Marriage: 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?  Read on...

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 merely directory; because marriage is a thing of common right..." [emphasis added]

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 government. 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 right.

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 marriage.

According 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.

More 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 [1991] (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" mean?

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 laws.

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 activities?"

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:

"Professing 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 one facet 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 crystal-clear 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. 4 As 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 false premises:

  • that Blacks were not "mankind", (I can't express how this lie sickens me!)

  • and the teaching that God was opposed to mixed race marriages. (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.
 If 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 strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the punishment of eternal fire."  STRANGE FLESH?  The Greek term is: "σαρκὸς ἑτέρας" -- HETERO, SARKOS Notice the term is "HETERO"Many 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 Cor 15

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

To recap: 

  • 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 rights).

  • 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, - yes?

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 married and from taking food which God made to be taken with praise by those who have faith and true knowledge. Because 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." - Apostle Paul

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 GENDER! 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 give another.

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." - LEV 20:15-16

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." -  DA 7:15-17  

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 the other.".

So then ... who are the PARTIES to the STATE MARRIAGE LICENSE? 

  • You,

  • your Spouse,

  • and the STATE! 

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 grant 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.

Revolutionary thought:

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)
However, those "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 hold!  
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 License!   

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  Indeed!


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."
Patrick Henry

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 of another?".   
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 - either.

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 the law, 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 Karma?

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 "churches"!

"I 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!

UPDATE 2019: 

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 surprise.  Yawn.

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!  Click This: