because I predict that the Supreme Court will someday rule gay marriage to be law of the land since they view marriage as a contract. It will probably happen whether we had Romney as president or Obama as president.


Jesus foretold that: And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27 They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.
28 Likewise also as it was in the days of Lot; they did eat, they drank, they bought, they sold, they planted, they builded;
29 But the same day that Lot went out of Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven, and destroyed them all.
30 Even thus shall it be in the day when the Son of man is revealed.
Luke 17:26-30

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Moving on...

According to the state, any children you have born in regards to your marriage union belongs to them and not to God or to you and your husband.

<snippet>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.<end of snippet>

Just for informational purposes, how many licensed ministers out there know of this? When you received your license to minister, was this fully explained to you that you are an agent of the state?

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Wow

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

So, the state owns my children? Then the state owes me a ton of money! Food, clothing, video games, college.... I'll send it a bill. :lol

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

:lol

Good luck with that Timmy. You are also owned by the state so who pays for your up bringing?

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

That's a great point! I'll let my folks know. They'll be thrilled! :lol

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Let the churches be in charge of marriage. Those that will marry gays....whatever......those that won't will be the conservative churches....

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

No, no no!! You don't get it. You only get the responsibilities of parenting...if you're a good person.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Well it makes sense, because we all are citizens of the state when we are born. So if a parent(s) is doing something inappropriate in raising their children the state steps in and access if you should continue to be a caretaker for its "citizen" and if you're not, they take the child away. Its just a way to give every citizen some form of rights and protection.

And if its trying to hold on to the notion of separation of church and state it have to be worded that way.

Me, personally, I care not at all about government allowing gay marriage, its not like its all of a sudden become legal in God's eyes, which is what matters. And on top of that the government already have a mountain of abominations to God, that are in no way illegal according to the government. Is adding gay marriage to the list really gonna matter? A little leaven leavens the whole lump, well we already have enough leaven so that lump is pretty high already.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

I think that the part that is telling is that the man and wife is inferior in this 3-way contract. Even if they divorce, it does not nullify that contract, they only 'amend' that contract that is between the government, a man and his wife.

So...what might happen if the children are raised christian and the parents fall out of favor with the state if the state decides to restrict Christian teachings in the home?

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

That is a good point J. People are under the notion that if the country amends the law to allow same sex marriages, that Christians allow our government to 'corrupt' God's law. Truth is...the church system turns it's head on many things that God's law has been corrupted already.

See...when we look at marriage in the same context as the state does, (not the church) it doesn't really matter because the state says marriage is simply a business contract between a man and a woman. If the state amends that definition to marriage being a contract between 2 people, regardless of gender, then that is the gist of all the fighting. As it stands, the official state definition of marriage is between a man and a woman, so they will have to redefine that statement. I look for that to happen soon. Once the definition of marriage is redefined, we will see gay marriage to be legal in all states. Doesn't anybody wonder why the extra umph is added in the form of hate crimes? It was proposed after a few rednecks tortured a young homosexual man, then killed him because he was homosexual. These people took it upon themselves to end another person's life not giving a second thought that young man may have turned his life over to Jesus at some point in time. They cut him off and who knows what God might have done for this young man?

I am of the opinion that we each answer for ourselves for we do in life. If we feel it is sin to do a certain lifestyle or habit...then we just don't do it. We obey God.

ILG has a signature saying: You cannot change the people around you but you can change the people you choose to be around.

That's sort of like you can lead a horse to living water, but you cannot make it drink.

Christ will come soon to judge the quick and the dead. What does He ask of us?
To preach the Gospel and by the mercies of God, that we present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is our reasonable service.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Well, we don't want that to be the case and the answer is scary. On the flip-side, there has to be some accountability for abusive parents.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Sure. I agree with that...to an extent. There are people who abuse the system and call in lies if they have a disagreement with their neighbor. It is hard to make that call when a social worker has to come in and determine who is at fault.

My own daughter-in-law was abused, then exploited by the foster care family she lived with. Her biological mother says she is Christian, yet she dropped her daughter off to a mental hospital because she could not deal with her learning disability, then refused to come back and take her home.

She can think, reason, feel with her emotions and she can learn....it just takes her a while to grasp certain parts of the education process, but once she does..she's got it. She scored high on her reading comprehension test...so I know that there is a lot of intelligence there that nobody helped her to develop.

I am talking about what if the state decides to pass laws against bringing up your children in a religious atmosphere...such as christianity as in some countries around the world.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Yes, there are times I think leaving the kids with the parents is better than getting them into the foster system.....

I don't think the higher-ups are going to do away with "freedom of religion"....I think they will try and establish other forms of control without touching that. If they can just get people to agree to certain things......they can practice any religion they wish, because they will still be a part of the bigger "system" of control...

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Well...Rome did not care about what religion the people worshipped when the ruled the known world. They called the Jews religion "superstition".

You got to admit though that the government has been taking way the free expression of Christianity. Namely, no prayer in school, no 10 Commandments in the Alabama Captial courthouse rotunda, no crosses...Obama had a cross covered up in one of his speeches after his first reelection. A school district in the next county here received a letter from a well-funded organization demanding that they cease and desist having prayer before the football games. The school acquiesced immediately. There are many examples. So I just have to wonder.

I remember my youngest son's 8th grade graduation those many years ago. We had a female black principle who was a believer. She got up on the stage before commencement and prayed a long prayer and ended it in Jesus Name. I was proud of her. Yet, some of the parents, who were christian beliefs were appalled that she bucked the 'no prayer' rule.

I can worship Christ in my car, my home, standing in line getting my car tag, while grocery shopping etc.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Yeah, I think they just want the public arena to be neutral. I could be wrong, but that is how I view it.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

So, is this for real? Smells fishy. What about children born out of wedlock? Are they not citizens?

Where's Baron when we need him? :)

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

It's an article Timmy. I cannot verify the accuracy of it except perhaps to go to the Circuit Clerks office to actually read the law for myself.

I would think that any citizen born to even unwed mothers are subject to this too. At some point in time the unwed mother (or grandmother or great grandmother) was born to a set of parents who were married?

I would welcome Baron's input, especially anything with verifiable bill numbers.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

So, descendants all the way down belong to the state. Well, it would surprise me if there aren't a number of unbroken lineages of unlicensed marriages (such as common law) producing fruit -- when were licenses first issued? There may be a whole subpopulation of natural-born noncitizens walking among us! :lol

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

LOL

Not really. I rethink that.

It seems that the state issued license is the object here.

Maybe that is why children who were born out of wedlock used to be called 'illegitimate'?

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Churches shouldn't be in charge of marriage either. Biblically speaking, marriage is governed by families (if either member is a young person that is living at home and has never been married) .... and individuals; the public profession of love and devotion between two adults before witnesses (self officiating). It doesn't even necessitate a state license, a preacher, or a church.

For example... Quaker Marriages. Here's a little about them as found on Wiki...

Outsiders sometimes criticized Quaker couples for living in sin because they married each other without priests or ministers. George Fox, founder of the Society of Friends, and Margaret Fell married using a modification of this procedure in 1669.

Also interesting...

Some couples choose to marry within the meeting without registering their marriage with the government, a tradition dating back to Quakerism's earliest days. Meetings generally encourage couples to seek legal advice before undertaking this option.

So... such "marriages" are indeed "marriages" in the "eyes of God" even though there wasn't any clergy to officiate or legal standing with the state.

Here's a video showing a typical "Quaker wedding" as they are called (after the Quakers):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ae8fmy4oGg

All a couple has to do is declare their love and desire to wed... and have at least two witnesses for it to be valid in the eyes of God. Technically, there is no need for "the STATE" or "the church". One can purchase a "marriage certificate" to document the occasion. The marriage certificate can be something as simple as this:

http://img0.etsystatic.com/000/0/536...l.77288628.jpg

If the state will not recognize what God has joined together... so be it.

A little more info on the concept:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49289946/G...D&expires_in=0

http://governmentfreemarriage.com/20...her-test-post/

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Ever since we allowed GOVERNMENT to regulate marriage the institution of marriage has suffered drastically. Get GOVERNMENT and RELIGION out of marriage. It's a private union between a man and a woman. God joins a man and a woman... not GOVERNMENT... not the CHURCH.

And on a side note... if "gays" want to have a private union and call it "marriage"... that's their business.

All will answer to the LORD.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

I have a female friend who received her ministerial license solely because she wanted to be able to go into the hospital's intensive care unit to pray for the critically ill.

This is what religion has come to...licensing or permission/approval of the state to be able to minister to other people in public buildings. One has to wonder why most of the churches herd people through the governmental laws before they will marry a couple.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Christians should obey the law (Romans 13:2; I Peter 2:13)... but avoid the earthly legal system (I Corinthians 6:1-11).

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

I can agree with these scriptures.

I just wonder why the people are kept in ignorance in many ways from the organized church system. Why not correctly teach that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman and before God. Give examples and scriptures to explain. Then...

But the law of the land is that we must obtain a license from the state in order to be legally married...to enjoy the legal benefits of the marriage contract.

And...if it is indeed true that the state presides over a couple's marriage when they obtain that marriage license.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Because the church is loosely married to the state. She wants political clout and she wants to protect her tax exemptions (which so many churches fail to abide by the rules to legally maintain them).


Here’s an interesting article that might answer some of your questions in this area:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49289946/G...-Free-Marriage

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Me and my girlfriend have both been divorced, so we have been through the family court system. It's just to help lawyers make money and is often used by one party to perform legal extortion against the other. We're talking about a private marriage (Quaker style) and who we might want to serve as witnesses on the marriage certificate. We'd much rather the government not be a factor in our relationship so we'd not file it with the state. We don't care about filing taxes jointly. And with durable power of attorney and other legal documentation we can secure the rights we wish one another to have legally in a more itemized fashion.

We both are pretty libertarian minded.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Good article Aquila.

Now if the church system will not refer to people who choose to not obtain a legal state license as "shacking up", I believe that more people who do not want that stigma placed upon them would have their own personal covenants and have a minister marry them before God.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Sounds like a good plan to me. Once one has been through divorce court, they lose the desire to ever place themselves in that situation again.

Blessings to you both.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Very interesting concepts.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Very true. However, licensed ministers are often bound by law not to perform a wedding unless there is a legal marriage license provided.

You're best bet would be to have a house church elder (who isn't licensed by the state in any manner) to bless the union.

Personally, I like the "Quaker Weddings" that are self-officiated before witnesses. Wearing rings, most people assume you're married and will leave you alone.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Thank you, this almost made me cry. God bless you too.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Interesting concepts that might address some questions on government free marriage:

*Inheritance rights should be determined by will, not by government fiat.

*Taxes should be marriage-neutral.

*Taxpayer-financed special privileges for married couples should be abolished.

*Regarding the green card, some countries allow people to immigrate as unmarried partners, so I don’t see the problem.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Would anyone here recognize such marriages within their church???

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

have you thought thru possible legal ramifications for the children born in this situation?

if the parents separate, could there be custody issues?

could parents use this form of (off the books) marriage as a way for the mother to collect state aid?

I'm just wondering if there are ways this concept could be either detrimental or beneficial . . .

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

A couple with a private marriage should have power of attorney and a living will at the very least. Attorneys assist Quakers with these arrangements in some states because various branches of the Quaker movement don't register their marriages with the state.

Regardless as to if a couple is legally married or not, family court will review the separation if children are present and decide in the best interests of the child. Not even prenupts or marriage contracts can secure any form of custody before review.

Yes, couples wherein the mother is collecting benefits (especially health insurance) would still be able to collect benefits. Older couples wherein one or both collect SSI have made these private arrangements to maintain benefits that they desperately need.

It's not a perfect idea. However, with the Government being less involved, certainly things will go far better.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Great article:

http://www.calwatchdog.com/2012/02/0...tize-marriage/

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

And why would a Christian couple open themselves up to have to stand before the unjust courts of this world should their marriage dissolve???

Shouldn't private individuals arrange for the terms of their dissolution privately???

1 Corinthians 6:1-11
English Standard Version (ESV)
Lawsuits Against Believers
6 When one of you has a grievance against another, does he dare go to law before the unrighteous instead of the saints? 2 Or do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world is to be judged by you, are you incompetent to try trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we are to judge angels? How much more, then, matters pertaining to this life! 4 So if you have such cases, why do you lay them before those who have no standing in the church? 5 I say this to your shame. Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to settle a dispute between the brothers, 6 but brother goes to law against brother, and that before unbelievers? 7 To have lawsuits at all with one another is already a defeat for you. Why not rather suffer wrong? Why not rather be defrauded? 8 But you yourselves wrong and defraud—even your own brothers!
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

Isn't it interesting that since government took over marriage in America the divorce rate has climbed to nearly 50%. This is due to unjust divorce laws that actually make it financially lucrative for a disenchanged party to divorce.

Re: The Marriage Contract
 

So why then do you seem to want the government to be so involved in economic matters, if indeed it is such a failure? Just trying to understand your reasoning.