It does not. I’ve done it both ways. The process was the same. The end result was the same. A custody fight with and without a marriage license is indistinguishable from each other. The form doesn’t even have a different heading.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
No Rings, No Drama, Just Dominion
- Thread starter Abraham Kilian
- Start date
No, it depends on state.
State support for marriage often consist of bribing people with tax break.
Well, I can say as an unmarried person, the government taxes the absolute hell out of me, especially for not having dependents. Which is why dogs should be claimable… Back when I got bonuses at work, which were $88, I only received $44. If I made $1,600, I only received $800 at times, especially if overtime was involved...overtime got me taxed even more. Meanwhile, the married ladies or ladies with dependents nearly got the full amounts, plus money back during tax time for having dependants.
Which is exactly what I said. Unmarried people are taxed more, if married people get a tax break. So if the goal is more tax, the government would prefer they remained unmarried. Tax itself is not a reason for the state to promote marriage, quite the opposite.
The idea that a marriage license cedes ownership of the children to the state is utter nonsense. It is repeated over and over on certain corners of the internet, but only as a matter of faith. I have never seen anyone point to the clause in any marriage document, or law defining marriage, that states "by making this union we hereby sign over custody of our progeny to the government." It's a myth.
If I'm wrong, don't just verbosely claim that I'm wrong, or post a 2 hour video that claims that I'm wrong. The proof will be written in black and white. Post the actual legal document that shows this is true, referencing the actual clause to read (not "the vive of the whole thing"), or don't bother. I won't engage any further in this discussion myself unless there is such documentation presented for analysis.
The burden of proof is upon you @Mark C.
You left out "conspiracy theory."
Haven't you figured it out yet? It's ALL a 'myth' - because it's hidden for a reason - until it kills people, or they quit giving their consent.
You want a sound bite. Sorry, that's for rubes. Did you really expect Fauci to tell you it was a bioweapon? Or that EVERY honest doctor who tried to tell the truth was attacked, demonized, and many lost their "license"? Do you think they told doctors that part in med school?
The proof in "black and white" is in Romans 6:16. Look it up for yourself, you'll argue with any translation I pick.
And you don't understand the concept of "adhesion contracts." Look that up in a Law Dictionary, like Black's. And then brace yourself for "implied." As in "implied authority," "implied consent," and "implied warranty."
If you are truly naive enough to believe that you won't be held to terms of agreements you signed off on, but didn't REALIZE you had made, because nobody warned you of the consequences in a simple sound-bite, no wonder you think Tyranny is a 'myth'.
After all, don't you live in a country where people were arrested for failing to submit to involuntary injection and face muzzles? Based on what "law"?
I've done it before. Here, and elsewhere, and you didn't bother.
I'm fine with that. Those who want to "study to show themselves approved," already are making the effort.
You pretend as if people's children haven't already been taken. (And it's not just via adherent contracts associated with licensed marriage, either. Don't forget the "public" cesspools. Have you read the fine print there?)
No, if/when they take people's children - don't think for a second the burden isn't on THEM. To prove the NEGATIVE!
PS> @FollowingHim, here's a sound bite for you. Go read OBERGEFELL.
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.
Why would I want a "license" that some Pharisees in Black Robes have said allows two sodomists to legally commit abomination with the Approval of the Almighty State?
Ask yourself a simple question: If that same Almighty State can "license" some 'persons under their jurisdiction' to commit sin that the Creator declares worthy of death, can they license murder ( 007) or theft of children, or, death by lethal injection on the street?
What stops 'em?
"Jurisdiction." You can cede it. More than one way.
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.
Why would I want a "license" that some Pharisees in Black Robes have said allows two sodomists to legally commit abomination with the Approval of the Almighty State?
Ask yourself a simple question: If that same Almighty State can "license" some 'persons under their jurisdiction' to commit sin that the Creator declares worthy of death, can they license murder ( 007) or theft of children, or, death by lethal injection on the street?
What stops 'em?
"Jurisdiction." You can cede it. More than one way.
Last edited:
Re: 'license.' (De jure, or de facto... whether he knows is or not.)
You claim to reject anecdotal evidence in some cases, then accept it as proof. Consistency is not your thing. Personal opinion seems to trump it.
When have I rejected anecdotal evidence?
Incorrect:
I know most of you have practically zero interest in exoteric world of taxes.
This is interesting article. Basically it's impossible to design proggresive tax system where second earner isn't punished.
taxfoundation.org
This is interesting article. Basically it's impossible to design proggresive tax system where second earner isn't punished.
When Marriage Doesn’t Pay: Analysis and Options for Addressing Marriage and Second-Earner Penalties
In nearly two of every three households in America with dependents, more than one person works to make ends meet. In many cases, when two workers file jointly, they are penalized for having a second earner in the household. This is because the second-earner’s wages are subject to a higher...
taxfoundation.org
@Mark C, everything you have said is "it's true because I say so, if you don't believe it you'll regret it". Which doesn't contribute to understanding. The one new contribution in your speal which taught me anything is:
What you have not even attempted to establish is that one of those terms is ceding ownership of children to the state.
You have also dismissed the fact that the state claims ownership of the children of the unmarried just as strongly, as @The Revolting Man has experienced, which is actually sound evidence that marriage makes no difference in this specific case.
Don't preach against marriage licences in general to me, we are largely in agreement that it is better not to get one, and the state should be no party to our marriages. And getting into COVID etc is ridiculous - we are firmly in agreement there. I am enquiring about one very specific aspect of your claims about marriage - the notion that marriage licences cede ownership of children. Do at least try to provide an answer to that very specific query.
At present we have evidence you are wrong (@The Revolting Man's court experiences), and no evidence you are right. Either provide that evidence or concede there is none.
Yes, I can accept marriage is an adhesion contract, one where the terms are defined by the stronger party (the state) and non-negotiable by the weaker. The state sets the terms.
What you have not even attempted to establish is that one of those terms is ceding ownership of children to the state.
You have also dismissed the fact that the state claims ownership of the children of the unmarried just as strongly, as @The Revolting Man has experienced, which is actually sound evidence that marriage makes no difference in this specific case.
Don't preach against marriage licences in general to me, we are largely in agreement that it is better not to get one, and the state should be no party to our marriages. And getting into COVID etc is ridiculous - we are firmly in agreement there. I am enquiring about one very specific aspect of your claims about marriage - the notion that marriage licences cede ownership of children. Do at least try to provide an answer to that very specific query.
At present we have evidence you are wrong (@The Revolting Man's court experiences), and no evidence you are right. Either provide that evidence or concede there is none.
That evidence has been provided before, here, and at length.
What I showed is that a license cedes JURISDICTION to the State, by asking permission, and accepting its authority over said 'marriage.'
Furthermore, I have done national radio shows on the topic, and made the case at length, for over twenty years, in much more detail than your demanded sound-bite would permit. For people who actually care enough about the answer to LISTEN.
But you won't even allow a link to be posted. And I have no interest in repeating for you alone what others have been able to find, in SPITE of your obstruction, and you won't even permit to be heard.
You ignored OBERGEFELL, and the entire issue. You ignore jurisdiction, and how it is established. You even ignored the point of Romans 6. "Either try to understand the evidence, or concede you don't want an answer."
Literally thousands of people have listened to those shows, many have written, or called in with questions when I did interviews with legal experts and when the shows were live. You can't be bothered. Why do you deserve a personal gofer when others actually care about learning something?
And why should I think you actually want an answer this time, as opposed to just rancor, as I have seen SO many times before?
When it comes from Scripture, and can be called "precedent."
As in whether or not (only the most recent example) Abraham's demonstration (concerning commitment, marriage, contract, or agency in the Common Law) has any evidential value:
So, Abraham's experience has no value in understanding the 'common law,' or marriage, but YOU are the final word on actual proof?
Too bad you don't seem to notice what matters, then.
So did Yeshuah, teaching is a thing.
Mark, the things that seem self evident to you do not evidence themselves to most everyone else.
I’m sorry but the state claims the same jurisdiction over children and domestic relationships whether there is a marriage license or not. I have anecdotal evidence (admittedly not from Abraham) that a marriage license actually affords a little bit of protection in American courts because the relationship is considered more serious.
This is just a spurious claim. Obviously none of us think a marriage license actually matters. It has some small advantages and basically no disadvantages; especially if children are involved.
The issue is 'jurisdiction' first! A license is sufficient to establish such. There are others.
Big Brother can and will take people's children (and property, firearms, lives, you-name-it) with or without a license, a warrant, or actual probable cause. Which proves nothing, except that Yahushua was right in Matthew 24 ("lawlessness abounds.")
In Colorado, if one party admits to a 'sexual relation' with another, they will claim jurisdiction for purposes of "domestic violence" charges. (And this is true in at least 30 other states I am aware of.) Whereupon they will claim "jurisdiction" to take firearms, children, imprison, and impose "restraining orders" forbidding all contact, without even a pretense of a court hearing or "due process." All it takes is a 911 call - and SOMEONE WILL be ARRESTED.
The "burden of proof" has been shifted. (And forget what you've heard about "innocent until proven guilty." That was back when "law" mattered.)
I am NOT arguing that there is a "magic wand," and you can wave it and a Constitutional Republic with a Rule of Law is restored. Just that "if you don't know your Rights - you sure as Hell don't have any!" And if you GIVE them away (or "trade essential Liberty for a little temporary Security," as Ben Franklin warned, or for a cup of pottage) - you don't have a leg to stand on.
================================
Case in point: And a caution.
Article II, Section 1, paragraph 1 of the Constitution gives sole "executive power" to the "President of the United States." (Especially, one would presume, if he was actually elected.)
That Executive has sole authority over "executive branch agencies" (even though most are actually unconstitutional to begin with.) An "inferior court" (Article III, Section 1) has no constitutional jurisdiction over them, or the executive.
That has not stopped those black-robed traitors from trying to claim "jurisdiction" anyway!
The same problem is clear here in every such case, from marriage to DV to "Red Flag" pseudo-laws, and Jefferson called it a proof of "Tyranny" in the statement of "Facts submitted to a candid world" in the Declaration of Independence:
"He has...combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws..." and labelled it "pretended legislation."
There is indeed "nothing new under the sun."
Sigh. Because you don't try to understand the foundational issue. (And you won't ever listen to me anyway, but others here might.)
I might have hoped that when it came to "firearms" at least (note: that term is NOT in the Bill of Rights - it is a 'term of art,') that Zec might understand there is a difference between "de facto" Law and 'de jure.'
I can show you in genuine print that the Right to "keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." And infringed (see Webster, 1828, and law texts of the period) was the strongest prohibition the Founders could find in the English language.
But they do it anyway now. How?
FIREARMS
...armed Citizens are considered more serious.
How did a form of Government with a specific, total PROHIBITION against doing exactly what they are now doing manage somehow to acquire "jurisdiction" to do that against the ONLY type of property actually enumerated in the ENTIRE DOCUMENT about which it is said they shall NOT?
They didn't "repeal" anything!
They got there by working over time... "to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws."
Free citizens own property. Subjects do not.
Free citizens do not ask permission. Not to protect themselves and their families, not to marry,* and not to "buy or sell."
If you do not understand that distinction now, and what "choose life," means, you will not be able to recognize the deception that will get the vast majority of 'xtians' to willingly accept a jurisdiction that will require a certain Mark, and fairly soon.
------------------------------
* Except from the fathers involved, of course, as per Instruction.
PS> And, yes, I know...
A CCW 'license' (concealed carry, designations vary by jurisdiction) can arguably
This is honestly a far tougher question than a 'marriage license.'
(And as for truly Nazi-states that mandate their slaves have a 'license' or permit even to POSSESS, much less "buy or sell," property that God gave them a Right to....you can guess my comment.)
Addendum: When Adolf got to Poland - how do you think he knew where to go to get the guns?
I do not advise or counsel people to ask for, or avoid, a CCW. But I do note that there are consequences. Asking for permission to exercise a God-given Right is de facto evidence that you don't consider it to be such, because you ask permission. And it definitely cedes jurisdiction, by stipulation, to whatever claimant issues the slave that permission.
Is the benefit worth the cost? Are there other options?
Free people can still make such decisions. At least until they trade that "essential liberty" away, perhaps for less than a cup of pottage.
A CCW 'license' (concealed carry, designations vary by jurisdiction) can arguably
because the bearer has asked for, and been given, permission to do that which is otherwise (lawful or not) 'verbotten' to the slaves. Whether or not they have a God-given, once Constitutionally-protected "Right to Keep and Bear Arms."
This is honestly a far tougher question than a 'marriage license.'
(And as for truly Nazi-states that mandate their slaves have a 'license' or permit even to POSSESS, much less "buy or sell," property that God gave them a Right to....you can guess my comment.)
Addendum: When Adolf got to Poland - how do you think he knew where to go to get the guns?
I do not advise or counsel people to ask for, or avoid, a CCW. But I do note that there are consequences. Asking for permission to exercise a God-given Right is de facto evidence that you don't consider it to be such, because you ask permission. And it definitely cedes jurisdiction, by stipulation, to whatever claimant issues the slave that permission.
Is the benefit worth the cost? Are there other options?
Free people can still make such decisions. At least until they trade that "essential liberty" away, perhaps for less than a cup of pottage.