I would like to direct everyones attention to something called a marriage license. Actually it is a marriage CONTRACT. When folks get one of these their parental rights transfer to the state. 
Sent by email to Roger Madden. No reply received. Roger has an outfit called Fathers United -Save the
Children. If he is going to save anyone he must know what is really going on.
“THE MARRIAGE LICENSE IS A SECULAR CONTRACT. FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES
ONLY!
About 15 years ago, my former wife of 26-1/2 years, filed for divorce. We had
seven children, five daughters and two sons. Our youngest at the time, our
second son, was five years old.
At the time, I prepared a counterclaim to the Petition for Dissolution her attorney
filed in Domestic Relations (DR) court. I met one afternoon with the head of the
Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage License Bureau, in downtown Phoenix.
The marriage license bureau was headed by a young woman of about age 25. I
asked her to explain to me the general and statutory implications of the marriage
license. She was very cooperative, and called in an Assistant, a tall Black man who
at the time was working on an Operations Manual for internal departmental use.
She deferred for most technical explanations to her Assistant. He walked through
the technicalities of the marriage license as it operates in Arizona.
He mentioned that marriage licensing is pretty much the same in the other states
— but there are differences. One significant difference he mentioned was that
Arizona is one of eight western states that are Community Property states. The
other states are Common Law states, including Utah, with the exception of
Lousiana which is a Napoleonic Code state.
He then explained some of the technicalities of the marriage license. He said, first
of all, the marriage license is Secular Contract between the parties and the State.
The State is the principal party in that Secular Contract. The husband and wife are
secondary or inferior parties. The Secular Contract is a three-way contract
between the State, as Principal, and the husband and wife as the other two legs
of the Contract.
He said, in the traditional sense a marriage is a covenant between the husband
and wife and God. But in the Secular Contract with the state, reference to God is a
“dotted line,” and not officially considered included in the Secular Contract at all.
He said, if the husband and wife wish to include God as a party in their marriage,
that is a “dotted line” they will have to add in their own minds. The state’s
marriage license is “strictly secular,” he said.
He said further, that what he meant by the relationship to God being a “dotted
line” meant that the State regards any mention of God as irrelevant, even
meaningless.
In his description of the marriage license contract, he related one other “dotted
line.”
He said in the traditional religious context, marriage was a covenant between the
husband and wife and God with husband and wife joined as one. This is not the
case in the secular realm of the state’s marriage license contract. The State is the
Principal or dominant party. The husband and wife are merely contractually
“joined” as business partners, not in any religious union. They may even be
considered, he said, connected to each other by another “dotted line.”
The picture he was trying to paint was that of a triangle with the State at the top
and a solid line extending from the apex, the State, down the left side to the
husband, and a separate solid line extending down the right side to the wife, a
dotted line merely showing that they consider themselves to have entered into a
religious union of some sort that is irrrelevant to the State.
He further mentioned that this religious overtone is recognized by the State by
requiring that the marriage must be solemnized either by a state official or by a
minister of religion that has been deputized by the State to perform the marriage
ceremony and make a return of the signed and executed marriage license to the
State.
Again, he emphasized that marriage is a strictily secular relationship so far as the
State is concerned and because it is looked upon as a “privileged business
enterprise,” various tax advantages and other political privileges have become
attached to the marriage license contract that have nothing at all to do with
marriage as a religious covenant or bond between God and a man and a woman.
By way of reference, if you would like to read a legal treatise on marriage, one of
the best is Principles of Community Property, by William Defuniak. At the outset,
he explains that Community Property law decends from Roman Civil Law through
the Spanish Codes, A.D. 600, written by the Spanish jurisconsults.
In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a for-profit venture or profitmaking
venture (even though it may never actually produce a profit in operation)
and as the wife goes out to the local market to purchase food stuffs and other
supplies for the marriage household, she is replenishing the stocks of the
business.
To restate:
In the civil law, the marriage is considered to be a business venture, that is, a forprofit
business venture. Moreover, as children come into the marriage household,
the business venture is considered to have “borne fruit.”
Now, back to the explanation by the Maricopa County Superior Court, Marriage
Bureau’s administrative Assistant.
He went on to explain that every contract must have consideration. The State
offers consideration in the form of the actual license itself — the piece of paper,
the Certificate of Marriage. The other part of consideration by the State is “the
privilege to be regulated by statute.”
He added that this privilege to be regulated by statute includes all related
statutes, and all court cases as they are ruled on by the courts, and all statutes
and regulations into the future in the years following the commencement of the
marriage.
He said in a way the marriage license contract is a dynamic or flexible, everchanging
contract as time goes along — even though the husband and wife
didn’t realize that. My thought on this is can it really be considered a true
contract as one becomes aware of the failure by the State to make full disclosure
of the terms and conditions?
A contract must be entered into knowingly, intelligently, intentionally, and with
fully informed consent. Otherwise, technically there is no contract. Another way to
look as the marriage license contract with the State is as a contract of adhesion, a
contract between two disparate, unequal parties. Again, a flawed contract.
Such a contract with the State is said to be a “specific perforance” contract as to
the privileges, duties and responsibilities that attach.
Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the
implied agreement to be subject to the state’s statutes, rules, and regulations and
all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property.
He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places
them in a definite and defined- by-law position inferior and subject to the State.
He commented that very few people realize this.
He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to
the marriage are considered by law as “the contract bearing fruit” —
meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law
never comes out and says so in so many words.
In this regard, children born to the contract regarded as “the contract bearing
fruit,” he said it is vitally important for parents to understand two doctrines that
became established in the United States during the 1930s. The first is the Doctrine
of Parens Patriae. The second is the Doctrine of In Loco Parentis. Parens Patriae
means literally “the parent of the country” or to state it more bluntly — the State is
the undisclosed true parent.
Along this line, a 1930s Arizona Supreme Court case states that parents have no
property right in their children, and have custody of their children during good
behavior at the sufferance of the State. This means that parents may raise their
children and maintain custody of their children as long as they don’t offend the
State, but if they in some manner displease the State, the State can step in at any
time and exercise its superior status and take custody and control of its children —
the parents are only conditional caretakers.
He also added a few more technical details. The marriage license is an ongoing
contractual relationship with the State. Technically, the marriage license is a
business license allowing the husband and wife, in the name of the marriage, to
enter into contracts with third parties and contract mortgages and debts.
They can get car loans, home mortgages, and installment debts in the name of
the marriage because it is not only a secular enterprise, but it is looked upon by
the State as a privileged business enterprise as well as a for-profit business
enterprise. The marriage contract acquires property througout its existence and
over time, it is hoped, increases in value.
Also, the marriage contract bears fruit by adding children. If sometime later, the
marriage fails, and a divorce results, the contract continues in existence. The
divorce is merely a contractual dissolution or amendment of the terms and
conditions of the contract.
Jurisdiction of the State over the marriage, over the husband and wife, now
separated, continues and continues over all aspects of the marriage, over marital
property and over children brought into the marriage. That is why family law and
the Domestic Relations court calls “divorce” a dissolution of the marriage because
the contract continues in operation but in amended or modified form.
He also pointed out that the marriage license contract is one of the strongest,
most binding contractual relationships the States has on people.
At the end of our hour-long meeting, I somewhat humorously asked if other
people had come in and asked the questions I was asking? The Assistant replied
that in the several years he had worked there, he was not aware of anyone else
asking these questions.
He added that he was very glad to see someone interested in the legal
implications of the marriage license and the contractual relationship it creates with
the State.
His boss, the young woman Marriage Bureau department head stated, “You have
to understand that people who come in here to get a marriage license are in heat.
The last thing they want to know is technical, legal and statutory implications of
the marriage license.” (Laughter)
I hope this is helpful information to anyone interested in getting more familiar with
the contractual implications of the marriage license.
The marriage license as we know it didn’t come into existence until after the Civil
War and didn’t become standard practice in all the states until after 1900,
becoming firmly established by 1920. In effect, the states or governments
appropriated or usurped control of marriages in secular form and in the process
declared Common Law applicable to marriages “abrogated.”
Please pass this information along and share it as widely as possible.
Best regards from Virgil Cooper”