It does not. I’ve done it both ways. The process was the same. The end result was the same. A custody fight with and without a marriage license is indistinguishable from each other. The form doesn’t even have a different heading.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
No Rings, No Drama, Just Dominion
- Thread starter Kilian
- Start date
No, it depends on state.
State support for marriage often consist of bribing people with tax break.
Well, I can say as an unmarried person, the government taxes the absolute hell out of me, especially for not having dependents. Which is why dogs should be claimable… Back when I got bonuses at work, which were $88, I only received $44. If I made $1,600, I only received $800 at times, especially if overtime was involved...overtime got me taxed even more. Meanwhile, the married ladies or ladies with dependents nearly got the full amounts, plus money back during tax time for having dependants.
Which is exactly what I said. Unmarried people are taxed more, if married people get a tax break. So if the goal is more tax, the government would prefer they remained unmarried. Tax itself is not a reason for the state to promote marriage, quite the opposite.
The idea that a marriage license cedes ownership of the children to the state is utter nonsense. It is repeated over and over on certain corners of the internet, but only as a matter of faith. I have never seen anyone point to the clause in any marriage document, or law defining marriage, that states "by making this union we hereby sign over custody of our progeny to the government." It's a myth.
If I'm wrong, don't just verbosely claim that I'm wrong, or post a 2 hour video that claims that I'm wrong. The proof will be written in black and white. Post the actual legal document that shows this is true, referencing the actual clause to read (not "the vive of the whole thing"), or don't bother. I won't engage any further in this discussion myself unless there is such documentation presented for analysis.
The burden of proof is upon you @Mark C.
You left out "conspiracy theory."
Haven't you figured it out yet? It's ALL a 'myth' - because it's hidden for a reason - until it kills people, or they quit giving their consent.
You want a sound bite. Sorry, that's for rubes. Did you really expect Fauci to tell you it was a bioweapon? Or that EVERY honest doctor who tried to tell the truth was attacked, demonized, and many lost their "license"? Do you think they told doctors that part in med school?
The proof in "black and white" is in Romans 6:16. Look it up for yourself, you'll argue with any translation I pick.
And you don't understand the concept of "adhesion contracts." Look that up in a Law Dictionary, like Black's. And then brace yourself for "implied." As in "implied authority," "implied consent," and "implied warranty."
If you are truly naive enough to believe that you won't be held to terms of agreements you signed off on, but didn't REALIZE you had made, because nobody warned you of the consequences in a simple sound-bite, no wonder you think Tyranny is a 'myth'.
After all, don't you live in a country where people were arrested for failing to submit to involuntary injection and face muzzles? Based on what "law"?
I've done it before. Here, and elsewhere, and you didn't bother.
I'm fine with that. Those who want to "study to show themselves approved," already are making the effort.
You pretend as if people's children haven't already been taken. (And it's not just via adherent contracts associated with licensed marriage, either. Don't forget the "public" cesspools. Have you read the fine print there?)
No, if/when they take people's children - don't think for a second the burden isn't on THEM. To prove the NEGATIVE!
PS> @FollowingHim, here's a sound bite for you. Go read OBERGEFELL.
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.
Why would I want a "license" that some Pharisees in Black Robes have said allows two sodomists to legally commit abomination with the Approval of the Almighty State?
Ask yourself a simple question: If that same Almighty State can "license" some 'persons under their jurisdiction' to commit sin that the Creator declares worthy of death, can they license murder ( 007) or theft of children, or, death by lethal injection on the street?
What stops 'em?
"Jurisdiction." You can cede it. More than one way.
Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.
Why would I want a "license" that some Pharisees in Black Robes have said allows two sodomists to legally commit abomination with the Approval of the Almighty State?
Ask yourself a simple question: If that same Almighty State can "license" some 'persons under their jurisdiction' to commit sin that the Creator declares worthy of death, can they license murder ( 007) or theft of children, or, death by lethal injection on the street?
What stops 'em?
"Jurisdiction." You can cede it. More than one way.
Last edited:
Re: 'license.' (De jure, or de facto... whether he knows is or not.)
You claim to reject anecdotal evidence in some cases, then accept it as proof. Consistency is not your thing. Personal opinion seems to trump it.
When have I rejected anecdotal evidence?