Rescission

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Livefire

You dont need a marriage license to get married. The only caveat is that the state wont recognize it. It's also a black eye in the face of the church because marriage is a sacrament, something that the state isnt supposed to be messing with. The state usurps the church by the doctrine of necessity saying that marriage is a civil matter. In reality, its a violation of church/state separation demanding that ministers are forced to demand state issued licenses from couples. God created marriage, not the state. CS Lewis proposed 2 types of marriages in Mere Christianity. Civil and Ecclesiastical. One controlled by the state, one by the church.

Thank you LiveFire for the emphasis you place on the subject.

When a man and a woman are united in a Heavenly Marriage, they truly become 'one'.

Recently, when my wife returned to our home in Heaven, her departure had the effect one could envision of having half of your life ripped from your being. There is an immediate void where her spirit was residing as an integral part of mine. Now I (the physical being) have to listen intently to hear her voice, whereas prior to her departure, we were constantly communing with one another in such a oneness that we would often speak (verbally) expressing exact same words to random questions, simultaneously and in unison.

State officiated marriages have never been reported as providing such a union of spirit, but rather view the 'oneness' from a legalistic frame of reference for the purpose of 'civil' administration. Indeed, the state stole this ecclesiastical function and have created a perverted version of what God intended for the 'office/institution' of marriage.

Thank you again LiveFire.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[antjraf]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I find it hard to characterize a marriage license as an adhesion contract, especially as it is the permit for the officiating of the wedding ceremony and nothing more. Once the wedding is performed, the contract is exhausted. Marriage itself is a contract, but hardly without negotiation. As for the DIY dissolution of marriage mentioned in the Ecclesia forum; that has never passed muster with the courts.

Car registration similarly not a contract. It is a clear attestation that you own the car, that it isn't stolen, etc. I'm not quite clear what is an adhesion contract about it.

Drivers License we've been over and over again on this website. Legally, it is not an adhesion contract, it is a license to do something otherwise restricted. IF, for argument;s sake, I were to characterize it as a contract, then the terms are similar to a "shrink-wrap license"; essentially, if we let you do this, then you must do it according to our rules. In the case of the DL, the thing they let you do is operate your vehicle on the public roads, if you don't want to do it by their rules then stay off the publc roads. Simple. But if you're on the public roads, then it better be in accordance with their rules.

I wouldn't be on this site if I agreed with any of these assertions. I will not however engage in arguing over these opinions because I feel the occasional reminder of how a "statutory person" thinks helps this forum grow stronger.

I am not intermarried. (No marriage license required)
I own my private car. (No registration required)
I do not "operate a vehicle" (No DL required)

[indio007]

A marriage license is a 3 party contract with the State as the third party. It doesn't end at the ceremony , it just begins there. There are mountains of case law affirming the contractual nature of the states interest in a "legal" marriage.

Ritchie v. White, 225 N.C. 450, 35 S.E.2d 414 (N.C. 10/10/1945)
“There are three parties to a marriage contract -- the husband, the wife and the State. For this reason marriage is denominated a status, and certain incidents are attached thereto by law which may not be abrogated without the consent of the third party, the State.”

MINNESOTA
KASAL v. KASAL, 35 N.W.2d 745, 227 Minn. 529
"Marriage is a civil contract, to which there are three parties: the husband, the wife, and the State"


FLORIDA
Potter v. Potter, 1931, 101 Fla. 1199, 133 So. 94: "the State is a party interest in every marriage contract[.]"

NEW JERSEY
Blackman v. Iles, 4 N.J. 82, 89 (1950), "The legislature, in dealing with the subject of marriage, has plenary power, as marriage differs from ordinary common law contracts, and is subject to control and regulation by the state."

It took all of 30 seconds to find these cites.

[Mark]

I don't know about anyone else, but the mere thought of praying to a creation of man, THE STATE, for anything, repulses me. The absurdity of it, simply boggles the mind--as does all idol worship.
Quoting the character Forest Gump; stupid is...


Peace

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

I am sure there are reliable books on the history of marriage law. The requirement for marriage licenses is at least medieval in origin, commencing with church procedures for "banns". I have no intention of doing that research. It is sufficient to me that your position is not going to be upheld in any court.

Any Court???? That is a rather bold (no pun intended considering the emphasis added above) choice of terminology.

How about a true Ecclesiastical Court? Or how about a True Common law Court? Would you be willing to wager on the voracity of your proclamation? Not that I am a wagering type man, as it is offensive to my Christian beliefs, but there are some on this forum, I am sure, that would love to take your precious, adored, worshiped FRN's.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[indio007]

Originally Posted by Jerry Pitts

Any Court???? That is a rather bold (no pun intended considering the emphasis added above) choice of terminology.

How about a true Ecclesiastical Court? Or how about a True Common law Court? Would you be willing to wager on the voracity of your proclamation? Not that I am a wagering type man, as it is offensive to my Christian beliefs, but there are some on this forum, I am sure, that would love to take your precious, adored, worshiped FRN's.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

Reminds me that I'm still waiting for someone to send me a "worthless" bond.
http://www.suijuris.net/forum/134916-post80.html

[Livefire]

Originally Posted by Mere Christianity excerpt from Chapter 16

My own view is that the Churches should frankly recognise that the majority of the British people are not Christians and, therefore, cannot be expected to live Christian lives. There ought to be two distinct kinds of marriage: one governed by the State with rules enforced on all citizens, the other governed by the Church with rules enforced by her on her own members. The distinction ought to be quite sharp, so that a man knows which couples are married in a Christian sense and which are not.

My condolences on your loss Jerry. The highlighted portion seems to indicate that the author, CS Lewis, thought it appropriate that ecclesiastical authorities adminster marriage in Christian circles versus the state. This line of thinking is almost unheard of in American or Canadian thinking. People have very little if no respect for spiritual authority these days and their attitude concerning the "House of God" ecclesia is that of Janet Jackson's song, What Have You done For Me Lately!?

Imagine a situation where dedicated believers were joined in matrimony by the power vested in the pastor thru the name of Jesus Christ and that couple would settle differences via a tribunal of elders who are truly interested in their welfare vs a bunch of damned attorneys who dont give a crap about anything else except getting paid. There could and should be a recognition of ecclesiastical courts and their decisions given comity.

[Jerry Pitts]

Originally Posted by Livefire

My condolences on your loss Jerry.

I am trying to view the situation as a gain as opposed to a 'loss'. She is still with me and the children, in spirit. Every once in a while, I even am blessed with a glimpse of the precious smile she would don when she had caught me red-handed. But more than anything, I miss the softness of her voice and warmth of her touch.

Originally Posted by Livefire

The highlighted portion seems to indicate that the author, CS Lewis, thought it appropriate that ecclesiastical authorities administer marriage in Christian circles versus the state. This line of thinking is almost unheard of in American or Canadian thinking. People have very little if no respect for spiritual authority these days and their attitude concerning the "House of God" ecclesia is that of Janet Jackson's song, What Have You done For Me Lately!?

When you think of the stream of vulgar expressions that are being emitted from the televisions, radios, and dvd movies now days, along with the brainwashing of hollywoods numerous movies regarding the occult, mass murder, mayhem, along with the sillier side with such shows as "ghost hunters", it is no wonder that people tend to cast aside the reality of incorporeal beings, and the impact that such beings can and do have on your lives each day.

I remember about 10 years ago, my wife and I decided to construct a table that formulated the hierarchy of spirits according to their function and purpose. Surprisingly, after about a week of researching the various entities and their functions, it was easy to see where people call out the names (common names) of these creatures of the dark side on a daily basis, without even giving a bit of attention or cognizance of what they are doing. How so? In their everyday speech. We tend to use adjectives to describe everything. Yet we do not consider the etymology of those terms that we so casually use. Neither do we consider what the cause of death is in context to the various ways that it can be be brought into being. Anyway, once establishing this list of creatures, we noticed the adjective use, then started correcting our speech patterns that would eliminate such un-needed use. Scripture tells us how to accomplish this feat of choice of language. Many strange events started to manifest in our lives that were not noticeable until that list was made. Will not do that again, and will not publish the list.

Originally Posted by Livefire

Imagine a situation where dedicated believers were joined in matrimony by the power vested in the pastor thru the name of Jesus Christ and that couple would settle differences via a tribunal of elders who are truly interested in their welfare vs a bunch of damned attorneys who dont give a crap about anything else except getting paid. There could and should be a recognition of ecclesiastical courts and their decisions given comity.

To the above paragraph, I will give 100 % concurrence. I might also add, that as a Christian race/nation, it is our prerogative to re-establish such standards within our own nation/race. For the secular world to attempt to disallow this from happening, would be a direct violation of all of their very own rules that regulate their own standards of performance. Will discuss in private if you desire.

Jerry Carlos
Ambassador of Jesus, the Christ.

[the_awakening_one]

Jerry, you also have my heartfelt sympathy (or whatever you'd like to think positively of it as).