Married spiritually but not legally

[joestue]

Clinging to defining marriage as a state sanctioned marriage aka ceremony with church and family approval may feel good but with regard to the spiritual affect of a close intimate relationship, it doesn't make a bit of difference if you are married or not. And also sex is not required.

David had a closer relationship with Johnathan than he did his other 18 wives for example.

 

[Rhema]

A marriage license is indeed needed in every state to show that the two people can indeed get married legally. I just looked it up.

Whatever you looked up is wrong. I'm sure you never even heard of LexusNexus and Case Law. Try not to get too deep in over your head, ma'am, but it's really not a good idea to challenge me on State Law.

Thanks,
Rhema

 

[Rhema]

And why Can't that marriage be holy and legal.

Three people in a marriage ??

I don't think so.

Rhema

PS: The state is considered a person in the "marriage" contract, giving it legal parenting rights over the children. I'd cite Texas Case Law, but ... I already know you're mind is made up.

G'Day

 

[Rhema]

David had a closer relationship with Johnathan than he did his other 18 wives for example.

Yeah, but nobody would say David was married to Johnathan.

(Well maybe today... )

 

[joestue]

He made vows and their souls were knit together. A unique word in the Hebrew used no where else.

 

[Sue D.]

@Rhema -- I had Googled it. Biblical marriage is joining one man a s one woman in holy matrimony. In front of witnesses / friends and family.

The "state" is considered a third party?!?! In a marriage?!?!

I was married 46 yrs ago in Iowa. One of the pictures taken was when pastor signed the marriage license. That made it legal.

The state being a legal parent in a marriage? Whatever.

And no. A marriage consists of one man and one woman period.


David and Jonathan were brought up. It's very possible for two of the same sex to be very close except not in a sexual way. In today's world there are those who take their relationship and try to justify a homosexual relationship. There are different kinds of love that don't include sexual intimacy. A husband and wife relationship is special and does have sexual intimacy.

 

[joestue]

The state just has to do with tax laws, since they can't actually tax person's they had to create corporations, so when you get married your two ssns get combined into one corporation.

Prior to 1913 the state had nothing to do with marriages, churches kept all the records. You owned land or had a corporation you paid taxes on that land or legal entity.

But today... "You" pay taxes. And it matters if you are married or have dependants

Just try getting rid of your SSN and see how far you get.
There are ways to mostly get rid of it. You file every expense of your personal life as a business expense and pay income taxes only on the increase in total profit at the end of the year. Some former friends of mine were doing this a decade ago.

 

[Sue D.]

Whatever you looked up is wrong. I'm sure you never even heard of LexusNexus and Case Law. Try not to get too deep in over your head, ma'am, but it's really not a good idea to challenge me on State Law.

Thanks,
Rhema

And I don't consider any one person to be an expert in anything...it's the middle of the night here and I'm going back to bed.

 

[Rhema]

And no. A marriage consists of one man and one woman period.

Not if you signed a marriage license that added the state as a third party. Remember, you signed the contract voluntarily, and as a legal principle, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

But ... Iguess ignorance is bliss, or in this case, marital bliss. Trust me, though, your marriage is (was) you, your husband, and the state, and contracts are binding in the eyes of God.

The state being a legal parent in a marriage? Whatever.

Again, I'd cite Texas Case Law, but you're just going to do your belligerent thing and dig in your heels, so I'll just describe what happened and be done with it.

There was a very famous case in Texas back in the eighties where a church ran a "church high school" that was unaccredited by the state. It became a scandal because the state padlocked the building where the school resided, but that also happened to have been the actual church building itself. The next move was to sue the parents for not enrolling their child in a state accredited school. The hearing had a judge who asked the parents a few questions, followed by "Do you have a marriage license?" As everyone said yes, after yes, the children were then remanded into foster care and placed into the local government high school. One couple, though, became very anxious because they never filed this "marriage license" and would not lie. When the question was asked, they replied "No." A quiet "sidebar" discussion followed, after which the judge said, "Thank you very much, you may leave." Them AND their children.

The marriage license empowered the state as a party of interest, giving the judge legal authority to place the children in foster homes. The State was a legal parent to all children born under a marriage license. Those who were married under Common Law in the US did NOT give such permission to the state, and so they left the court proceedings with their children, since the judge had no legal power to remand those children into foster care.

All states recognize a marriage contract under Common Law. But to get a divorce, then, you need a 12 person jury to dissolve the contract.

Don't fight with me on this Sue, I actually know what I'm talking about.

Rhema

And I don't consider any one person to be an expert in anything...it's the middle of the night here and I'm going back to bed.

Yep, there's that belligerent tone again.

 

[joestue]

The marriage license empowered the state as a party of interest, giving the judge legal authority to place the children in foster homes. The State was a legal parent to all children born under a marriage license. Those who were married under Common Law in the US did NOT give such permission to the state, and so they left the court proceedings with their children, since the judge had no legal power to remand those children into foster care.

Going to take an act of God for any of that kind of rulling to be made today. Since you aren't the parent cps won't let you have your kids back..

 

[Rhema]

The state just has to do with tax laws, since they can't actually tax person's they had to create corporations, so when you get married your two ssns get combined into one corporation.

Well... that's not quite accurate.

Marriage itself is a Constitutional Right, but all rights can be waived pursuant to contract. (Meaning - be very careful of the things you sign.)

And NO, your two SSNs are not combined into one corporation. That's why both SSNs are required to be listed on the informational return known as a 1040. Every corporation must have a TIN, and no marriages have one.

Signing the 1040 creates the income tax liability, and the law itself actually requires the IRS to file the return. People actually volunteer to file the informational return, which then creates the tax liability.

Eisner v. Macomber is a very interesting Federal Supreme Court decision.

Eisner v. Macomber - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But please, don't try to fly a 747 if you haven't been trained.

Kindly,
Rhema

(None of my four children had an SSN until we enrolled them in the Government School system around ages 4 & 5.)

 

[Rhema]

Going to take an act of God for any of that kind of rulling to be made today. Since you aren't the parent cps won't let you have your kids back..

To be honest, cops and the Social Welfare people are part of the Executive Branch, and one finds address of grievance in the Judicial Branch. It all depends upon whether one's attorney is smart or not and knows how to work the judicial system. The application of principles under Common Law still uphold. But what lawyer knows about them ??

Thanks,
Rhema

Just remember it's different across the pond.

 

[Sue D.]

Rhema -- you're citing one case from back in the 1980's in Texas regarding a non-accredited church school.

Ya can't sue parents for where they hav their kids educated. Apparently there were enough parents who did not like the public school and tried to set up a private school I their church.

Judges can be very prejudiced and mean-spirited. That judge was being that way.

I'm also familiar with homeschooling and charter schools and church academies through my two daughters. My one granddaughter is graduating this year. From their church school. And I have no intention telling where because I don't want you to attempt to cause a problem.

That judge was going way out of his bounds. Misusing his power.

 

[joestue]

The state I live in is so liberal, they actually support homeschooling

 

[Sue D.]

@Rhema -- what country do you live in?

 

[Sue D.]

The state I live in is so liberal, they actually support homeschooling

And why would that be considered liberal. Home schooling Should be supported.

 

[joestue]

Because many liberal states don't support homeschooling, they want the children in public schools so they get indoctrinated with a secular education. For a while it was mostly conservatives who wanted Christian homeschool and private schools.

But in my state the liberals want homeschooling and private schools because the public schools aren't good enough for their children, and they have money to pay for better educators.

 

[Rhema]

Rhema -- you're citing one case from back in the 1980's in Texas regarding a non-accredited church school.

It's not about a church. It's not about a church school. It's not about accreditation. It's about this "license" you harp on.

And yep, I'm citing one case because of... (get your Google button ready...) Stare Decisis.

All states recognize Common Law Marriage (as in NO license).

But do you know what a license is? It's permission by the state to do something either illegal and or unlawful.

Think about it,
Rhema

@Rhema -- what country do you live in?

Oh for pity sakes, at least look at my profile, will ya?

That judge was being that way.

That's you talking through your hat, about things of which you know nothing. Have a nice day.

 

[Sue D.]

A license is the state giving a person permission to do something. For instance a person has to pass a driving test inorder to obtain a driver's license in order to drive a vehicle legally.

A common law living arrangement might be recognized by the state but it isn't legal biblically.

 

[joestue]

isn't legal biblically

Why not?