|
Holy Matrimony vs. Marriage Holy Matrimony vs. Marriage discuses the difference between an Ecclesiastical ceremony, with no legal significance, and that legally binding covenant with the state called Marriage. There are many ways in which a legal system
increases its limited authority but it is most complete through the consent of
the individual. In China they have "the one child contract." If you
sign it, you will become eligible for many of the benefits offered by the
government, such as free medical care, schooling and better paying jobs. If
later the mother becomes pregnant and refuses to abort the child the family
becomes responsible for paying for all the expense of the second child, paying
back all the benefits they received for the first child and often suffer the
loss of their present employed position and pay scale. In America the pressure
to abort a child is often much more subtle. If children survive the financial and social
pressure to be aborted, they must still overcome the strain of the mental,
spiritual and contractual pressures society shall place upon them.
The few parents who feel compelled to protect
their children from exposure to these pressures or simply feel a sense of
responsibility to raise their children directly, often find their way blocked by
a legal system that seems to be usurping the authority of the parents by
assuming custody of children in the name of "The Law." Yet, is it
usurpation or have we unwittingly waived custody of our children by some
previous legal contract or consensual agreement. "3. An analysis of the science of law presents a view, first, of the rights of persons, distinguishing them as natural persons and artificial person, or body politic or corporations. These rights are deemed either absolute, as relating to the enjoyment of personal security, liberty, and of private property or, on the other hand, as relative, - that is, arising out of the relation in which several persons stand. These relations are either, first, public or political, viz.: the relation of magistrate and people; or, second, are private, as the relations of master and servant, husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and ward, to which might be added relations arising out private contracts, such as partnerships, principal and agent, and the like." "8. Law, as distinguished from equity, denotes the doctrine and the procedure of the common law of England and America, from which equity is a departure. In respect to the ground of the authority of law, it is divided as natural law, or the law of nature or of God, and positive law."4 "The union of a man and a woman is of the law of nature.5 Here by these definitions and maxims we see that the union of a man and woman is a relative, yet, private and natural relationship; and as a natural relationship is subject to "natural law," natural law being "divine will...in contradistinction to positive law," positive law being that law "established, under human sanctions." If we have identified these concepts properly it does seem that the natural relation of Husband and Wife and its products, such as children should be relatively free of any interference by government and so it should be for, "Matrimony ought to be free."6 The laws of nature are unchangeable." 7
First, it is clear that marriage is distinguished, essentially different, from both the "agreement to marry" and the "act of becoming married." Secondly, marriage is a civil status. Civil is a word used in "contradistinction to military, ecclesiastical, natural, or foreign; thus, we speak of a civil station, as opposed to ...an ecclesiastical station" 9 It also explains that the obligations of the man and woman are not merely to each other but also to the "community" and that these civil duties are "legally incumbent." An incumbent is then defined as, "A person who is in present possession of an office; one who is legally authorized to discharge the duties of an office." 10
The word "individual" in the book Language, found in the Volume Library, is treated as a word "frequently misused" and clarifies its meaning with the statement, "The word (individual) should not be used in the mere sense of person. The word is correctly used in `Changes both in individuals and communities.'" "Every person is a man, but not every man a person," 12
"Man is a term of nature; person, of the civil law" 13
A "Marriage license:" is "A
license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to
intermarry,...By statute it is made an essential prerequisite to the lawful
solemnization of the marriage."16 as
opposed to ecclesiastical solemnization. "Marriage is often referred to as a
civil contract, but the emphasis in such a reference is not on the word
`contract' but upon the word `civil' as distinguished from ecclesiastical; since
there is religious freedom in this country a religious ceremony, and rules of
ecclesiastical organizations with regard to marriage have no legal significance In the first paragraph we see again that at
least one type of marriage is "civil" or "public" as
distinguished from another which may be "private,"
"ecclesiastical" or "natural." Ecclesiastical organizations
have "no legal significance" and therefore no civil effect.
What does it mean to have no legal significance? (see Law vs. Legal). The word `church' in the New Testament is
translated from the Greek word `ekklesia' which comes from two words `ek'
meaning "out" and `kaleo' meaning to "call". Today's
incorporated churches are not marrying couples ecclesiastically but are calling
their people into an unequal civil relationship with the state. This is also, in principal, how the word is
used today. To clarify this relationship of `lord and ward' we may consider
Clark's statement, "the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being
fixed by law instead of by the parties themselves," shows that it is the
third party known as the state that has the right to fix the extent of the
privileges and duties by law, which is more than an equal position to hold in
that three party relationship. The word law here refers to the legal system
which has already obtained or at least assumed that it has obtained a
jurisdictional authority over the parties by their consent, either before their
application for license (permission) or at the time of its public solemnization. Note the use of the word "persons" and the lack of capitalization of the words "Husband and Wife." In the same law dictionary the word "for" is defined as "instead of" or "in place of."21 So the legal status of marriage by civil authority is where you take each other, assenting into a civil relationship with the state, not as Husband and Wife but "instead of" Husband and Wife or in other words for husband and wife and children, wards of the state. ""Wife and son are names of nature.""22 In 1906, the Supreme Court of Nebraska stated that: "It (marriage) differs from all other contracts23 in its far-reaching consequences to the body politic itself, and for that reason, in dealing with it or the status resulting therefrom, the state never stands indifferent, but is always a party whose interest must be taken into account."24
&nbs The state can and will always consider
itself a party in a civil marriage performed by its officers in accordance with
the duties and obligations imposed by the permitting authority, but it has no
jurisdictional authority over the natural matrimony by "divine will"
between two free and natural individuals. It is the previous connecting
contractual commitments to the legal society that bind a person's obedience to
the commands of that legal society. "A wife is not her own mistress, but is under the power of her husband."26
Not because of any misguided assumption that she is inferior but because she is one with her husband. It is understood in the natural law that the, "Husband and Wife are considered one person in law."28 Even in the definition of Husband and Wife it is called, "One of the great domestic relationships." That relationship, "being that of a man and a woman lawfully joined in marriage, by which, at common law, the legal existence of the wife is incorporated with that of her husband."29 In other words it is a lawful joining of the woman's status to the man. This authority that a man holds at law over
his wife is not a problem to a good woman as long as the husband truly loves,
honors and cherishes her and she is as willing to humble herself to his will as
he is willing to humble himself to God's divine will. As with all contracts
there must be valid and mutual consideration. Despite the fact that the husband is to have custody of his children the individual state governments and bureaucracies are constantly claiming regulatory right and custody. Are these claims of the state usurpations, without any basis in law, or is there an aspect to the relationship of a husband and a wife that is shared by the state? "And he lifted up his eyes, and saw the women and the children; and said, Who [are] those with thee? And he said, The children which God hath graciously given thy servant." (Genesis 33:5) It was the custom that if a man and a woman were married as Husband and Wife, then the husband had custody of the children and held the wife's right to contract in a domestic trust.30 The common law also agrees with the natural law, for "at the common
law the father had an almost absolute right to the custody of his
children." 31 "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:" (Ephesians 5: 28, 29) When a daughter wished to marry, she would obtain her father's permission and he in turn gave her in marriage. The son would also gain permission from his father if he wished to continue to take his father's name as his own. If the husband and wife are wards of the state then their children must obtain permission to marry from their parent's master. Unless they become adopted by a father who is not subject to the jurisdiction of their parent's master. "Fundamental, Bible believing people do not have the right to indoctrinate their children in their religious beliefs, because we, the state, are preparing them for the year 2000, when America will be part of a one-world global society and their children will not fit in." 32 Who is the father from whom permission should be obtained? By and under whose authority should a man and woman be joined together in the ceremony of Holy Matrimony? And what concord hath the Christ with
Belial? or what part hath he that beleiveth with an infidel? And what agreement
hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God: as
God hath said, I will dwell in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be
my people. It is, more often than not, the remedy and will of the public magistrates33 that husbands and wives under their jurisdiction divorce. It is the magistrate that decides the fate of the children in his custody in contradistinction to the law of nature and the common law. And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Mark 10:5,9) The implications of all this can seem to create confusion. We should see that neither a bride nor groom can obtain clear permission34 to marry from a father who has assented to the same restrictive legal civil status that they are trying to avoid. And the state by its very nature cannot offer permission to the God fearing couple to marry as a Natural Husband and Wife. These problems can seem to compound as we discover that no minister or priest is available to conduct a purely ecclesiastical ceremony which would exclude the state and its authoritarian and bureaucratic legal controls. Be ye not unequally yoked together with
unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and
what communion hath light with darkness? (II Corinthian 6:14) Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power
but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (Romans 13:1) For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are sons of God. For you have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. (Romans 8:14,15) Does God want us to give custody of our children to the State? Does He want you to put your Husband and Wife relationship under the authority of a system that prefers and compels divorce as the most common solution to marital strife? Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law. (Romans 13:8) If God has given us the Holy Relationship of Matrimony, He therefore has dominion and authority over that relationship. So why should we render unto the state a legal authority over that relationship which rightfully belongs to God? Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. (Mt 22:21- Mr 12:17 - Lu 20:25) If you are married in Florida, England or
Kuwait you are considered married in Oregon and everywhere else in the world, so
why is not the Kingdom of God acceptable? In fact it is. An ecclesiastical
marriage is a lawful marriage that offers no equitable or legal benefits,
obligations or jurisdiction. Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. (John18:37) If we have been joined together in the name of God and by His authority then why must we call on any other name or authority? If we call on another will they assume a power and authority that will take away or parental rights? "Those who educate are more to be
honored than those who bear the children. Should you call upon another just to gain the financial and worldly benefits of a legal marriage? And it shall come to pass, [that] whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Ac 2:21) Should we turn over the custody of the children that the LORD God has given us to a civil authority that does not follow Christ? What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. (Matthew 19:6). Are there other ways that we are going under authorities of men by making covenants? And they rejected his statutes, and his covenant that he made with their fathers, and his testimonies which he testified against them; and they followed vanity, and became vain, and went after the heathen that [were] round about them, [concerning] whom the LORD had charged them, that they should not do like them. (2Ki 17:15) Have we returned to the bondage of Egypt
and the covenants of Rome and the spirit of Babylon? And if we have entered into covenants with
strange gods can we return to the LORD God? But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I [am] the LORD. (Le 26:45)
END OF FOOTNOTES |
if you would like more information about the Holy
Matrimony Certificates for Marriage and the
Solemn Covenant of Holy Matrimony 5
Reasons Why Christians By Pastor Matt Trewhella Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, "everybody else gets one." This pamphlet attempts to answer the question - why should we not get one? 1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black’s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State’s permission? More importantly, why should we need the State’s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State’s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right. 2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true. In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family’s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially, and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications. 3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children. As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State’s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it’s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so. 4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father’s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?" Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony. Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry. By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don’t need your parents permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their child’s marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by obtaining the State’s permission, and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State. 5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State’s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State. The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract. 1.You; 2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and 3. the State of Ohio." See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse. You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State. When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage? God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons - 1). in the case of divorce, and 2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc. Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery. In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor. They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept. Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime. History of Marriage Licenses in America George Washington was married without a marriage license. Abraham Lincoln was married without a marriage license. So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued? Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800’s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal. Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black’s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages." Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license. In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws. What Should We Do? Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren’t really married." Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who’s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license? In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically. You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law. When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What’s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we. (Pastor Trewhella has been marrying couples without marriage licenses for ten years. Many other pastors also refuse to marry couples with State marriage licenses.
|