It is what it is...
not necessarily what you think it is...
According the the
US Supreme Court, MARRIAGE is a RIGHT of the Common Law, antecedent to government;
& not subject to regulation thereof.
The Supreme Court of the US declared that in
an 1877 ruling and it solidified that position in the 2015 Obergefell vs. Hodges Case.
So, what were the states that were
obstructing same-sex marriage, thinking?
Why did these states believe that statutory
marriage was something that could be withheld from same-gender-couples?
Here is the holding from the
decision of the United States Supreme Court in
Meister v. Moore 96 US 76 (1877):
"As before remarked, the statutes are held
because marriage is a thing of common right..."
Directory - A provision in a statute, rule
of procedure, or the like, which is a mere direction or instruction of no
obligatory force, and involving no invalidating consequence for its
disregard, as opposed to an imperative or mandatory provision, which must be
followed. Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed.
The statutes to which the Court was referring were statutes in
Massachusetts and Michigan that purported to render invalid marriages not
entered into under the term of written [statutory] state law.
While the various state courts have prattled on for almost 200 years
about what the laws of their states do and do not allow concerning marriage,
the US Supreme Court cut straight to the heart of the issue in declaring
that statutes controlling marriage can only be directory because marriage is
a common right, which is not subject to interference or regulation by
Or phrased another way, the God-given right to marry existed prior to the
creation of the states or the national government, and therefore it is
beyond their purview to alter, modify, abolish, or interfere with, such a
Excerpted from OriginalIntent
The concept of "marriage"
(domestic partnerships) is as
old as civilization. The current battle over the issue in the US & other
countries is a result of many confusions working together. The goal is to
intentionally forget natural
law in favor of some statutory attempt to work an abomination of law into the
acceptance of the public psyche. The term "Marriage" is now a word with
several meanings ... and depending on the meaning - the
execution in law will vary. So, this document will attempt to clarify the
term/s, explain the origin of "marriage" & put the issue/s into proper
theological context. What you'll discover is that the commonly held
modern beliefs about what marriage is - are mostly based on myths about the law;
And that once you understand the actual legal history of the US Government's
posturing, - you'll see that the Devil is indeed in the details of Statutory
to Black's Law Dictionary:
| ... a "License"
is a permission slip to do something that would normally be unlawful.
... a "Marriage License" is a
document that "allows"
miscegenation (inter-racial [specie] marriages).
So, here's the question for those who may be seeing a seeming contradiction: If
the Supreme Court has ruled that marriage is a Common Law RIGHT that cannot be
regulated by government, - how is it that government issues "licenses" to do
what the Supremes say can't be regulated? It's because what the government
CALLS 'MARRIAGE' - is actually something very different from common-law
marriage & quite abominable.
on Common Law Marriage
(-By: Dave Champion)
It is interesting to note the current definition of "marriage
license" in Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed  (which is the one used
in a Family Law court):
Marriage license - A license or permission granted by public
authority to persons who intend to intermarry... By statute in most
jurisdictions, it is made an essential prerequisite to lawful solemnization
of the marriage."
Hmmmm; a license is required for persons who desire to
"intermarry". But what exactly does "intermarry"
Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed):
Intermarry - See Miscegenation.
Black's Law Dictionary (6th Ed):
Miscegenation - Mixture of races. Term formerly
applied to marriage between persons of a different race. [Now called
"intermarry".] Statutes prohibiting marriage
between persons of different races have been held to be invalid as contrary
to equal protection clause of the Constitution.
The 'Devil got his foothold' back after the Civil War. Prior to the 14th
amendment, Blacks were seen in the eyes of the law as "different
species" than white.
Different Flesh. Sound absurd? Up into the 1960's, those
favoring segregation often made identical assertions -- including several high
profile politicians who were recorded saying it! Because the law-makers of
so many states did not question such bigoted assertions, there came to be "laws" in place that
made interracial marriages illegal -- under the premise that Blacks were not
recognized w. the rights of Citizens' -- & that Blacks were not "men" in the same
way as were "white-men". This belief was the fundamental
assertion of the slave owner/trader. Legally, you can't own another human-being;
-So the belief promoted was that black people weren't actual persons created in
God's image with unalienable rights. With that lie conveniently accepted
into the cultural psyche, the abomination of slavery in the United States was
established. One abomination soon led to others...including miscegenation
Ironically, in a recent article
on 'Beliefnet' - called Slouching Toward Chimeras, -the writer
asked the rhetorical question of "What happens to the near-human hybrid"?
Of course, his queries were hypothetical in his mind. However - if you
look at his questions, you'll see that they relate to moot legal issues
already raised in the US - not over Chimeras - but about Blacks!
"Fusing a human and
chimpanzee embryo–a feat researchers say is quite feasible–could produce
a creature so human that questions regarding its moral and legal
status would throw 4,000 years of human ethics into utter chaos.
Would such a creature enjoy human rights and protections under the
law? For example, it’s possible that such a creature could cross the
species barrier and mate with a human. Would society allow
inter-species conjugation? Would a humanzee have to pass some
kind of “humanness” test to win its freedom? Would it be forced
into doing menial labor or be used to perform dangerous
Am I alone in feeling that the
laws passed & battles fought over the LIE
that blacks "weren't quite human" represents the epitome of evil?
And it's those very lies & resulting "miscegenation laws"<sic> that define
"marriage" on the state & federal level today! Anyone who applies for a
government marriage license is literally asking "permission" to marry another species!
That's HOW the government can "regulate" it. If people understood that
marriage is a civil RIGHT - then government would lose ALL regulatory
control. So, to deceive people, the state pushes something IT CALLS
"MARRIAGE", but which is really based on an ABOMINATION! This
understanding of Law gives a whole new understanding to Romans chapter 1.
Many people refer to the quote I'm about to cite as a "gay-clobber
passage". Oh really? Read & make up your own mind:
themselves to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of
the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man,
and of birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things. Wherefore
God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts unto uncleanness, that
their bodies should be dishonored among themselves:
for that they exchanged the truth of God for a
lie, and worshipped and served the creature rather than the Creator..."
- Rom 1:22-25a
People who call government -
God: are Cursed! The state "marriage license" is but
of this sin. A man who asks another mere-man for what is a
RIGHT - professes -by the asking - that he himself is less than a
man! It is idolatry! But you reader: Make up your own mind!
Miscegenation proponents often quote from the Bible --
where God forbade intermarrying among the Israelites. What those who
quote such "scriptures" fail to clarify is WHY God forbade it - as if
God was concerned about "racial purity". It turns out, that it wasn't
about race at all, -- but about pagan religions being introduced into Judaism's
culture by the associations of married relatives. The truth is made
in texts like: 1KI
11:1 King Solomon,
however, loved many foreign women besides Pharaoh's daughter--Moabites,
Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians and Hittites. 2 They were
from nations about which the LORD had told the Israelites, "You must not
intermarry with them, because they will surely turn your hearts after their
gods." Nevertheless, Solomon
held fast to them in love. 3 He had seven hundred wives of
royal birth and three hundred concubines, and his wives led him astray.
Solomon grew old, his wives turned his heart
after other gods, and his heart was not fully devoted to the LORD his God,
as the heart of David his father had been.
Therefore, the "miscegenation laws" were based on these
that Blacks were not "mankind",
(I can't express how this lie sickens me!)
and the teaching that God was opposed to mixed
(In violation of the establishment clause.)
I would add that the separation clause in the 1st Amendment raises a legitimate
issue of Constitutionality about such Mala-Prohibita laws -- but I know of no
court where such an argument was ever raised <yet>.
After the Civil War, people who had a spine & decided to marry interracially
moved clumsily through the political process, and "Marriage Licenses" were
issued as the "solution" to those who wished to marry "outside of their race". This is "how"
government got a foothold into regulating what was actually a RIGHT of the Common Law.
Exceptions via "license" were made to the standing miscegenation laws at the
time (an unconstitutional set of laws based on lies).
This is also where
the judgment of God should become a serious issue.
there is a single issue I can think of that will damn the likes of Religious
Reich, -- it is on this subject of "Marriage".
After all, if a person
BELIEVES that marrying "interracially" is marrying "other flesh", then what you
essentially have is a person's own conscience declaring that they are guilty of
the sin of Sodom, -- as it is written:
"Even as Sedom and `Amorah, and the cities around
them, having, in the same way as these, given themselves over to
sexual immorality and gone after
are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal
The Greek term is:
Notice the term
scholars generally agree that Sodom idolized sexual relations with
angels -- perhaps as a religious cult. This activity,- by the very definition in the text
about Sodom's sin, - is
HETERO-SEXUAL (Sex with the 'Other' - 'Strange
flesh' - 'men with angels' - 'mating other kinds').".
I want to be very clear here. The text is NOT
condemning interracial marriages. The text is condemning sex with
HETERO SARKOS (other/different flesh). God made
Adam; & the descendants of all humanity are from him. There is NO actual
HETERO-SARKOS among men. Men are (1) kind of flesh ... as it is written: "But
God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its
own body. 39 All flesh is not the same:
Men have one kind of flesh,
animals have another, birds another and fish another." - I
Grasp this: God judges by the thoughts and intents of the heart
(Heb 4:12). If a person believes that an act
they do is wrong; - Then for them, - it is wrong (because by doing the
act, they violate their own conscience)! This is the reason that the
Apostle Paul spent a great deal of time building people up and explaining to
them the "WHY" ... so that men would have strong consciences that granted
them liberty to act, - because their consciences were not tossed about by
whimsical teachings ... like "miscegenation laws". Paul taught
wonderful "heresies" like: "There is
neither Jew nor Greek, slave
nor free, male & female, for you are all one
in Christ Jesus" - Gal 3:28
Yeah, Paul taught that
RACE, CLASS, &
GENDER collapsed into a singularity in Christ!
However, people who don't believe that will be judged by the same measure they
use to judge others! It is written: "For
in the same way you judge others,
you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
- Mt 7:2
Modern Marriage Licenses have their foundations
in miscegenation laws.
Miscegenation laws consider the races to be
"different flesh" (less than fully human & thus without fundamental
A "Marriage License" is a government permit to
mate "different flesh" / "HETERO SARKOS". (Not
that interracial flesh is "different", but that was the BELIEF
(thought & intent of the law's heart) at the time
those laws were passed)...
A Sin of Sodom was the pursuit of "HETERO SARKOS"
So then, the form of "MARRIAGE" that requires a
State License is defined by LAW, to be a form of union that was
specifically declared by Jude (Jesus' half-brother) to be
the Sin of Sodom!
Men are judged by the measure they use to
judge... so those pushing State marriage licenses while yelling "sodomite" at
other people - are themselves, - the 'sodomites' (because they are actually
violating in ignorance the very thing they accuse others of violating)! How's that for divine irony?
Hmm. Seems that mercy does triumph over judgment, -
Do you see where the
"fundamentalists" like those pushing for a "Constitutional Marriage Amendment"
may be in deep trouble with God? Contemplate it in the back of your mind
and read on...
I N S E R T :
"But the Spirit says
clearly that in later times some will be turned away from the faith,
giving their minds to spirits of deceit, and the teachings of demons; --
Through the false ways of men whose words are untrue, whose
consciences are seared as with a heated iron; --
Who keep men from being
from taking food
which God made to be taken with praise by those who have faith and true
everything which God has made is good, and nothing is evil, if it is taken
with praise: For it is made holy by the word of God and by prayer." -
In his 1st letter to Timothy,
Paul points out the habits of end-time false religion. Huh ... would
you look at that: "Who
keep men from being married"
The word for "married" in the Greek is "Gam-'e-oh" & it means EITHER
The 2nd part I've highlighted has (2)
scriptural connotations: First, it symbolizes communion (food taken with
praise that has been made sanctified). Second, it relates to men who have
strong faith vs. those of weak -- because Paul hit on the exact issue in
Romans 14. Churches that don't allow men to marry or take communion
(eat certain foods); -- Do we have a 'match' in the modern?
If your 'church' matches the pattern -- then it's doctrines are demonic
(say "evil"). It's time to come out from among them -- don't you think?
I know what some of you are thinking: "State
Marriage Licenses ... The Sin of Sodom!?, -- surely that's a stretch!"
In light of the New Covenant of the Gospel, -- it is a fascinating dynamic!
Do you need another "witness" to the accuracy of this assessment? I will
It is written: "`And
a man who gives his lying with a beast
is certainly put to death, and the beast
ye do slay. `And a woman who draws near unto
any beast to lie with it--thou hast even slain the
woman and the beast;
they are certainly put to death; their blood is on them." -
Of course, this is the Law of Moses forbidding intimacy with "other flesh".
However, Paul wrote that the Law is SPIRITUAL, meaning that there is a
metaphysical explanation for this law that transcends the direct implications of
the text. Want a hint as to the "bigger meaning"? OK. It is
written: "I, Daniel, was
troubled in spirit, and the visions that passed through my mind disturbed me.
I approached one of
those standing there and asked him the true meaning of all this. "So he told me
and gave me the interpretation of these things:
`The four great
beasts are four
kingdoms that will rise from the earth." -
Do you recall above where I quoted Paul as he spoke of "different
kinds of flesh". Well, I've shown you in Daniel where "Beasts
are Kingdoms". According to Paul, they too are "flesh", as it is
written: "And there are bodies of
heaven and bodies of earth, but the glory of the one is different from that of
So then ... who are the PARTIES
to the STATE MARRIAGE LICENSE?
According to the
Scripture in Daniel, governments are BEASTS.
According to Moses, people who intimately couple with BEASTS are to be put to
death & the BEAST is to be slain!
The sin of HETERO SARKOS: is the mating of the intimate life affairs of man
(made in the image of God) with that of a government (a
proverbial "Beast" ridden by men)! Did you ever
wonder what legal basis the state has to rule in a divorce or determine child
custody? It's the "Marriage license" that gives the STATE a legal interest
Without that, a common-law court, not "family court" is the only legal recourse.
Would you have sex with a snake between you & your "spouse"? Then why
would you sheath your genitals in a "license" issued by a "servant government" -
to obey its terms regarding the upbringing of your household?
Will the "Real MARRIAGE" please stand up?
Technically, "REAL Marriage"
is a Common Law, Domestic Partnership. That's all it is. Trying to
make it something more is a violation of the US Constitution (& common sense). The US
Constitution forbids "Titles of Nobility". This means that a person/s may
not be elevated in status above any Citizen by title, and that human rights are
guaranteed equally to all. Part of the problem with current
"State Marriage" practice is that a body of laws have sprung up around it to
certain privileges to a class of people who possess the State License of
Marriage. This is merely a cursed "Title of Nobility" being bestowed upon a
state regulated partnership. It may be an established practice, but it
does not make it any less unconstitutional! Unfortunately, this point has
never been adjudicated. People generally are too shallow in the legal-sense to
even know to raise the issue. After all -- the mere existence of a
MARRIAGE-LICENSE is testimony in itself that the state considers
some part of statutory marriage to be a licensable (otherwise - Illegal) act!
Think about it.
Perhaps the BIG
issue is that Government has granted certain PRIVILEGES to those who
take the Marriage License [number] (PRIVILEGES
it does not grant to those who do not have the Marriage License
[number]); --AND because the form of
"Marriage" that the government permits is, by definition "a
permitted union of one or more beasts lacking fundamental rights"
(miscegenation); --Then State Marriage is by definition - 2-natural
persons created in God's Image - giving up that innate glory -to
take on the statutory images of beasts complete with a
license-number (Read Romans chapter 1
lately? How about Revelation chapter 13?)!
To a Christian like myself, I see this as nothing
more than a proverbial "Bowl of pottage" to coerce the unknowing into giving up
their birthright for a "bowl of soup" in the now (which is about all you can
afford with Social Security spousal survivor benefits). The "state
Marriage License" is an echo of the woman & man both being encouraged to partake
of the forbidden; --With a promise of a better life for the doing.
Same old snake up to the same old tricks!
Ironically then: The
strongest legal position about marriages being conducted today is where vows are exchanged publicly
WITHOUT the STATE license! These are valid - even without the
recognition of the state's marriage-license-number! The
Common Law recognizes them as the traditional domestic partnerships that they are! (LINK)
"Marriages" that are sealed with the STATE "License", are,
according to the Scriptures: ABOMINATIONS -- the very Sin of Sodom! And yet, the
"Religious Reich" wants to clutch State "Marriage" with both hands -- as
if they have something desirable they don't want to share! They love a
curse; & by wanting to "deny" it to others -- the principle of coveting takes
Don't be deceived! What the Religious Reich claims as "sacred
exclusivity", is Satan's-counterfeit for what men (anthropos) have had all along
via civil-unions! Since Marriage is a RIGHT, and the state
may not regulate it - then the state may not DEFINE what constitutes a Marriage!
For those who have figured it out already: So-called "GAY MARRIAGE" has been a
RIGHT all along! The ACTUAL ISSUE is NOT the concept of MARRIAGE, - but the
problems with systems of government that bestow special privileges upon people
with the STATE MARRIAGE LICENSE while denying those who do not! The
best solution is NOT to "LEGALIZE GAY-MARRIAGE" (& thus give credence to the
government's lies that it has any control over marriage); --But to ABOLISH all forms of special benefits, recognitions or
advantages that the government bestows upon those by giving the State Marriage
The prophet Isaiah said: "Woe unto
them who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light
for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!" - Isa 5:20
Some opposed to
same-gender "marriage", have
suggested that the Constitution be amended!
"The Constitution is not an instrument for the
government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people
to restrain the government."
You may ask, "Who will be judged?".
The answer was already given: Those who judge others in light of the license! You
see, there are many people who could care less about the government's "marriage
permission slip", -- and many of these people live with another person without
the document (as did almost everyone prior to the 20th century). Very
often, the Religious Reich accuses such people of "shacking up" & "living in
sin" - "FORNICATORS". While that "might" be the
case; -- I think the bigger question is: "Who are you (or them) to judge the relationship/s
I.E: I had an uncle who had a "live in housekeeper". They lived together
until he died. The family (a bunch of 'pagans' by the standards of Pat
Robertson), did not raise an issue as to the estate. As far as they were
concerned, my uncle & his housekeeper had been "married" -- even without the
permission slip. An oddity today, -- a century ago, this perspective was
the norm! Had the family had the name "Falwell", - can you imagine
the fight in probate court over the estate of this Common-Law widow! Jesus
warned of such legalism: "As
he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk
around in flowing robes and be greeted in the marketplaces, and have the most
important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They
devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be
punished most severely." - MK 12:38-40
Jesus was exposing
the deeds of the wealthy religious teachers of his day. The term "lengthy
prayers" is a legal expression meaning they spend lots of time in court.
This is precisely the means they use to devour widows houses through probate.
So, you had a
wedding & someone you invited was a "No Show"?
You should consider the very real
possibility that they were aware of the principles outlined on this page
and did not attend your wedding because they did not want to stand as a
witness to an abomination. After all, this doctrine about governments
being invited into the family unit is not unlike the person who invites
a vampire into the house - (on a moral level).
Romans chapter 1 makes a damning
observation about certain people who promote grievous sins: "...who
having known the righteous judgment of God, that the ones practicing
such things are deserving of death, -not only are doing them, but
they are also approving of the ones practicing."
That's fairly straightforward. You see -
many people list the events of the ceremony in the itinerary or make it
known in conversation. If I don't know - I'll usually give
benefit of the doubt & attend; -& then make myself scarce if a point in
the ceremony arises where I believe that a state marriage license is
going to be signed
I don't believe in prostitutes at
bachelor parties either; -- but since voicing such opinions during the
event usually produces little repentance -& much hostility; -- So do
apostate "Christians" react the same way at their so-called "holy"
matrimonies when the "Marriage License" is presented for consummation
with the State.
So, while I don't judge others on the
practice; -- I choose to exercise my right not to participate or be a
witness to such grievous sins. I'm sure that many Christians share
the same view. We opt for "grace" & choose to love the sinner & hate the
sin. However - we need not watch the abomination of a
marriage-license being issued -
So, if you invited somebody to a wedding
& they didn't show up. It's possible that they didn't want to
participate in a ceremony that offended their sense of conscience; --
Nor be accused of giving their consent to such rank sin by those who may
discover that they attended. Since most weddings in the US today
involve signing a marriage license: I don't attend many & neither do
people who are aware of these things.
"But unknowing members of my family & friends have
marriage licenses! What of them?", you may ask. Same answer. Do
they judge other's right-standing based on the paper? Do they judge their
"righteousness" by it? Would they deny any of the "benefits they
perceive" the documents grants, -- to another who does not have the
document? By the measure they judge will they be judged! This is the
beauty of the Covenant of Grace: "(Indeed,
when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law,
they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have
since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts,
their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now
even defending them.)" - Romans 2
Hypocrites Getting Their
Did you know that "Christians" have a divorce
rate that is as high or higher than people who do not profess to be Christian?
Yeah! Yeshua (Jesus) taught that people who divorce in order to remarry are
committing adultery. Scripturally - Adultery is generally defined as when
a man or woman sexually engage a person of the opposite gender who is married to
someone else. It is a capital offense and the Torah places a death
sentence on the act. And yet, over 50% of "Christians" regularly divorce
and then some remarry - generally with no stigmas within their own congregations
despite the fact that the Scripture says that God HATES DIVORCE and that divorce
done in order to remarry is on par with the capital crime of adultery. Yeah.
Hypocrites! And these same exact hypocrites are those who often want to forbid
same-gender couples from "marrying" (& if they had their way - they'd have same
gender attracted people live out their lives alone). And these hypocrites claim
that the Scripture forbids same-gender intimacy. This website goes above &
beyond proving that those assertions are based on a lax, lazy set of prejudices
that are NOT supported by the original-language texts (quite the opposite - in
that the friendship between King David and Prince Jonathan is definitely a civil
union and a contract that survived the hardest legal challenge possible under
Hebrew law and preserved the life of Jonathan's son precisely due to the
covenant David had with Jonathan)! Those who take the time to look over
the content on this site soon gain an appreciations as to how bullet-proof this
theology is and some have even used the theology to challenge their former
am glad I found the g0ys. I have sent the arguments to my old church, and
they couldn't refute it!" -RussH
And here is where the situation takes on a
tone that proves quite satisfying once you realize WHY it happens. It has
to do with all of those "Christian" marriages that fall apart. I've had
the opportunity to hear the stories and watch the fallout of several of these
"Christian" marriages dissolve with any number of reasons and the thing that
gives a sense of satisfaction is watching it happen to hypocrites who are
postured in their personal prejudices against same-gender attracted couples.
They curse the very notion of same gender unions and their own marriages suffer
a curse. It rips up their family ties, divides their children between
parents, brings in the curse of "Child Protective Services", divorce attorneys
and tears apart their estates. They whine, whimper & wonder about their
marital misfortune and ask where God is in all of it. And from what I can
see - God isn't in it at all. It's karma: Their comeuppance for a
compassionless mindset that lazily & lawlessly condemns other people's
relationships without the least bit of empathy! And they take every
opportunity to apply political pressure to further deny others rights that they
themselves expect to enjoy without question. So, watching
relationship-ruination happen to them doesn't cause me to lose a moment of rest
when I observe the unfounded & baseless contempt they openly harbor regarding
same-gender attracted people!
The above material was written several years
ago. Since then, the United States Supreme Court has essentially repeated
the ruling in gave in Meister v. Moore 96 US 76 (1877) - this time regarding
same-sex marriage: Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. (2015). Oh, what a
What is more interesting is that the state of
Alabama passed a law completely removing the license requirement from
Marriage! As the g0ys argument has been all along - that the state should
have ZERO interest in regulating marriage in ANY form (read all text above the
horizontal line for a recap) ... Alabama just made this position the default
position in that jurisdiction!