Christian churches do not support same-sex marriage but pseudo christian churches might.
In a recent discussion about gay marriages people wanted to control what they called traditional marriages.
What was a traditional marriage?
Whose tradition are we talking about?
Do modern Christians think they have a traditional marriage?
How far back should we go to find what they are calling a “traditional marriage”.
Karl Marx got married in a church without a state license because there was none to get. In those days the parties in marriage were only two people, Karl and Jenny as husband and wife. You can actually read the terms of their marriage online. http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/letters/misc/43_06_12.htm
If you want to read the terms of your state marriage you will find them in the state codes where you live. The state is a party to the domestic partnership you call marriage. And therefore the state has authority over you and whatever you produce in that union.
In 1906, the Supreme Court of Nebraska stated that: “It (marriage) differs from all other contracts in its far-reaching consequences to the body politic itself, and for that reason, in dealing with it or the status resulting therefrom, the state never stands indifferent, but is always a party whose interest must be taken into account.”
The Church, where most people use to go to get married, never stands indifferent either, but it is never a party though it does take your interests and societies’ interests into account. The difference is that the true Church is not a party and does not exercise authority one over the other according to its doctrines of its founder. From the Churches point of view the couple marries each other.
By Canon Law:
“A marriage is brought into being by the lawfully manifested consent of persons who are legally capable. This consent cannot be supplied by any human power. Matrimonial consent is an act of will by which a man and a woman, by an irrevocable covenant, mutually give and accept one another for the purpose of establishing a marriage.” Can. 1057 §1, §2
Canon law is not merely the common opinion of the people, but, by definition, must be in common with the opinion of God. In Canon Law, the couple marry each other under the authority of God according to their mutual consent, but also by the witness and acceptance of the congregation of the People and the permission of their natural families. Can. 1120 “…can draw up its own rite of marriage, in keeping with those usages of place and people which accord with the christian spirit;…”
“Civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a wider sense to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or the administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by laws, freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc.” Right. In Constitutional Law. Black’s Law Dictionary 3rd p. 1559.
Does anyone imagine that their state licensed marriage is “not connected with the organization or the administration of government”? Of course it is and the reason why is that your State license and its solemnization before witness is a contract with a third party, the state, which is a corporate person.
Even when someone is married in the modern Church the minister is acting as an officer of that State and working to bring the couple, not into a divine union, but in a union with the State by the authority vested in them by the State of …..
Common law, which comes to America from Anglo-Saxon England, is mentioned in both the Constitution for the United States and the Judiciary Act of 1789, while “civil law” is not. There is a “civil nature at common law” which rests with every citizen’s right and freedom to choose.
“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” X Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, Bill of Rights.
The States must also receive any delegated power from the People, where all rights began, for it is people that are endowed by their creator. The state is endowed by their creator which is the people. The people grant most of those rights by contract.
Justice and mercy are dependent upon the people’s good conscience and diligent practice of virtue. At common law, the people, as a sacred duty, must decide both fact and law. For a marriage contract to be valid a couple only needs to establish their union with two witnesses. Those witnesses may act on behalf of the couple and society or may act on behalf of the State.
The question is whether the union is a two party contract or a three party contract.
“Though mutual assent is necessary to enter into a marriage the marriage itself is a status or relationship rather than a contract, the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by the law instead of by the parties themselves. Hence marriages are not within the provision of the United States Constitution forbidding a state to impair the obligation of contracts.” Clark’s Summary of American Law. Chapt I §2. The marriage status or relationship. pp. 140.
Marx’s and Jenny’s contract was still enforceable and binding because it was a contract between the parties. They could call upon the courts of their society to settle disputes and issues but the state did not have the power to alter or change the terms of the agreement as they do now.
How did they get such arbitrary power?
We should not mistake modern civil authority with civil authority when juries still had the right and ability to decide fact and law. You are not in administrative courts under the power of equity, also mentioned in the Judiciary Act produced by the direction of the Constitution. These courts are now corporate and you should not confuse your privileges there with rights you once had access to. How did they get the power they now enjoy? You gave it to them when you made the State your Sugar/Socialist Daddy.
By the way Marx married a baroness of the Prussian ruling class, Johanna Bertha Julie Jenny von Westphalen. Besides being the father of her children and the father of communism he evidently was also the father of a bastard son with his housekeeper Helene Demuth who was a family servant. We are just using Marx marriage contract as a demonstration. George Washington and Martha did not get a three party state license either.
The point is that most of what you think are your rights today are neither constitutional nor natural.
Those rights are really not rights at all but privileges granted by your rulers. They have the power to do this because they are your educators and tutors, your social welfare and caregivers, they are your fathers.
Call no man Father
What was Christ trying to tell us about fathers on the earth?
“The divestiture of a father’s right over his children and family was a threefold process of individual abdication through Novation, Tutor and Qorban. This same process is used today to separate the rights of parents from their children. It is a way to cut off the head of the family and replace them with the state as father. The state would now grant permission to marry and take your sons and daughters and put them to its purposes. With this new understanding we now know why Christ told us to call no man on earth father, why we were to pray or apply only to Our Father who art in heaven and why we were to do the will of that Father.” from the book The Higher Liberty
Natural rights come from God and cannot be changed.
“The laws of nature are unchangeable.”
Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia. Branch, Princ.; Oliver Forms, 56.
Your privileges and obligations are defined by the contracts and agreements you make with each other or with your government. What had been once the province of God and the Church and individual rights has become subject to the ruled realm of the State because people desired the benefits of the State.
The price of those benefits is to become unequal yoked with unbelievers. Even Christians today cannot seem to believe any longer that there is a life without the benefits of the State. While the early Church warned about a welfare that would be a snare the modern Church consistently sends their people to men who call themselves benefactors but exercise authority one over the other.
In order to provide those benefits those so called benefactors must take from your neighbor and to enforce those contracts with the State your government appoints many gods to rule over you and protect you and bless you. But they may not love you.
Why Are There gods Many?
Who are these gods many and what is a god? Most of you will be very surprised to find out.
The constitution does guarantee your right to contract and the state courts will hold you to the terms which the corporate legislature and vast bureaucracy can change at will. The truth is US citizens are pretty much nothing more than slaves, chattel, owned by the merchants of the earth. Until they start taking back their responsibilities they can kiss liberty goodby.
How far back does our view of traditional marriage go?
Has someone changed our thinking?
Are we under a strong delusion?
Modern Christians and Americans in general do not understand how they are losing rights.
They are doing it by entering into contracts with the corporate state.
They enter into those contracts because they have forgotten what one must do to be a free society.
It is not taught in their socialist schools, nor in their pseudo christian churches.
By defending traditional marriage through the bureaucratic corporate State they are defending the instrument by which their loss of rights has taken place.
The gay marriage debate is a symptom of the problem.
Rome had the same debate as it moved from a free republic to a centralized government through socialists steps toward the Empire.
Rome vs US
Does history repeat itself because man does not repent?
Rome went from a strong patriarchal society to one where divorce was rampant and eventually almost a cessation of the Husband and Wife Domestic relationship to a regulated “state marriage” and eventually licensed “Maritagium” which was a statutory relationship that permitted unnatural unions under the Justinian codes.
In old English law, “Marriage is used in the sense of ‘maritagium,’ (qv) or the feudal right enjoyed by the lord or guardian in chivalry of disposing of his ward in marriage.” Black’s 3rd. Ed. p. 1164.
The truth is that marriage was a domestic relationship of one man and one woman in the beginning but has become a civil contract between the man and woman and the state or now the man and the man and the state or the woman and the woman and the state.
As to homosexual marriage… There is a law of nature enforced by nature that if you pervert the natural use of the body you will not bear fruit. Enough said.
The question is whether marriage is traditionally a free relationship or not?
And if it is no longer free where did we break from tradition?
“Matrimony ought to be free.” Matrimonia debent esse libra. Halkers, Max. 86; 2 Kent, Comm. 102.
“Maritagium was of two kinds: it was free, or not free, liberum, or servitio obligatum…” from the “Digest of Select British Statutes, Comprising Those Which, According to the Report of the Judges of the Supreme Court Made to the Legislature, Appear to be in Force…” By Hugh Henry Brackenridge, Thomas Smith, Jasper Yeates, William Tilghman, Pennsylvania. Supreme Court.
But free marriage requires virtue, honor and sacrifice and a diligent faith in righteousness. The Law of Nature is God’s law.
“The laws of nature are unchangeable.” Jura naturæ sunt immutabilia. Branch, Princ.; Oliver Forms, 56.
But men have often chosen to remake the law in their own image or according to their own imagining and like Cain they have sought to rule over their brothers. Like Nimrod they seek to entangle men in the yoke of bondage through covenants and social compacts where they may rule one over the other.
We may consider Clark’s Summary of US American Law statement, “the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by law instead of by the parties themselves,” to show that it is the third party, known as the state, that has the right to fix the extent of the privileges and duties by law, which is a larger position to hold in that three-party relationship.
We were told to make no covenants with them nor with their gods and asked by Paul what agreement do we have with unbelievers.
If Americans want to be a free people they should rethink their marriage contract with the State.
In fact they should rethink all their entangling bonds of society and repent, go another way. Truly free societies are held together by love for one another and not by Contracts, Covenants and Constitutions.
See Chapter 1. of the book The Covenants of the gods
Holy Matrimony vs Marriage
Audio Part 1 http://www.hisholychurch.net/kkvv/cog01HolyMatrimony56.mp3
Part 2 http://www.hisholychurch.net/kkvv/cog02HolyMatrimony56.mp3