Results 1 to 7 of 7
  1. #1
    Moderator Unboxxed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,971
    Reputation
    8014
    Type
    enigmatic

    A Court Clerk Explains Why You Should NOT Get Marriage License

    Has this undated article been posted here before? Moderators, perhaps after this serves its life in this main sub-forum you will move it to a permanent place?

    A Court Clerk Explains Why You Should NOT Get Marriage License

    Virgil Cooper's story reveals the truth on Marriage Licenses and their real legal effects:


    "About 15 years ago, my former wife of 26-1/2 years, filed for divorce.
    We had seven children.

    I prepared a counterclaim to the Petition for Dissolution her attorney filed in Domestic Relations court.
    I met one afternoon with the head of the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage License Bureau, in downtown Phoenix.

    The marriage license bureau was headed by a young woman of about age 25.
    I asked her to explain to me the general and statutory implications of the marriage license.
    She was very cooperative, and called in an Assistant, a tall Black man who at the time was working on an Operations Manual for internal departmental use.

    She deferred for most technical explanations to her Assistant.
    He walked through the technicalities of the marriage license as it operates in Arizona.

    He mentioned that marriage licensing is pretty much the same in the other states -- but there are differences.
    One significant difference he mentioned was that Arizona is one of eight western states that are Community Property states.
    The other states are Common Law states, including Utah, with the exception of Lousiana which is a Napoleonic Code state.

    He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license.
    He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between 3 parties:

    ## the State,
    ## the man,
    ## and the wife.


    The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract.
    The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties.
    The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract.

    The Clerk said, in the "traditional" sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband and wife and God.
    But in the Secular Contract with the state, the reference to God is not officially considered included in the Secular Contract at all.
    The Clerk said, if the husband and wife wish to include God as a party in their marriage, that is a "dotted line" the spouses will have to add in their own minds.
    The state's marriage license is "strictly secular," the Clerk said.

    The Clerk said further, that what he meant by the relationship to God being a "dotted line" meant that the State regards any mention of God as irrelevant, even meaningless.


    [illustrative diagram did not copy-paste from original article]


    In the clerk's description of the marriage license contract, he related one other "dotted line."

    He said in the traditional religious context, marriage was a covenant between the husband and wife and God with husband and wife joined as One.
    This is not the case in the secular realm of the state's marriage license contract.
    The State is the Principal or dominant party.
    The husband and wife are merely contractually "joined" as business partners, not in any religious union.
    The spouses are, the Clerk said, connected to each other by another "dotted line."

    The picture the Clerk was trying to paint was that of a triangle with the State at the top and a solid line extending from the apex, the State, down the left side to the husband, and a separate solid line extending down the right side to the wife.
    The dotted line between the husband and wife merely showing that they consider themselves to have entered into a religious union of some sort that is irrelevant to the State.

    The Clerk further mentioned that this religious overtone is recognized by the State by requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either by a state official or by a minister of religion who has been deputized by the State to perform the marriage ceremony and make a return of the signed and executed marriage license to the State.

    Again, the Clerk emphasized that marriage is a strictly secular relationship so far as the State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a "privileged business enterprise," various tax advantages and other political privileges have become attached to the marriage license contract that have nothing at all to do with marriage as a religious covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman.

    By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on marriage, one of the best is Principles of Community Property, by William Defuniak.
    At the outset, William explains that Community Property law descends from Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, A.D. 600, written by the Spanish jurisconsults.

    In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business.

    To restate:
    In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business venture, that is, a for-profit business venture.
    Moreover, as children come into the marriage household, the business venture is considered to have "borne fruit."

    Now, back to the explanation by the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage Bureau's administrative Assistant.

    He went on to explain that every contract must have consideration.
    The State offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself -- the piece of paper, the Certificate of Marriage.
    The other part of consideration by the State is "the privilege to be regulated by statute."

    The Clerk added that this privilege to be regulated by statute includes all related statutes, and all court cases as they are ruled on by the courts, and all statutes and regulations into the future in the years following the commencement of the marriage.

    The Clerk said in a way the marriage license contract is a dynamic or flexible, ever-changing contract as time goes along -- even though the husband and wife didn't realize that.
    The rules that govern the "marriage" may be changed by the state at any time.

    (note: One might criticize this contract as flawed by failure by the State to make full disclosure of the terms and conditions.
    A contract must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully informed consent.
    Otherwise, technically there is no contract.
    On the other hand, ignorance is no excuse.
    Also, the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a contract between two disparate, unequal parties.
    Again, a flawed contract.
    However, no one is forced to obtain a marriage license.
    And this essay shows, the court clerks are happy to spill the beans when asked.)

    Such a contract with the State is said to be a "specific performance" contract as to the privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach.

    Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is:

    ## the actual fee paid

    ## and the implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property.


    The clerk emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State.
    The Clerk commented that very few people realize this.

    The clerk also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" -- meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words, the judges and social workers act on the assumption that the state controls the children.

    In this regard, children born to the contract are regarded as "the contract bearing fruit."
    The clerk said it is vitally important for parents to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States during the 1930s:

    ##The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae.

    ##The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis.

    Parens Patriae means literally "the parent of the country" or to state it more bluntly -- the State is the undisclosed true parent.

    Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don't offend the State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children -- the parents are only conditional caretakers.

    The clerk also added a few more technical details.
    The marriage license is an ongoing contractual relationship with the State.
    Technically, the marriage license is a business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts.

    They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business enterprise.
    The marriage contract acquires property throughout its existence and over time, it is hoped, increases in value.

    Also, the marriage contract bears fruit by adding children.
    If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a divorce results, the contract continues in existence.
    The divorce is merely an amendment of the terms and conditions of the contract.

    Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital property and over children brought into the marriage.
    That is why family law and the Domestic Relations court calls "divorce" a dissolution of the marriage because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form.

    The Clerk also pointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the State has on people.

    At the end of our hour-long meeting, I somewhat humorously asked if other people had come in and asked the questions I was asking?
    The Assistant replied that in the several years he had worked there, he was not aware of anyone else asking these questions.

    He added that he was very glad to see someone interested in the legal implications of the marriage license and the contractual relationship it creates with the State.

    His boss, the young woman Marriage Bureau department head stated,

    “You have to understand that people who come in here to get a marriage license are in heat. The last thing they want to know is technical, legal and statutory implications of the marriage license.”
    (Laughter)

    I hope this is helpful information to anyone interested in getting more familiar with the contractual implications of the marriage license.

    The marriage license as we know it didn't come into existence until after the Civil War (to make it legal for 'blacks' to marry 'whites') and didn't become standard practice in all the states until after 1900, becoming firmly established by 1920.
    In effect, the states or governments appropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and in the process declared Common Law applicable to marriages "abrogated."

    Please pass this information along and share it as widely as possible.

    Best regards from Virgil Cooper
    Last edited by Unboxxed; February 14, 2016 at 8:09 PM.
    The two most important days in your life are the day you were born and the day you find out why. - Mark Twain

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.
    - Henry David Thoreau

    There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

    Suitable for bookmarking: www.fakehatecrimes.org

  2. #2
    Senior Member Primus_Pilus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    1,095
    Reputation
    5099
    Type
    Supervillain

    Re: A Court Clerk Explains Why You Should NOT Get Marriage License

    Never agree to unequal contracts in business or personal life.
    First date: A job interview in which a slot-c tries to determine a man's financial suitability in relation to its desire for children.
    Oxytocin, more dangerous than heroin.
    I am not going to sacrifice my freedom and wealth for your ideals.
    If she isn't fucking you like a porn star she is fucking someone else like one.

    Women, they're just a bag of bricks. All you gotta do is set them down. - Primus Milton

  3. #3
    Senior Member BeijaFlor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Chesapeake Bay, USA
    Posts
    4,145
    Reputation
    13113
    Type
    Ghost

    Re: A Court Clerk Explains Why You Should NOT Get Marriage License

    I think it has been posted before - but it is worth reposting, and revisiting.

    Moving this to MGTOW 101 where it won't get lost under new articles.
    "The Red Pill is the start of the journey, not the end." - Chairborne

    "Our most dangerous enemies are men who have no loyalty to men." - William Noy

    "I am not going to sacrifice my freedom and wealth for your ideals." - Primus Pilus

    "If you can't be happy on you're own, you can't be happy -- full stop." - Wilfred

    My introduction: I Was MGTOW When MGTOW Wasn't Cool...

    My blog: Beyond The Sunset

  4. #4
    Super Moderator Mr Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    4,432
    Reputation
    20242
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: A Court Clerk Explains Why You Should NOT Get Marriage License

    He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license.
    He said, first of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between 3 parties:

    ## the State,
    ## the man,
    ## and the wife.

    The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract.
    The husband and wife are secondary or inferior parties.
    The Secular Contract is a three-way contract between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs of the Contract.
    This never happened.

    I'm sorry, man - but this never actually happened. It's just another one of them folksy made-up stories that people seem to be so fond of. You see it all the time: if a person wants to state a point of view, it sounds better if they build a story around it.

    For more of the same style of story, visit the glurge gallery at Snopes.

  5. #5
    Moderator Unboxxed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    1,971
    Reputation
    8014
    Type
    enigmatic

    Re: A Court Clerk Explains Why You Should NOT Get Marriage License

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Wombat View Post
    This never happened.

    I'm sorry, man - but this never actually happened. It's just another one of them folksy made-up stories that people seem to be so fond of. You see it all the time: if a person wants to state a point of view, it sounds better if they build a story around it.

    For more of the same style of story, visit the glurge gallery at Snopes.
    I guess it's on me to ask... what supporting information do you have for saying it's not true?

    And are you only talking about the section you recapped above?

    There's an email address in the link below, maybe it's still valid:

    Marriage Licenses - The Real Truth

    I will say that several of the statements attributed to people seem awfully complete and thought out, as if composed afterwards. Although one would think the 1930s Arizona Supreme Court Case might be traceable.
    The two most important days in your life are the day you were born and the day you find out why. - Mark Twain

    The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.
    - Henry David Thoreau

    There are 10 types of people in the world - those who understand binary, and those who don't.

    Suitable for bookmarking: www.fakehatecrimes.org

  6. #6
    Super Moderator Mr Wombat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    4,432
    Reputation
    20242
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: A Court Clerk Explains Why You Should NOT Get Marriage License

    Reading further, their are plenty of other points.

    Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good behavior at the sufferance of the State.
    Look at it the other way: your crazy, abusive mom does not own you. The fillial relationship is not a property relationship. The notion that this therefore means that the state owns the kids, and is perhaps a manifestation of the peculiarly american habit of reducing everything to property rights.

    The state's marriage license is "strictly secular," the Clerk said.
    True. The constitution of the USA specifically forbids the government to sponsor a religion as being the establishment religion. If the majority of a state is (for instance) mormon, they can't refuse to issue marriage licenses to catholics on the grounds that it would not be a real marriage because they aren't mormons.

    In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profit-making venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in operation) and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the business.
    Bullshit. Absolute, unqualified horse-shit, cow shit, turtle shit, any other kind of shit you care to think of. Marriage is and always has been considered a special thing in its own right. This is what (for instance) justifies alimony and imposes a duty of care on parents for their children.

    A contract must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with fully informed consent.
    On the other hand, ignorance is no excuse.
    "Ignorance of the law is no excuse" simply means you can't plead not guilty to burglary by saying that you didn't know that burglary is illegal. A citizen has a duty to inform themselves of the law. Nothing to do with contract law. This writer is plucking unrelated fragments and jamming them together. This writer is not very bright.

    “You have to understand that people who come in here to get a marriage license are in heat. The last thing they want to know is technical, legal and statutory implications of the marriage license.”
    (Laughter)
    Again: this never happened.

    On the whole: this whole passage is lust psudeo-legal malarkey from someone who doesn't know much about the law and is making shit up. You know that video of that woman claiming that a cop couldn't arrest her because she was a free citizen? Same deal.

    On the website, the page finished with this:

    Such contacts can be considered void due to non-full disclosure or can be terminated when full disclosure is realized.
    I urge you not to try this in court. You will have the same success that that chick had in not being arrested.

    (EDIT)

    Oh - read the rest of that page. What the writer is really all about is good, old-fashioned american racism. He doesn't like miscgenation. It's not at all a coincidence that the clerks in his story are a woman and a black man. Just some code-ivory "marry a white woman!".

  7. #7
    Moderator Thomas Covenant's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Freeedoooom!
    Posts
    1,964
    Reputation
    6781
    Type
    Neutral

    Re: A Court Clerk Explains Why You Should NOT Get Marriage License

    Marriage is still a contract with the State, only fully enforceable upon one party.

    That's all we need to know really.

    Still, perhaps the man who marries the woman should be tied to her, instead of the rest of us taxpayers. At least he got to shag her once. (Hopefully).

    Would that this principle would hold for other "needy" people.
    I work in financial planning. I am interested in metal (all kinds), miniature painting and PC gaming. I live in Scotland.


Similar Threads

  1. Nikola Tesla Explains Why He Never Married
    By secularscientist in forum Lounge
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: October 31, 2018, 10:19 PM
  2. Replies: 36
    Last Post: June 11, 2018, 9:27 PM
  3. Replies: 46
    Last Post: January 3, 2016, 4:16 AM
  4. brain explains compulsion
    By wool.wizard in forum Rant
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 3, 2015, 4:54 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •