Back to Top

History of Marriage License

Comments

handygent45 says:

Hello. I am preparing a publication called the Copernicus Doctrine. (It is
well known that such men challenged the mega-brains of the day and proved
them wrong. The earth was not the center of the universe.) Similar to what
Copernicus was up against, my biggest challenge is the inertia of
arrogance, like a magnetic field holding the minds of men spinning around
the wrong axis.

After 11 years of research, based on newly discovered evidence, I hope to
turn domestic court upside down as Copernicus did to the physical universe,
or at least man’s perception. The following is a very brief summary.

Allegation 1. In short, the Constitution, both federal and state combined,
outlawed the use or need of a marriage license as it was implemented in
Europe for centuries. The organic species had inherent rights as
birthrights, some listed by generalization of life, liberty and pursuit of
happiness. As a result, without realizing the full implications of that
statement, said Constitution barred the State from using the word
“marriage”, being a religious word, and was limited to only see a civil
contract made by loyalty oath between a couple. On the Church side of the
fence, if some group looked upon a civil contract as a “marriage”, that was
their choice.

Allegation 2. The respective Constitutions, hereafter Constitution, created
a dividing line between Church and State. This line, in certain areas, has
been built, even moved one way or another from time to time, but certain
sections of this line have not been defined or argued. Only exist by
assumption.

Personal Opinion: The legal profession has a conflict of interest, acting
as agent for the State, since any decision made, or action done, reflects
upon their job security and wealth, either to its benefit or detriment. If
I have an inherent right to breathe, then I don’t need a license or those
who mediate privilege to haggle over meaning of structure in the event of
revocation. My right to breathe is inalienable, based on conditions.
Analogy: If I take a life without cause, then I would forfeit my right to
breathe as well.

SUMMARY
I have a website that has been dormant for over 12 years. Last updated in
2001. http://www.phinehas.org. In part, where I documented my struggle for over a
two-year period to get custody of my daughter. I prevailed and have full
legal and physical custody, at a cost of almost 40k. While constructing the
website, I was learning on the fly both in html language and the intrigues
of the legal maze. (During the emotional turmoil going on at that time,
some of my comments were influence by the anguish, despair and thoughts of
losing my daughter.) I got sucker punched and was not prepared for the
odyssey that unfolded.

Once getting custody, I spent the next few years tending my wounds,
regaining financial solvency and raising my daughter. Several years ago I
finished a report that explains, in detail, why fathers get screwed. I
provide the following excerpt. Remember, if you’re a father, I’ve been in
your shoes. What I say may sound boring and non-relevant, but if you really
want to know why things are as they are, then read.

Where to start? When this country was founded, most of Common Law was
based on religion. (The separation of church and state is a non-existent
line in the domestic setting.) The Catholic Church dominated most of
European monarchies for centuries. So, the first question, where did the
idea of a marriage license come from and why?

The act of getting a license had nothing to do with morality and not based
on Scripture. It was invented during the Inquisition for two purposes. To
protect property rights of the nobility class and to breed out opposition.
(Didn’t want the heretics and undesirables breeding.)

First, you had the law of fornication. It was illegal for people that were
not married to have sex and breed. Any woman, who got pregnant, out of
wedlock, committed an illegal act. The companion to this law was the law of
forfeiture. A person cannot benefit from an illegal act. The children were
the fruit of this illegal act and subject to confiscation. Most ended up
in Catholic orphanages and rented out, as vassals to property owners for
cheap labor and since priests and nuns are not allowed to breed, the
confiscated babies filled the ranks of the convent and rectory. The Church
reaped a harvest and profit.

Next, the actual license implied a loyalty oath to the Catholic Church that
the children would be raised Catholic. According to Cannon Law, the priest
conducting the ceremony, or his successor, is the literal bond that holds
the union at his pleasure. Since it is a license, it can be revoked. (The
confessional was a good way to keep tabs on the political ideas of the
husband. If the Church found out a man was a potential heretic, the Church
could intervene, dissolve the marriage and confiscate the children and sent
to proper reeducation. The license was registered at the court for two
reasons. Census and property rights. Think of it, what is said during a
marriage ceremony? The traditional phrase: “What God has joined let no man
put asunder”. The Church kept the door open as exclusive right to avulse
what they joined.

Let’s say a noble got a common girl pregnant. Since the child was a
bastard, it could not lay claim to the noble’s lands or title of nobility.
Depending on the situation, both the mother and child were relocated before
the birth to avoid scandal for the noble. The noble only had to pay a
trespass fine and walk away. His support payment was filtered as a donation
to the Church for their cooperation in handling the matter.

Remember that this is only as summary.

Speeding things along. The actual or original name of the Acknowledgment
of Paternity form was a Bill of Indictment. (In the state where I live,
the fornication law was finally repealed in 1975. Yes, it was on the books
for a long time.) To expedite matters, the legal status of both the mother
and father was pre-adjudicated and both were placed in a set class action.
Without being pre-adjudicated the state couldn’t print the form, it was a
pre-arranged decision beforehand. The wording on the pre-printed form
already adjudicated the results. Only thing left to muddle over was
secondary particulars. (The law of forfeiture and confiscation in regards
to criminal acts are still on the books.)

The wording on the form already deemed both committed a criminal act, but
the mother was given immediate pardon on the condition she disclosed who
the father was and rewarded by allowing her to keep the child. (The birth
set about a series of inter-related legal steps. The first was dealing with
the child and its status. The birth certificate was a declaration of
bastard certification as seized property by the State. The father’s name on
this certificate was not needed. The State was seizing the child from the
unwed mother as custodian. A Latin phrase, translated, a baby needs
suckling, needs care. The mother was deemed unfit to “hold” the child as
natural custodian. The child was the proof she was a criminal.

I want to side step a moment. Back in Europe, both the Catholic State and
Catholic Church viewed society as a kennel that had an annex used as animal
shelter. All dogs are owned by the master, including the puppies, the
female dog had no rights to the puppy. Yet, the female dog was needed to
feed the puppy. From the master’s economic standpoint, free milk. But he
still had to feed the dog. The base kennel ideology is still used in
domestic law, only now sugarcoated with fancy labels used on forms.

Quick review so far. To confiscate children, they made it illegal to have
sex outside of wedlock. If a child was born the necessary laws enacted, at
the ready, ritualized the seizure Remember, society is not static. To
understand how things are as they are now, the evolution of the overall
dynamics must be comprehended. The operations of intervention by the State
changed by amended laws, different opinions and culturally accepted ideas.
But the kennel mentality still remains. Foster care is a fancy label for
animal shelter. The history and intent got lost in a pile of Orwellian New
Speak. Phrases like best interest of the child, in the best interest of
national security, in God we trust, what do such heraldry insignias mean?
Under the banner of Security government burns the Constitution to keep
society warm. I’ll say this as allegation, the imprimatur seal used during
the Inquisition, when children were confiscated, had a Latin phrase, In
place of God, which implied the best interest of the child. Germans built
gas chambers in the best interest of the State. It was the German
Inquisition in the 20th century, the Holy Crusade of Germany. Anyone can
get a rubberstamp from Staples.

Getting back to the AOP form. The birth certificate placed the child as a
ward of the State. Also it was used like a stock certificate to borrow
money. Back then, in a peasant family, the father was the breadwinner. A
single mother had no care for herself or the child. (A woman’s sole
occupation was homemaker.) The mother was placed as a ward of the State as
well. The State needed to find out who was the father so to have him pay to
ease the burden of the State. Many times, if the man had chattel, it was
confiscated and in a political agenda created land-grab frenzy.

In recent times, the father, by signing the form, was signing a confession
that he did commit a criminal act getting the unwed mother pregnant, in
that he damaged her and liable to pay for damages. If you ask, why would
the father sign? Most didn’t. (The doctrine of absentia worked well.)
Concerning the Bill of Indictment, it was the mother who provided his name
so to keep the child. This was like a quasi-rape situation. She signed the
form as witness against the father to get her pardon. She acknowledged
her paternity by claiming she was raped. And so began the Victim Gravy
Train mentality, since the female is viewed as a default victim and the
male, the villain.

In some cases, if the man and woman loved each other, during the pregnancy,
if they obtained a marriage license then it cancelled out the criminal act,
so long as they made a loyalty oath to the Church. (The legal snares of
the license will be mentioned.)

Over the years the AOP form was revised superficially. But please
understand one thing, the form is illegal. Using a legal word, it was
rendered moot and non-applicable. This is the why of the matter. To have a
bastard child, that implies an unwed mother. In my state, about the same
time they repealed the fornication law, the sister law was enacted making
all children in the eyes of the law equal. (The two go hand in hand.) The
classification based on marital status did not apply anymore in regards to
the child. Only bastard fruit can come from an unwed tree. If the fruit is
reclassified, then also the status of the mother. Then all trees in the
social forest are the same. Therefore, in regards to the child, the
marriage license is also rendered moot and non-applicable. The current
actual significance of a marriage license is a civil contract for property
holdings. The child is still in the venue of the State under wardship.

What does that mean? Whether the parents are married of not, all children
enjoy the same legal status. All children are property of the State.
Shocking? You have no “rights” to your children. You gave up all right
when applying for a license. Birth certificates are a title of State
ownership. Do you realize when you get a title for a car, the same thing
happens. You give the car to the State and you become a custodian of your
equity. It then becomes a privilege of use based on annual registration
fees. You need permission to use the vehicle. (Over simplified.)

The State made the use of the words “bastard” and “unwed” illegal since
they didn’t apply anymore. But the most important word to this trinity is
the word “marriage”. If there are no more bastard children and no more
unwed mothers, the significance of “marriage” becomes moot. But the status
of the father changed as well. The foundation of the AOP form, as a Bill of
Indictment, stood on the premise that the parties committed an illegal act.
How can a father plead guilty to an act that was declared legal? The AOP
form should have been repealed as well, since it has no standing with the
repeal of the fornication law that set in motion the repeal of the bastard
doctrine. DNA test results replaced it: medical science is recognized
being an expert witness and proves biological evidence of a legal act of
the respective parties. The certified test result is a Certificate of
Lineage, the genetic connection.

The wording on the AOP form is still the same as it was a hundred or more
years ago. It still has the language as a Bill of Indictment for the
father, and pardon for the mother. In the block where the mother signs, she
gets to say “my child”. In the block for the biological father, he gets to
say “the child”. The correlation between the two declares the father is
handing over sole custody to the mother by default and he is left with the
liability. It is still a criminal act since if you fail to pay damages,
what they call support, you are tossed in prison.

Why did they keep the AOP form? If not done in ignorance, to have a father
admit he is guilty of a crime that is no longer illegal. Read that again.
Once a father pleads guilty, the father is liable. (Or if taken to court
during a hearing where trial by jury is suspended. During the Inquisition
one had no right to jury other than the tribunal. The Inquisition is alive
and well. Habeas Corpus is also suspended as means to free the child. Only
now the heraldry insignia was changed from best interest of God to be
interest of child.) Since he pleads guilty to a criminal act that is
actually legal, he just resurrected the law of forfeiture to have his wages
garnished or thrown in jail. It creates a fast-track express lane on the
confiscation highway. Look at it this way, if I sign a paper saying I owe
you 100 dollars, signed before witnesses, even though I don’t owe you any
money, is it a binding contract? Could you take me to court and collect?
Well then, how is a child supported?

Changing the law is simple but it means the legal profession will lose
billions of dollars, including supportive services. 1. Citizens have an
inherent right to breed, no license required. 2. Since it takes two to
make a baby, both parents get automatic shared custody by default. That
means they get shared liability by default. 3. Being married or not is a
moot argument. 4. From there each case, if necessary, is adjudicated on the
particular merits. 5. As a result, the AOP form is rendered moot and
replaced with DNA Certification. One reason for the marriage taboo was
lineage preservation as the best safeguard to make sure your son is
actually your son. DNA testing has tossed the need of religious ideology
and archaic wisdom out the window. 6. The word “marriage” is stricken from
all laws. That is a religious word. The State is only allowed to see a
property contract between two parties based on a loyalty oath to the
respective parties. If two people exchange a loyalty oath, it is done
within their inherent venue, registered at the court whereupon a Loyalty
Certificate is issued. 7. As for inbreeding taboos, such as joining with
your cousin, medical science, not the Church, now claims title as Pope.
Laws can still be passed for the single purpose of gene safety, which
protects the child from genetic damage. 8. But most of all, where to
establish jurisdiction? In all criminal cases, the venue is where the act
was committed. Prior to DNA testing, the birth location established venue.
Made it easy for a woman to flee and hide the child. Places the father at
undo burden to travel who knows where. If venue is moved from the place of
conception, then it has to be agreed upon by both parties for fairness. 9.
Even “married” couples are required to get DNA testing, since it eliminates
fraud and deceit. Positive way for a child to know the his lineage
identity.

Oh, what about the stability of family that “marriage” provides? The
traditional family, seen on such television series as Ozzie and Harriet is
now the minority, going the way of the dinosaur. Current methods have
already turned society into the Brady Bunch with Velcro patches on the
“marriage license” as names are changed like underwear. Who is raising the
children? Daycare centers, fosters parents, and the ever-increasing
adoptive parents. The ranks of single mothers under the care of the State
on welfare are growing. This is what defines the American family. The
current method only generates profit. Maybe there should be the Empty
Pocket Doctrine in that any law passed that results in the diminished
wealth for the legal profession, by diminishing the need of paid mediators,
is the road to protect the inherent rights of the citizens.

The AOP form is used as a liability declaration. By trickery and device,
the father is lied to claiming he needs to sign the form to get visitation
or some other deceptive tactic. About the marriage license, the heretics,
the Protestants, under strong influence, created this country by the
Masons, wrote words in the Constitutions, both at federal and states
levels, that a person has inherent rights, birthrights. That was a
declaration against the marriage license long used in Europe and the
Inquisition. A child’s birthrights are not contingent upon the marital
status of the parents. (They were words of defiance against the monarchies
and the Church. Look at the typical Preamble of any State Constitution,
such as Pennsylvania. That preamble was like showing the middle finger,
saying in effect to the Kings and Pope, we don’t need your nor want you, we
claim right to lay hands on ourselves and ordain our own society. The
peasants claimed themselves as king. The peasants declared themselves as
moral guide.) A citizen is a sovereign having personal venue and created
the State as a servant, not master. They declared our species had right to
breed, with the life, liberty words. The real Acknowledgment of Paternity
is the Constitution exempt from licensing. The separation of church and
state was breached when the bureaucrats utilized the concept of a
Catholic-based license to have a legal baby.

Today, when a couple goes to a courthouse to obtain a marriage license, in
the process they are surrendering their inherent rights to marry and ask to
State to give it back in the form of permit upon payment. A major
transformation took place shortly after the Civil War. Before the war, the
State issued a marriage certificate. Afterwards, they re-invented the
marriage license. The Bar Association subjugated the Constituent and
through licensing, re-instituted the Sale of Indulgences and the
Inquisition. Call it a myth or urban legend, the original 13th Amendment
prohibited lawyers, with titles of nobility, to hold public office. I
consider that a good start to reform domestic relations, and the abuse of
children as a commodity.

Do a google search and type in “Bar Association” and “founded” as one
search. Within six years after the end of the Civil War, as if mushrooms
spouting up overnight, the Bar established regional offices at every county
courthouse and at every state capital. The lawyers won the war.

If I have your attention, this is when things can go sour. But first I
make a disclaimer. I am a veteran with honorable discharge from the Vietnam
era. I strongly believe in separation of Church and State. I believe any
citizen has a right to worship as they desire and believe in what they
desire. That is their right. But government today in regards to domestic
law is based on Catholic ideology. The lawyers know this and endorse it
because of the money generated. Like in the days of old, they are running
a black market for babies. Adoptions are multi-billion dollar industry in
its own setting.

Look who has infiltrated government departments such as children and youth,
welfare services, shelters for women, domestic law. Who? Prime agencies:
Catholic Social Services and The United Way. You have been dragged onto a
Catholic board game. To me, such agencies are the local Taliban. A
dangerous person to me is a Catholic woman, affiliated with such groups,
clutching a fist full of Catholic ideology.

As for that illusive word “government” in my state, who controls the
judicial branch? The Bar, members only club. Of all the officials in
Harrisburg, either elected or appointed, how many are also members of the
Bar? Last count over 67%. When it pertains to the local municipality, the
solicitor pulls the strings. The Bar is running a monopoly. By form and
function, it violates the Constitution in that it is a religious body
patterned after the Vatican, including titles of nobility.

The violence has to stop. Too many fathers committing murder,
murder/suicide. The “marriage license” from its onset, created a
self-fulfilling prophecy. During the many centuries, a woman facing the
social stigma of being pregnant and “unwed”, with no way out, committed
murder/suicide killing both the fetus and themselves. Fathers being torn
from the children for no other reason that he gave birth to a “bastard
child” committed murder or shot for trying to free his child. The
“marriage license” exploited violence as a commodity and the legal
profession got rich in the process.

The website can take over from here. I have plans of uploading the entire
report.

Spencer Matthews says:

Who received the first marriage license from the state? Wasn’t it a white
man and his slave since it was illegal to marry property?

WhyJudgeLittle says:

thank you for posting this. i am doing research on the history of marriage
license requirement in alabama. do you know where i can find out when, as
in what year and by what law, alabama required people to purchase a
marriage license? thank you again. more people need to know the truth to be
set free from the lies that keep them in bondage.

Dr Kelsey Graham says:

I believe that Alabama allowed for common law marriage until sometime in
the 70’s or early 80’s at the latest. They no longer recognize common law
marriage.

Write a comment

*