general and statutory implications of the marriage license

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Common Law Marriage was the way George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and
all our great grandparents were married.  Between Husband, Wife, & God.
Period.

*_STATUTORY LAW Marriage Contracts ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT:_*

How Did Government Get Involved In “Marriage” A Matter of Religious
Tradition?

>From “Virgil Cooper”  Sent Saturday, February 21, 2004

About 15 years ago, my former wife of 26 ½ years, filed for divorce.
We had seven children, five daughters and two sons.    Our youngest, at
the time our second son, was five years old.    At the time, I prepared
a counterclaim to the Petition for Dissolution that her attorney filed
in Domestic Relations (DR) 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 25 years old.    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 department use.
She deferred the most technical explanations to her Assistant.   He
walked me through the technicalities of the marriage license as it
operates in Arizona.   He mentioned that marriage 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
Louisiana 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 a Secular Contract
between the parties and 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.   He 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, reference to God is a dotted line, and not officially
considered included in the Secular Contract at all.    He said, if the
husband and wife wish to include God as a party in their marriage, that
is a “dotted line” they will have to add in their own minds.   The
state’s marriage license is “strictly secular,” he said.    And also, he
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.   In his description of the marriage
license contract, he related one other “dotted line.” He said in the
tradition 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.   They may even be considered, he said, connected to
each other by another “dotted line.”
The picture he 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, a “dotted line” merely showing that they consider themselves to
have entered into a religious union of some sort that is irrelevant to
the State.    He 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 that
has been “deputized” by a State to perform the Marriage Ceremony and
make a re-turn of the signed and executed marriage license to the
State.    Again, he 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, he explains that Community Property law descends from
Roman Civil Law through the Spanish Codes, 600 A.D. written by the
Spanish jurisconsults.
In 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.”     He added that this
privilege to be regulated by statue includes ALL related statues, and
ALL court cases as they are ruled on by the courts, and ALL statues and
regulations into the future in years following the commencement of the
marriage.
He 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.     My thought on this is,
“Can it really be considered a true contract as one, becomes aware of
the failure by the State to make full disclosure of the terms and
conditions?

A contract [to be valid ] must be entered into:
* knowingly
* intelligently
* intentionally and
* with fully informed consent.
Otherwise, technically, there is NO contract.
Another way to look as the Marriage License Contract with the State is
as an adhesion contract, a contract between two disparate, unequal
parties.     Again, a “flawed contract.”
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 to marriage law, family law,
children, and property.
He emphasized that this consideration by the bride and groom places them
in a definite and defined by-law position --
* inferior to and
* subject to the State.
He commented that very few people realize this.
He also said that it is very important that children born to the
marriage are considered by law as “the contract bearing fruit” – meaning
the children primarily belong to the State, even through the law never
comes out and says so, in so many words.

In this regard, children born to the contract are regarded as “the
contract bearing fruit.”    He said it is vitally important for parent
to understand two doctrines that became established in the United States
during the 1930’s.
* The first is the Doctrine of Parens Patriae.
* The second is the Doctrine of in Loco Parentis.
Parens Patriae means literally “the parent” or to state it more bluntly
–- the State is the undisclosed true parent.  Along this line, a 1930’s
Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no property right in
their children, and only 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.
He 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 allowing the
husband and wife, in the name of 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, increase in value.
* Also, the marriage contract “bears fruit” by adding children.
If sometime later, the marriage fails, and a “divorce” results, the
contract continue in existence.    The “divorce” is merely a contractual
dissolution or 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 call “divorce” a dissolution of the marriage
because the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified
form.     He also pointed out that the marriage license contract is one
of the strongest, most binding contractual relationships the States 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 that 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 not interested in the contractual? ] and
statutory implications of the marriage license.” (Laughter)    I hope
this information [ is enlightening and helpful ]to anyone interested in
getting more familiar with the contractual implications of [ marriage.
The marriage license ] as we now know it didn’t come into existence
until the Civil War, and didn’t become standard practice in all the
states until after 1900, it became firmly established by the 1920’s.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

History of the Marriage License
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1c7uFsTIts