Marriage without a state license - recommendations for officiants?

[Treefarmer]

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?

Genesis chapter 24.

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]

Genesis chapter 24.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Jethro]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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/2011/06/1...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/...-vs-the-state/

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

[Jethro]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Jethro- CONGRATULATIONS!!!