The State is a party to every marriage

[rushpat]

Subject: The State is head of a Marriage...... See #8



ADHESION CONTRACT TO A MARRIAGE LICENSE.......

Â*

Â* http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw

Roberts v. Roberts, 81 Cal.App.2d 871

[Civ. No. 15818. Second Dist., Div. Two. Oct. 17, 1947.]



ROSALIE THERESA ROBERTS, Appellant, v. LEE ROBERTS, Respondent.



COUNSEL



Hardy and Hardy and Carlos S. Hardy for Appellant.



Reynolds, Painter & Cherniss and Louis Miller for Respondent.



OPINION



MOORE, P. J.



[4] In all domestic concerns each state of the Union is to be deemed an independent sovereignty. As such, it is its province and its duty to forbid interference by another state as well as by any foreign power with the status of its own citizens. Unless at least one of the spouses is a resident thereof in good faith, the courts of such sister state or of such foreign power cannot acquire jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage of those who have an established domicile in the state which resents such interference with matters which disturb its social serenity or affect the morals of its inhabitants. [5] Jurisdiction over divorce proceedings of residents of California by the courts of a sister state cannot be conferred by agreement of the litigants. [6] As protector of the morals of her people it is the duty of a court of this commonwealth to prevent the dissolution of a marriage by the decree of a court of another jurisdiction pursuant to the collusion of the spouses. If by surrendering its power it evades the performance of such duty, marriage will ultimately be considered as a formal device and its dissolution freed from legal inhibitions. [7] Not only is a divorce of California [81 Cal.App.2d 880] residents by a court of another state void because of the plaintiff's lack of bona fide residence in the foreign state, but it is void also for lack of the court's jurisdiction over the State of California. [8] This state is a party to every marriage contract of its own residents as well as the guardian of their morals. Not only can the litigants by their collusion not confer jurisdiction upon Nevada courts over themselves but neither can they confer such jurisdiction over this state.



[9] It therefore follows that a judgment of divorce by a court of Nevada without first having pursuant to its own laws acquired



"MARRIAGE IS A CIVIL CONTRACT TO WHICH THERE ARE THREE PARTIES. THE HUSBAND, THE WIFE AND THE STATE"Â* ....... Van Koten v. Van Koten 154 N.E. 146

This would make the "state" polygamous.

The case in North Carolina that mirrors the truth of this is Richie v. White.

Ritchie v. White, 225 N.C. 450, 453, 35 S.E.2d 414, 415 (1945), "There are three parties to a marriage contract -- the husband, the wife and the State."

[fulltitle]

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

This state is a party to every marriage contract of its own residents as well as the guardian of their morals. Not only can the litigants by their collusion not confer jurisdiction upon Nevada courts over themselves but neither can they confer such jurisdiction over this state.

That does not include 'marriages' which are outside the cognizance of the state. The thing is just because they say 'MARRIAGE' [a] it doesn't necessarily mean that they mean 'marriage' [a] as in Hebrews 13:4. ;D

Be careful how you hear.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by HenryBowman

This would make the "state" polygamous.

The case in North Carolina that mirrors the truth of this is Richie v. White.

Ritchie v. White, 225 N.C. 450, 453, 35 S.E.2d 414, 415 (1945), "There are three parties to a marriage contract -- the husband, the wife and the State."

WITHOUT PREJUDICE
A Lawful Christian marriage is not a contract. To my knowledge such is a *covenant* between God and the husband and God and the woman *not* a wagerable agreement between them pursuant to the lex mercatoria.

Speaking of polygyny... well...maybe a whole new thread would be better. ;D

[2tim215]

This poses another interesting question:

What happens if you get married out of state (not a resident in that state, for example Nevada) and then return to the state you live in (let's say for argument's sake, California), according to the statutes are you then technically not married that state?

Regarding a covenant vs an agreement, I think that they are basically the same, the overall difference being that I believe you are referring to the Bible, in which a covenant has much stronger implications in that you not only vow to your spouse, but you have vowed before God and according to His word, He will hold you accountable to it unlike the state which will you allow you through the world's legal system to break your vow providing that you pay Caesar and his cohorts (the attorneys) enough frns. See Numbers 30:2 and Deuteronomy 23:21 for the scriptures covering this.

2tim215

I think the "agreement" mentioned above refers to "contract."

The "states" have reciprocity, to my knowledge, unless it is something like same sex marriage.

And you are correct in that the true power in a marriage is God. (who can't be bought off)

Henry Franklin

[Freedomless]

God knows every man/woman's heart. When one marries for the wrong reason they do not have a covenant with God. The courts in turn try to make this marriage, through divorce, a money making machine.

Many a man or woman have married someone for money, a way to get out of the house and/or a way to be supported. All of these reasons can not be of God. Man needs to see with his heart and mind.

I do not believe in divorce, but it is necessary when one marries for the wrong reasons.

I try to examine myself daily and not to shun the sinner, but the SIN.

[fulltitle]

Originally Posted by 2tim215

This poses another interesting question:

What happens if you get married out of state (not a resident in that state, for example Nevada) and then return to the state you live in (let's say for argument's sake, California), according to the statutes are you then technically not married that state?

A word to consider: comity.

[2tim215]

Fulltitle,

I understand what you say in referring to comity and that makes perfect sense. However, what if one of the parties (or both parties for that matter) decided that they did not want to say they were "legally" married from the (perhaps from a liability standpoint) on the grounds that they were not married in the state they reside in and never obtained a marriage license there accordingly? Again, let me make the distinction between Caesar's laws and God's laws. I'm just referring to Caesar's laws here.

Thanks,

2tim215