PDA

View Full Version : Marriage without a state license - recommendations for officiants?



Jethro
05-13-11, 12:31 AM
My fiancee and I have decided we will not be marrying with a state license. We believe marriage is an institution ordained by God, and the state has no business attempting to "license" our marriage. We will wed in Florida in October. Florida's marriage statutes are remarkably clear in that a marriage license is not 'required' to get married, yet there is an extraordinary amount of cowardice by potential officiants about marrying without a state license.

Can anyone recommend any Christian officiants (in or near Florida) who may be willing to solemnize our wedding?

David Merrill
05-13-11, 02:07 AM
You seem to have crosstalk between trusts. In other words if you do not want to marry the state as the third party to your marriage why have an officiant?

But I think I can guess at why. You want the security - or more likely she does - that comes with the traditional conditioning and mental models of romance and permanence.

The bibles I have seen have a certificate of marriage. The traditional two witnesses are the bond. There is an officiant but that could be "by Common Law". In biblical times though, that two witness system tended to survive a few squabbles and your fiance likely wants more assurance of a future together...

I suggest you go to the county clerk and recorder and pull somebody's Certificate of Marriage and buy a copy. Then take this Marriage Certificate and add an officiant, maybe even a few more witnesses. Find a justice of the peace or preacher to preside over the wedding to sign it and then publish it at the county clerk and recorder.

It will likely have the same effect in law as the traditional Certificate of Marriage you started with though. However, the State will be mentioned nowhere on the document itself. But that is really what you are after if either or both of you are insisting on any officiant at all, in my opinion. Plus her father may be a lot more comfortable about the in-law situation.



Regards,

David Merrill.

David Merrill
05-13-11, 02:19 AM
P.S. Many years ago I was pumping a lot more testosterone and made Bachelor of the Month in Cosmopolitan Magazine. I had several old flames look me up too, surprisingly. I took a trip to Arizona and my old girlfriend arranged for me to officiate their friend's wedding. Without coaching I recall that as I was not a state official I sealed the occasion with:


By the power of the witnesses here...

Jethro
05-13-11, 02:29 AM
Then take this Marriage Certificate and add an officiant, maybe even a few more witnesses. Find a justice of the peace or preacher to preside over the wedding to sign it and then publish it at the county clerk and recorder.


That's the kicker -- finding someone who will preside over the wedding. Everybody thinks they'll "get in trouble" even though there's no law to get them in trouble. Even the Supreme Court long ago acknowledged:

"As before remarked, the [marriage] statutes are held merely directory; because marriage is a thing of common right..." Meister v. Moore (96 U.S. 76 (1877))

Directory - A provision in a statute, rule of procedure, or the like, which is a mere direction or instruction of no obligatory force, and involving no invalidating consequence for its disregard, as opposed to an imperative or mandatory provision, which must be followed.


[B]directory statute - A law that indicates only what should be done, with no provision for enforcement.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, p. 1420]

Unfortunately, we live in a nation of cowards (even those who profess to trust in the Lord), though that's not news around here.

Trust Guy
05-13-11, 02:32 AM
Wife and I joined in Matrimony via witnessed contract in California, relying on pre existing Spanish Law. We published Banns in the local Paper of Record, giving Legal Notice 3 times, per general requirements. No “Minister” officiated. Our union was recognized with filing in the County Records. Outside of California we are only recognized by Common Law Marriage States, for any State ”Benefits”.

In your case, I might look for a State Registered independent “Ordained” Minister. Universal Life Church might be of help. ULC has a partial listing here - ttp://ulc.net/index.php?page=minister_directory

They may not meet your criteria for “Christian”.

You may also find someone with World Christianship Ministries, Universal Ministries, or an Independent Baptist. There are others, but only the above come to mind.

Be prepared to show where Florida law does not require a License when discussing your needs. Also be prepared to not be recognized by Government and Private institutions without their “Papers”, even though they are not required.

All the Best, TG

Jethro
05-13-11, 02:33 AM
By the power of the witnesses here...

Yes! That's really all that's necessary. Now, if I could just find a handful of people who understand this and won't go hide under the bed for fearing of "doing something wrong"...

Michael Joseph
05-13-11, 02:45 AM
My fiancee and I have decided we will not be marrying with a state license. We believe marriage is an institution ordained by God, and the state has no business attempting to "license" our marriage. We will wed in Florida in October. Florida's marriage statutes are remarkably clear in that a marriage license is not 'required' to get married, yet there is an extraordinary amount of cowardice by potential officiants about marrying without a state license.

Can anyone recommend any Christian officiants (in or near Florida) who may be willing to solemnize our wedding?

have sex with her - you're married. The rest is just you implying your trust.

motla68
05-13-11, 02:49 AM
WOW! who died? How we love clanking our chains? I can find no specific word in the bible saying " matrimony " , seems in relation to death, break out the eulogy.

If we feel that we were born free why not live it out? Try this on for a Title- Promise of Marriage : A Trust in God
or Yahaveh. Then discuss with your bride to be what the minutes of the marriage shall be.
Find you a couple witnesses and a competent friend to perform the ministering of wedding.

Hope this opens up some free thinking for others to add?

Trust Guy
05-13-11, 02:59 AM
Shepardise Haggin v Haggin - 35 Neb. 375, 53 NW 209 .

Might be of interest and help in convincing your Officiant and Witnesses as to the propriety of your proposal.

David Merrill
05-13-11, 03:39 AM
That's the kicker -- finding someone who will preside over the wedding. Everybody thinks they'll "get in trouble" even though there's no law to get them in trouble. Even the Supreme Court long ago acknowledged:

"As before remarked, the [marriage] statutes are held merely directory; because marriage is a thing of common right..." Meister v. Moore (96 U.S. 76 (1877))

Directory - A provision in a statute, rule of procedure, or the like, which is a mere direction or instruction of no obligatory force, and involving no invalidating consequence for its disregard, as opposed to an imperative or mandatory provision, which must be followed.


[B]directory statute - A law that indicates only what should be done, with no provision for enforcement.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, p. 1420]

Unfortunately, we live in a nation of cowards (even those who profess to trust in the Lord), though that's not news around here.

Get a list of the judges from the county clerk and recorder; the judges who will preside as justice of the peace over weddings. They will understand, if anybody will.

The presumption I am making is that you are making a presumption. How many "officiants" have you inquired of?

Jethro
05-13-11, 04:55 AM
How many "officiants" have you inquired of?

I think we may have found one, though I'd like a "backup" -- people get spooked sooo easily nowadays.

shikamaru
05-13-11, 09:32 AM
My fiancee and I have decided we will not be marrying with a state license. We believe marriage is an institution ordained by God, and the state has no business attempting to "license" our marriage. We will wed in Florida in October. Florida's marriage statutes are remarkably clear in that a marriage license is not 'required' to get married, yet there is an extraordinary amount of cowardice by potential officiants about marrying without a state license.

Can anyone recommend any Christian officiants (in or near Florida) who may be willing to solemnize our wedding?

You could also do a private marriage contract in addition to the great advice of David.

shikamaru
05-13-11, 09:34 AM
Wife and I joined in Matrimony via witnessed contract in California, relying on pre existing Spanish Law. We published Banns in the local Paper of Record, giving Legal Notice 3 times, per general requirements. No “Minister” officiated. Our union was recognized with filing in the County Records. Outside of California we are only recognized by Common Law Marriage States, for any State ”Benefits”.

In your case, I might look for a State Registered independent “Ordained” Minister. Universal Life Church might be of help. ULC has a partial listing here - ttp://ulc.net/index.php?page=minister_directory

They may not meet your criteria for “Christian”.

You may also find someone with World Christianship Ministries, Universal Ministries, or an Independent Baptist. There are others, but only the above come to mind.

Be prepared to show where Florida law does not require a License when discussing your needs. Also be prepared to not be recognized by Government and Private institutions without their “Papers”, even though they are not required.

All the Best, TG

Pooh .... the mighty Trust Guy beats me too it. :)
I will read threads completely before going gun crazy ... thanks Trust Guy.
Good stuff .... and from a man of experience too.

If government doesn't recognize it, then it is truly private and outside of their "law".

David Merrill
05-13-11, 11:09 AM
I think we may have found one, though I'd like a "backup" -- people get spooked sooo easily nowadays.



I am hoping that is incorrect. The Income Tax seems to be coming to an end in Arizona, being replaced by a sales tax to try and take up the load for the failing Dollar. There is also a retaliatory financial regime formed - BRICS - Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa.

What I am saying is that there may be a lot of emotional response to you and your fiance' marrying through a work-around, but I hope there is a lot of sentiment and understanding to support that you would rather not have the State in bed with you.




Regards,

David Merrill.

Jim M
02-27-12, 08:43 AM
I found this thread on google searching for marriage without state as a third party. Im hoping someone here can help.

So here's my situation:

My fiancee and I want to marry each other, but I have long seen how the gov is too much in everyones business and I dont want them in ours. Marriage should be between us and only us and no one else.

We live in Tennessee and state statute 36-3-103 states (a) Before being joined in marriage, the parties shall present to the minister or officer a license under the hand of a county clerk in this state, directed to such minister or officer, authorizing the solemnization of a marriage between the parties. To me that says its illegal to be married without a licence

Is there any way to be married and it be accepted by the state without getting their permission?

Treefarmer
02-28-12, 05:04 AM
I found this thread on google searching for marriage without state as a third party. Im hoping someone here can help.

So here's my situation:

My fiancee and I want to marry each other, but I have long seen how the gov is too much in everyones business and I dont want them in ours. Marriage should be between us and only us and no one else.

We live in Tennessee and state statute 36-3-103 states (a) Before being joined in marriage, the parties shall present to the minister or officer a license under the hand of a county clerk in this state, directed to such minister or officer, authorizing the solemnization of a marriage between the parties. To me that says its illegal to be married without a licence

Is there any way to be married and it be accepted by the state without getting their permission?

Hello Jim M
Welcome to the forum.

I believe that you will have to make a decision as to who you want to see getting married, and for what purpose.

Would you like for a natural man and woman (you and your fianceé) to get married to each other, before your Creator, and in service to Him, so as to not be in violation of His seventh commandment as you engage in an intimate relationship with each other?
Then all you need are a couple of live human adult witnesses to witness you and your fianceé's exchange of vows before the Eternal One, and it's done.
The blueprint for biblical marriage is contained in Genesis chapter 24 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=24&v=1&t=KJV).

If you want for your FIRST M LAST + SS# xxx-xx-xxxx + DOB + DL# persons to get married however, you will have to somehow involve the STATE wherein these persons reside, in order for this STATE (TENNESSEE) or the US federal government (IRS, SSA, DHS, etc) to recognize the union between these persons.

The STATE only has power over it's own creations, of which your person is a part.
Your Creator has power over your soul and body.

What will your purpose be?

Jim M
02-28-12, 06:49 AM
Hello Jim M
Welcome to the forum.

I believe that you will have to make a decision as to who you want to see getting married, and for what purpose.

Would you like for a natural man and woman (you and your fianceé) to get married to each other, before your Creator, and in service to Him, so as to not be in violation of His seventh commandment as you engage in an intimate relationship with each other?
Then all you need are a couple of live human adult witnesses to witness you and your fianceé's exchange of vows before the Eternal One, and it's done.
The blueprint for biblical marriage is contained in Genesis chapter 24 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Gen&c=24&v=1&t=KJV).

If you want for your FIRST M LAST + SS# xxx-xx-xxxx + DOB + DL# persons to get married however, you will have to somehow involve the STATE wherein these persons reside, in order for this STATE (TENNESSEE) or the US federal government (IRS, SSA, DHS, etc) to recognize the union between these persons.

The STATE only has power over it's own creations, of which your person is a part.
Your Creator has power over your soul and body.

What will your purpose be?

thanks for welcoming me! i looked around last night after posting and this place has a lot of interesting stuff!!!

That's what I was afraid of...do it their way(the wrong way) and it be accepted, or do it the right way and they will ignore it. by any chance would signing the state's license with "under protest" make any difference? I'd like for it to be both accepted by the state whilst not governed by them, but I'm guessing that does not and cannot exist. if they couldn't have their hand in our marriage, they wouldn't be issuing us permission to do something we have a right to do...am i right? We're not especially christian, but we are religious folk who believe we were given certain rights by our Creator.

allodial
02-28-12, 06:54 AM
I dunno what happened to the generic template I made for an ecclesia on the East Coast. But the sample David Merrill showed looks quite good. In the wording on certificates I've made it might evidence something like "John" of the house of Smith did on this day take Theresa formerly of the house of Jones to be his lawful wife and provides a signature block for the wife and for the husband. And for additional witnesses.

(It can be nice to have the written consent of the wife's father on there too.)

As for "financial matters" one might establish trusts (non-statutory, irrevocable trusts are a type) for managing the household finances IMHO its quite important to know how to structure, manage and maintain a household from various standpoints such as economics, health and law. With respect to "Secular affairs", taxes, work and interacting with "the State", such can be managed using non-statutory trusts or perhaps even statutory entities.

Treefarmer
02-29-12, 01:52 AM
thanks for welcoming me! i looked around last night after posting and this place has a lot of interesting stuff!!!

That's what I was afraid of...do it their way(the wrong way) and it be accepted, or do it the right way and they will ignore it. by any chance would signing the state's license with "under protest" make any difference? I'd like for it to be both accepted by the state whilst not governed by them, but I'm guessing that does not and cannot exist. if they couldn't have their hand in our marriage, they wouldn't be issuing us permission to do something we have a right to do...am i right? We're not especially christian, but we are religious folk who believe we were given certain rights by our Creator.

I believe you hit that nail on the head.
If you have no trust in the STATE, perhaps you should not enter into a TRUST agreement with it?

Signing "under protest" would do no good IMHO, because nobody is forcing you to marry your person to another person.

Jim M
02-29-12, 02:35 AM
I believe you hit that nail on the head.
If you have no trust in the STATE, perhaps you should not enter into a TRUST agreement with it?

Signing "under protest" would do no good IMHO, because nobody is forcing you to marry your person to another person.

i don't trust them, but without entering into contract with them, i fear we will not be regarded as married.

you're right, no one is forcing me to marry my fiancee and vice versa, but in a way(to have our marriage accepted by society) we are forced(coerced may be a better term) to marry with permission of the state. the state screwed it all up anyway, in old days people wed each other with witnesses and posted a statement of their marriage in a public place. but because the state has usurped the power to determine who may and may not be wed, they have corrupted what accepted by society is. i read some other state statutes, and some places like alabama and south carolina will honor a marriage contract but we don't reside there so i'm guessing that is out of the question.

does anyone have ant thought on this idea? what if we were to draw up a marriage contract, stating that the document supersedes all other marriage contracts entered into by the two of us, sign it with several witnesses and then afterward go get the states permission. would the verbiage allow it to overrule our "agreement" with the state?

Jethro
02-29-12, 04:12 AM
I found this thread on google searching for marriage without state as a third party. Im hoping someone here can help.

So here's my situation:

My fiancee and I want to marry each other, but I have long seen how the gov is too much in everyones business and I dont want them in ours. Marriage should be between us and only us and no one else.

We live in Tennessee and state statute 36-3-103 states (a) Before being joined in marriage, the parties shall present to the minister or officer a license under the hand of a county clerk in this state, directed to such minister or officer, authorizing the solemnization of a marriage between the parties. To me that says its illegal to be married without a licence

Is there any way to be married and it be accepted by the state without getting their permission?

Jim, I believe the key words in the statute (which you are supposed to overlook) are "in this state". What is this "state"? You'll find the key statutory definition of "state"(and "United States") that defines the terms for all the "code" at T.C.A. 1-3-105:

1-3-105. Definition of terms used in code.

As used in this code, unless the context otherwise requires:

(32) "State," when applied to the different parts of the United States, includes the District of Columbia and the several territories of the United States;

(36) "United States" includes the District of Columbia and the several territories of the United States;

DC & the "several territories" -- what's that? See any mention of several States in there? Me neither. They're giving you notice "this state" is territorial in nature, in contradistinction to one of the several States. Are you in one of the "several territories," or in one of the several States? If the latter, why would you care about their statutes?

But sadly, this is beyond the comprehension of most "ministers", in which case you could show them:


36-3-306. Marriage consummated by ceremony not invalidated by failure to comply with law -- Restriction.

Failure to comply with the requirements of §§ 36-3-104 -- 36-3-107, 36-3-109 -- 36-3-111 shall not affect the validity of any marriage consummated by ceremony. No marriage shall be valid, whether consummated by ceremony or otherwise, if the marriage is prohibited in this state.

You can also point out there is no penalty for conducting a ceremony without a "license".

Jethro
02-29-12, 04:21 AM
To update, my fiancee and I happily wed without a marriage license this past fall. We were blessed in that our Christian pre-marital counselor readily agree to marry us without a license. "F*ck the government," he said. :)

As for making it lawfully valid -- or more specifically, creating admissible evidence of our union before God without the "state" as a party -- we designed and created our own "Certificate of Marriage" (which was quite beautiful, I may add) signed by us, the best man, the maid of honor, and the officiant. We then made a one-page "notice of marriage" attached the Certificate and filed it with the county recorder. We can now get a certified copy of it whenever we want, which would be admissible as self-authenticating evidence in the event our marriage were ever challenged.

So far, everyone has accepted the "Certificate of Marriage" as valid (but then, we're not using it to get Social Security, etc.)

Jim, feel free to contact me at musicmaker600 (at) excite (dot) com if you'd like -- I'm also in Tennessee.

Jim M
02-29-12, 04:49 AM
Jim, I believe the key words in the statute (which you are supposed to overlook) are "in this state". What is this "state"? You'll find the key statutory definition of "state"(and "United States") that defines the terms for all the "code" at T.C.A. 1-3-105:

1-3-105. Definition of terms used in code.

As used in this code, unless the context otherwise requires:

(32) "State," when applied to the different parts of the United States, includes the District of Columbia and the several territories of the United States;

(36) "United States" includes the District of Columbia and the several territories of the United States;

DC & the "several territories" -- what's that? See any mention of several States in there? Me neither. They're giving you notice "this state" is territorial in nature, in contradistinction to one of the several States. Are you in one of the "several territories," or in one of the several States? If the latter, why would you care about their statutes?

But sadly, this is beyond the comprehension of most "ministers", in which case you could show them:


36-3-306. Marriage consummated by ceremony not invalidated by failure to comply with law -- Restriction.

Failure to comply with the requirements of §§ 36-3-104 -- 36-3-107, 36-3-109 -- 36-3-111 shall not affect the validity of any marriage consummated by ceremony. No marriage shall be valid, whether consummated by ceremony or otherwise, if the marriage is prohibited in this state.

You can also point out there is no penalty for conducting a ceremony without a "license".

i don't quite comprehend what you're getting at with the definitions of territory vs state. would you care to elaborate a little more?

i saw 36-3-306 when i looked up the statutes the other night, but it doesn't include 36-3-103 License required. 104 is titled Conditions precedent to issuance of license(which discusses the two parties filling out the application with all kinds of information on their persons), 105-107 discusses consent of parents for underage and waiver of underage restrictions, 109 is titled Issuance of license to drunks, insane persons or imbeciles forbidden, and 111 is titled County clerk violating law - penalties.

so let me get this strait...you can be underage, drunk, insane, an imbecile, or the clerk can violate the law and your marriage is still valid; but not obtaining a license will cause your marriage to not be valid. how stupid is that?

or am i misreading part of 36-3-104? the first part states:
(a) No county clerk or deputy clerk shall issue a marriage license until the applicants make an application in writing, stating the names, ages, addresses and social security numbers of both the proposed male and female contracting parties and the names and addresses of the parents, guardian or next of kin of both parties. The application shall be sworn to by both applicants. Should either individual be incarcerated, the inmate shall not be made to appear but shall submit a notarized statement containing the name, age, current address and a name and address of the individual's parents, guardian or next of kin. If an applicant has a disability that prevents the applicant from appearing, the applicant may submit a notarized statement containing the person's name, age, current address and the names and address of the parents, guardian or next of kin.

combined with 306 does that mean failure to obtain a license does not affect the validity? its all sooooo confusing!!!!!!!!!!!


also, in 103 the verbiage is "the parties shall present" does "shall" mean its required or is that some legal mumbo jumbo to coerce people into believing its required?

thanks to all who are helping me wrap my head around this issue!!!

Jim M
02-29-12, 04:52 AM
To update, my fiancee and I happily wed without a marriage license this past fall. We were blessed in that our Christian pre-marital counselor readily agree to marry us without a license. "F*ck the government," he said. :)

As for making it lawfully valid -- or more specifically, creating admissible evidence of our union before God without the "state" as a party -- we designed and created our own "Certificate of Marriage" (which was quite beautiful, I may add) signed by us, the best man, the maid of honor, and the officiant. We then made a one-page "notice of marriage" attached the Certificate and filed it with the county recorder. We can now get a certified copy of it whenever we want, which would be admissible as self-authenticating evidence in the event our marriage were ever challenged.

So far, everyone has accepted the "Certificate of Marriage" as valid (but then, we're not using it to get Social Security, etc.)

Jim, feel free to contact me at musicmaker600 (at) excite (dot) com if you'd like -- I'm also in Tennessee.

Whoa! how did you file it with the county recorder? did they not laugh at you and say this is not acceptable, it wasnt issued by the state?

thanks, ill be emailing you shortly

Jethro
02-29-12, 03:40 PM
i don't quite comprehend what you're getting at with the definitions of territory vs state. would you care to elaborate a little more?



For starters, I recommend this article: http://adask.wordpress.com/2011/06/14/the-states-of-the-union-vs-the-territory/, then spend some time with Al's articles on the same general subject of "this state" vs. "The State": http://adask.wordpress.com/category/this-state-vs-the-state/

In short, "this state" is not what it appears to be.

Jethro
02-29-12, 03:46 PM
i saw 36-3-306 when i looked up the statutes the other night, but it doesn't include 36-3-103 License required. 104 is titled Conditions precedent to issuance of license(which discusses the two parties filling out the application with all kinds of information on their persons), 105-107 discusses consent of parents for underage and waiver of underage restrictions, 109 is titled Issuance of license to drunks, insane persons or imbeciles forbidden, and 111 is titled County clerk violating law - penalties.

so let me get this strait...you can be underage, drunk, insane, an imbecile, or the clerk can violate the law and your marriage is still valid; but not obtaining a license will cause your marriage to not be valid. how stupid is that?

or am i misreading part of 36-3-104? the first part states:
(a) No county clerk or deputy clerk shall issue a marriage license until the applicants make an application in writing, stating the names, ages, addresses and social security numbers of both the proposed male and female contracting parties and the names and addresses of the parents, guardian or next of kin of both parties. The application shall be sworn to by both applicants. Should either individual be incarcerated, the inmate shall not be made to appear but shall submit a notarized statement containing the name, age, current address and a name and address of the individual's parents, guardian or next of kin. If an applicant has a disability that prevents the applicant from appearing, the applicant may submit a notarized statement containing the person's name, age, current address and the names and address of the parents, guardian or next of kin.

combined with 306 does that mean failure to obtain a license does not affect the validity? its all sooooo confusing!!!!!!!!!!!


also, in 103 the verbiage is "the parties shall present" does "shall" mean its required or is that some legal mumbo jumbo to coerce people into believing its required?

thanks to all who are helping me wrap my head around this issue!!!

Don't worry about the minutia of the statutes. If you're going to "use" them, note that there is no statutory penalty for failing to get a "marriage license". A law without a penalty is a suggestion. The Supreme Court ruled on marriage statutes long ago, holding the the statutes "directory" (i.e. optional) -- Meister v. Moore 96 US 76 (1877):

"As before remarked, the statutes are held merely directory; because marriage is a thing of common right..." [emphasis added]

Directory - A provision in a statute, rule of procedure, or the like, which is a mere direction or instruction of no obligatory force, and involving no invalidating consequence for its disregard, as opposed to an imperative or mandatory provision, which must be followed.
[Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 460]

The statutes to which the Court was referring were statutes in Massachusetts and Michigan that purported to render invalid marriages not entered into under the term of written [statutory] state law.

Jethro
02-29-12, 04:21 PM
Whoa! how did you file it with the county recorder? did they not laugh at you and say this is not acceptable, it wasnt issued by the state?

thanks, ill be emailing you shortly

It was very simple to file it -- take it to the recorder, say "File this" (you may need to tell them to file it under "miscellaneous"), pay the filing fee (about $5/page - our was 2 pages), done. Just make sure it has the correct format, e.g. it has "prepared by" at the top, it's notarized, etc. Ask your recorder for their requirements, or it may be online.

They didn't laugh at all. It's none of their business what's in the document; their job is to file it. And that's it!

allodial
03-01-12, 03:31 AM
i don't trust them, but without entering into contract with them, i fear we will not be regarded as married.

you're right, no one is forcing me to marry my fiancee and vice versa, but in a way(to have our marriage accepted by society) we are forced(coerced may be a better term) to marry with permission of the state. the state screwed it all up anyway, in old days people wed each other with witnesses and posted a statement of their marriage in a public place. but because the state has usurped the power to determine who may and may not be wed, they have corrupted what accepted by society is. i read some other state statutes, and some places like alabama and south carolina will honor a marriage contract but we don't reside there so i'm guessing that is out of the question.

does anyone have ant thought on this idea? what if we were to draw up a marriage contract, stating that the document supersedes all other marriage contracts entered into by the two of us, sign it with several witnesses and then afterward go get the states permission. would the verbiage allow it to overrule our "agreement" with the state?

Perhaps some insight is being requested? The word "trash" sounds like we are talking about the same thing. To Roy its 9,000 pounds of chemicals and waste he has to throw out. To Tim its baby diapers, TV dinners and left overs. The same sound, the same letters but WHOLLY different meanings in all actuality. The word 'marriage' sounds like the word used by "State actors" sounds like the word 'marriage' when utilized by others but they tend to have little or nothing to do with each other or have little or nothing to do with what is referred to as Biblical marriage.

Jim M
03-01-12, 05:03 AM
Perhaps some insight is being requested? The word "trash" sounds like we are talking about the same thing. To Roy its 9,000 pounds of chemicals and waste he has to throw out. To Tim its baby diapers, TV dinners and left overs. The same sound, the same letters but WHOLLY different meanings in all actuality. The word 'marriage' sounds like the word used by "State actors" sounds like the word 'marriage' when utilized by others but they tend to have little or nothing to do with each other or have little or nothing to do with what is referred to as Biblical marriage.

Oh I agree in full with your point. Its the sheep of the world that im concerned wont acknowledge what we feel is true and just.

EZrhythm
03-01-12, 08:22 AM
Jethro- CONGRATULATIONS!!!

shikamaru
03-01-12, 09:59 PM
To update, my fiancee and I happily wed without a marriage license this past fall. We were blessed in that our Christian pre-marital counselor readily agree to marry us without a license. "F*ck the government," he said. :)

As for making it lawfully valid -- or more specifically, creating admissible evidence of our union before God without the "state" as a party -- we designed and created our own "Certificate of Marriage" (which was quite beautiful, I may add) signed by us, the best man, the maid of honor, and the officiant. We then made a one-page "notice of marriage" attached the Certificate and filed it with the county recorder. We can now get a certified copy of it whenever we want, which would be admissible as self-authenticating evidence in the event our marriage were ever challenged.

So far, everyone has accepted the "Certificate of Marriage" as valid (but then, we're not using it to get Social Security, etc.)

Jim, feel free to contact me at musicmaker600 (at) excite (dot) com if you'd like -- I'm also in Tennessee.

I wouldn't have did a mere certificate.
I would have drafted a private marriage contract.

You, your wife, and several witnesses can sign the document.
The document can also be filed with the county recorder if you choose.

Jethro
03-02-12, 03:27 AM
I wouldn't have did a mere certificate.
I would have drafted a private marriage contract.

You, your wife, and several witnesses can sign the document.
The document can also be filed with the county recorder if you choose.

You can do that, too, though I wouldn't put the contract on public record. That's nobody else's business. A certificate showing that there was an exchange of vows on X date with the bride, groom and all the witnesses' signatures should be sufficient evidence a wedding took place for public notice purposes.

Treefarmer
03-02-12, 04:28 AM
Perhaps some insight is being requested? The word "trash" sounds like we are talking about the same thing. To Roy its 9,000 pounds of chemicals and waste he has to throw out. To Tim its baby diapers, TV dinners and left overs. The same sound, the same letters but WHOLLY different meanings in all actuality. The word 'marriage' sounds like the word used by "State actors" sounds like the word 'marriage' when utilized by others but they tend to have little or nothing to do with each other or have little or nothing to do with what is referred to as Biblical marriage.

Good point allodial.

In the best case scenario, the spouses-to-be would communicate to each other who they are, in whom they trust, and what they expect to accomplish with their marriage.
Then they would look at the different ways whereby their goals could be accomplished, and choose the way which seems best.

I believe that the outcome would be highly dependent on where the bride and groom perceive themselves to stand in relation to the Great Controversy: (http://www.whiteestate.org/books/gc/gc.asp)
"For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]. "
Ephesians 6:12

A STATE issued MARRIAGE LICENSE could be important for persons who plan on participating in Social Security, income tax, health insurance, mortgages, etc.
For people who do not plan on contracting much with the STATE at all, it would probably be best to keep the STATE out of their marital affairs.

If it is a goal of the spouses-to-be to have children, then it's even more important to carefully weigh the options. I have observed that the offspring (with BC and SSN) of legally married persons can be claimed as property by the STATE and may be confiscated by CPS and other government agencies at any time.

Since marriage is an incredibly important and far-reaching decision, and difficult to undo, it pays to do very careful research into all aspects of it.

shikamaru
03-03-12, 11:48 AM
You can do that, too, though I wouldn't put the contract on public record. That's nobody else's business. A certificate showing that there was an exchange of vows on X date with the bride, groom and all the witnesses' signatures should be sufficient evidence a wedding took place for public notice purposes.

Excellent point.

loveunderlaw
09-10-13, 04:09 AM
http://savingtosuitorsclub.net/showthread.php?963-Common-Law-Marriages-in-New-York-There-are-still-ways-to-defeat-a-State-ban-!


If you file a Notarized and witnessed (by at least two witnesses) marriage contract with yourself and your husband\wife with the County Clerks office, you are married in spite of what the bureacrap garbage heads try to spew from their mouths in the State legislature! Why did I post this to the Right Of Self Determination sub forum? Well because I'm tired of the criminals feeding people lies and trying their best to steal our freedoms away even more by people being ignorant of their rights by law.


Don't believe a word they say, you don't need a marriage "license" or government permission to get married! You're free consenting adults, keep them out of your personal life as much as you can.

David Merrill
09-10-13, 08:02 AM
Anger arises out of fear. Fear is conquered through understanding and forgiveness.

allodial
09-19-13, 03:30 AM
The husband-to-be (protector of asset) and the wife-to-be (protected asset) are each a witness..thus you have two witnesses. A third witness is helpful for evidencing the apparent sound state of mind and willingness of the participants. Consider something like the following:


Being of sound mind, I, ______________________ ("Husband") of a household called ____ do on this ____ day of ______________,20 ____, do take __________________ of a household called _________________ to be my lawful wife.

Being of sound mind, I, ______________________ ("Wife") of a household called ___ do on this _____ day of ______________, 20 ___, do now, henceforth and without reservation take aforementioned _____ of a household called to be by lawful husband and shall henceforth be his lawful wife.

In witness whereof the aforementioned voluntary acts made by the said Husband and Wife we do hereby set our hands and seals hereto.

Name of Husband ("First Witness"):
Autograph/Signature of Husband ("First Witness"):

Name of Wife ("First Witness"):
Autograph/Signature of Wife ("Second Witness"):

Name(s) and Autograph(s)/Signature of Third Witnesses:
Autograph/Signature of Third Witness:


Can add postal contact details in there somewhere too.

walter
09-23-13, 02:46 AM
Getting married without a gov lic. is the coolest way to get hitched.
You can ask any friend or family member that you both admire to marry you.

One friend painted a picture and had the wedding party sign it and they use the picture as their official document of wedlock.
When the gov does not know you have been hitched the game of life can be very interesting.

Its works get for me.
I do not file tax's and I feed the family.
I don't play their game.
The other half makes no income and files tax's.
She and the family get max bonus as being seem as a single no income mother.
She doesn't have to lie on the tax forms, she states the truth.

sui juris marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

If they recognize the sui juris wedding then are not they shooting them self in the foot?

David Merrill
09-23-13, 09:42 AM
Getting married without a gov lic. is the coolest way to get hitched.
You can ask any friend or family member that you both admire to marry you.

One friend painted a picture and had the wedding party sign it and they use the picture as their official document of wedlock.
When the gov does not know you have been hitched the game of life can be very interesting.

Its works get for me.
I do not file tax's and I feed the family.
I don't play their game.
The other half makes no income and files tax's.
She and the family get max bonus as being seem as a single no income mother.
She doesn't have to lie on the tax forms, she states the truth.

sui juris marriage
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage

If they recognize the sui juris wedding then are not they shooting them self in the foot?



Regarding the infiltration of Roman Catholic priestcraft (corporation sole = Pope; Vatican jurisdiction) into New Thought recently, this line of thought developed in the brain trust.



1) Religion is a license to communicate with God.
2) If you are looking for a broker between you and a higher power there are many to choose from.
3) If you are looking for a broker between you and a lower power there are many to choose from.

allodial
09-23-13, 05:28 PM
...2) If you are looking for a broker between you and a higher power there are many to choose from.
3) If you are looking for a broker between you and a lower power there are many to choose from.[/I][/INDENT]

For some reason I'm reminded of...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQEVgbMqq7o

http://i01.i.aliimg.com/photo/v0/458926947/Polyresin_Cupid_figurine.jpg

David Merrill
09-23-13, 11:40 PM
Yes! The (still a) Catholic priest infiltrating New Thought substitutes ruach for neshemah (http://img521.imageshack.us/img521/3232/breathoflifeneshmatchai.jpg) [neshmat chaim is underlined] in the Breath of Life as a business plan.



http://img217.imageshack.us/img217/6909/breathoflifeneshemahscr.jpg


Do you see it? By replacing the Hebrew word the numero-linguistic interface is affected by a fundamental internal communications (math (http://img844.imageshack.us/img844/4011/lawsofmoses.pdf)) error. Now the people think the Spiritual Leader is teaching Unity but it is actually the priest teaching that you need an intermediary authority - so keep passing that collection plate; you will feel it eventually.

Communication and creation are synonyms. Only beings of like order can truly communicate (http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/1461/creationandcommunicatio.pdf). A Course in Miracles.] Ruach is a lesser form of spirit - associated with any sentient being. It is not like neshemah - divine inspiration.


The Hebrew math describes the evolution of spirit thus:


nephesh = instinct
ruach = emotion
neshemah = mind
chayah = bridge to transcendence
yechidah = oneness

allodial
09-24-13, 01:16 AM
Perhaps the mind connection with mind is in the imagination or imaging or image mentioned at Genesis 1:26 and 1:27 ('tselem' sounds a lot like shalom..peace.. or perhaps rest)? Perhaps there is pointing to an archetype or perfect form? (For some reason 'instinct' brings the word 'subconscious' to mind).

David Merrill
09-24-13, 02:16 AM
Perhaps the mind connection with mind is in the imagination or imaging or image mentioned at Genesis 1:26 and 1:27 ('tselem' sounds a lot like shalom..peace.. or perhaps rest)? Perhaps there is pointing to an archetype or perfect form? (For some reason 'instinct' brings the word 'subconscious' to mind).

For validation the priestcraft is contrary to New Thought we turn to Ernest Shurtleff HOLMES, the founder of Science of Mind in his book The Hidden Power of the Bible, page 12:


God made the mechanical universe, the plant and animal life, but this did not satisfy Him, for He wished to create a being who could respond to and understand Him, hence, He must create a being who has real life within himself. He can do this only by imparting His own nature to this being. He must make him in his own image and likeness. Man must be created out of the stuff of Eternity if he is to have real being. Humanity must partake of the nature and divinity of it is to have real life. So God made man from the highest essence of Himself and clothed this subtle essence with definite form.


Therefore you might understand the nature of the sin - substituting ruach for neshemah in nesmat chaim - the Breath of God that he instilled into Adam to form mankind.

allodial
09-25-13, 01:10 AM
Seems suppose classic Bait & Switch (i.e. substitution) has many incarnations. Consider, on a grand scale Bait & Switch in religion could feed large industries: especially those like health care, psychology and pharmaceuticals. Getting folks do do things the wrong way might be a way of keeping a very long term captive audience.

David Merrill
09-25-13, 05:56 AM
Like this? (http://now.uiowa.edu/2013/08/how-schizophrenia-affects-brain#.Ujy456Psga0.facebook)

Chex
09-25-13, 01:20 PM
I wouldn't have did a mere certificate. I would have drafted a private marriage contract. You, your wife, and several witnesses can sign the document. The document can also be filed with the county recorder if you choose.

Napoleon Bonaparte introduced Code Napoleon, which is a good model of civil law. This code comprises of the following components:
• Persons
• Forms of ownership
• Ways of acquiring ownership

Maybe like this (http://www.historyguide.org/intellect/code_nap.html)