View source for Respect for Marriage Act


== Respect for Marriage Act ==


[[File:marriage.jpg|right|thumb|250px|"IT is common these days to speak of marriage as a contract. Not only do we use the term "marriage contract" as meaning a promise to marry in the future, but also to describe the contract or expression of consent by which the parties take each other for husband and wife. The statutes of many of our states declare [[marriage]] to be a "civil contract.<Ref>Iowa Compiled Code, 1919, § 6587. See STIMSON, AMERICAN STATUTE LAW, § 6101.</Ref>A moment's thought will show great differences between marriage and the ordinary civil contract. A marriage contract can be contracted only between a man and a woman; it has no validity if one of the parties has already entered into a similar contract with someone else. A minor may, under certain restrictions, enter into and be bound by it. It is, in many states, hedged about with formal requirements."<Ref> [https://repository.law.umich.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1990&context=articles FOREIGN MARRIAGES AND THE CONFLICT OF LAWS] (Marriage as a Contract and a Status) By Herbert F. Goodrich,  Professor of Law, University of Michigan.</Ref>]]


Respect for Marriage Act of the 117th Congress also seen as H.R.8404 - Respect for Marriage Act
117th Congress (2021-2022) . Of course the Sponsor are Rep. Nadler, Jerrold [D-NY-10] (Introduced 07/18/2022)
Committees:	House - Judiciary

"This bill provides statutory authority for same-sex and interracial marriages."

It is heralded as a "step into complete rejection of what the Church teaches about the truth and meaning of marriage". 

But the truth is what is posing as marriage today is a three party contract between you, your spouse, and the state. This is the result of the abandonment by false apostate churches of the duties imposed upon Christ's appointed Church by Jesus such as the practice of [[pure religion]].

Since, the State uses the term "[[marriage]]" to describe the union of three parties including itself as a party to the union, for the purpose of this explanation a two party Christian marriage shall be called [[marriage|Holy Matrimony]].

The [[early Church]] would have never applied to [[Caesar]] for permission or "license" to marry or to be married.

The [[early Church]] had no need to engage in such a travesty because it would be diametrically opposed to Canon law which has traditionally defined marriage in several places:

The union of man and woman by consent of the two parties is a right under "Natural Law".

[[Canon law]] recognizes the ius connubii—the right to enter a marriage—unless one is prohibited by an impediment. 

: Canon. 1055 §1. The matrimonial covenant, by which a man and a woman establish between themselves a partnership of the whole of life and which is ordered by its nature to the good of the spouses and the procreation and education of offspring, has been raised by Christ the Lord to the dignity of a sacrament...


[[Holy Matrimony]] is a natural right of all, the baptized and the non-baptized. One historically exercised the right to marriage by the exchange of consent between a man and woman. No other parties needed to be present.

Rather than worry about those who are moving farther from the kingdom of God we should be seeking the kingdom of God and His righteousness.


== Is Holy Matrimony Valid? ==

When two people marry they agree to enter a state of matrimony as Husband and Wife. A question arises as they enter this new status. 

What is the Lex Fori of the agreement? 

Where do we find a remedy for the agreement entered?

One of the earliest forms of law recorded was the Ana Ittishu, or Family laws, of the Sumerians. It was a series of precepts that the local society looked to for guidance in deciding issues of conflict. It was not unlike “common words and phrases” which express fundamental concepts and precepts of law. The people were the fountain head of justice through their community courts.

Codification arrived later when some men came to believed that they should be the fountainhead of justice rather than the people individually. Over a period of time the law gradually moved from the hands of the people to a ruling elite. This elite, although they were benefactors, often exercising authority, and enacting laws for the people that some times became controlling if not out right oppressive. This power of controlling every aspect of life often lead to despotism and tyranny.

At the original common law the people decided both fact and law through a system of juries. This system was never a guarantee of justice. It was dependent upon the people’s good conscience. To centralize that control with the elimination of exception has often proved disastrous.

Will men be guided by God in their hearts and minds, or by their own prejudice and tyranny? As long as God made men free to choose, neither man nor his institutions can guarantee justice. They must be constantly vigilant to maintain a free society, concerned about their neighbors right of choice as much as their own. We may only be as free as we are willing to let others be free.

God the Creator of mankind wishes him to be free. Freedom is good for the soul. From the Exodus to Pentecost men have sought ways to live together in freedom, remaining unyoked except by their God given conscience and their personal love for justice and mercy. Over the centuries men have recorded numerous accepted methods, system and practices to be used in their individual pursuit of a free state under God.

Matrimony under Canon law is an ancient and unique but binding relationship. Although, the Church may be called on to facilitate such an alliance, the bond of the union is dependent upon the authority of God and the free consent of two people who enter into matrimony. Their agreement is a contract but all contracts must include a remedy for resolution of the terms of the agreement and require the witness of three.2 By tradition this includes two individuals and the Church.

Canon law was an attempt to write down the precepts that hopefully expressed the will of God. In Canon law every man and his possessions belongs to the Family, and the government they elect are representative in nature and titular in office. Under such common law enactment remains in the hands of the Family unit with society, through a common community, standing ready to supply arbitration and remedy. Canon law is not merely common to the opinions of the people but by definition must be in common with the opinion of God. Resolution of disputes with mercy and justice is not a prerogative but a duty, for we are told to love and protect each others rights as much as we love our own.

Civil law is the law men make for themselves and is distinct from the common law of the people and from Canon law. “The civil law reduces the unwilling freedman to his original slavery; but the laws of the Angloes judge once manumitted as ever after free.”3 “‘Civil Law,’ ‘Roman Law’ and ‘Roman Civil Law’ are convertible phrases, meaning the same system of jurisprudence.”4

A civil marriage is not the same as a marriage solemnized under another Lex Fori such as Canon law (Holy Matrimony). Although, no law can be made, in the United States, prohibiting the free exercise of the religious rites of matrimony, in some nations rites of matrimony may be considered invalid. But could this invalidate the marriage itself?

"One social factor should be considered in this context. In a number of countries it is necessary to marry in a secular, civil form of marriage; a marriage celebrated according to religious rites will be invalid (and, in certain instances, when contracted before the civil ceremony, will involve the parties or the clergyman in the commission of a criminal offense). Reference to the personal law of the parties as an alternative to the lex loci5 celebrationis may save the validity of such a religious marriage."6

Any law that allowed a religious right to invalidate the union of matrimony itself would be void in a free country, like the United States, “... since there is religious freedom in this country.”7 But religious rights under matrimony do not depend upon the authority of the Church to validate the marriage. The religious rights do not validate the marriage but merely bear witness to that validation. The marriage is equally dependent upon personal, moral and religious convictions and beliefs of the individuals.

This is an important point to consider particularly when their personal religious convictions and faith forbid becoming unequally yoked with an exercising authority that does contrary to established doctrines, or law of the parties.

In the following example we see Holy Matrimony under another name considered valid, but again territories come into issue.

“The codex iuris canonici speaks with a certain scorn of the civil marriage as 'matrimonium civile ut aiunt', and sincere adherents of the Roman or the Eastern church must regard a civil contract concluded before a civil registrar, usually in a business-like fashion, as an act of irreverence to the Holy Sacrament.”<Ref>8 Black’s Third page 946</Ref>

In countries where civil law is not the only, or even first, choice there are numerous options to unite man and women. Civil law may require a civil license, but other forms are often equally, if not more valid, without the civil license.

According to the ancient and holy testaments,9 the original common law, Canon Law, and, countless millions of individuals seeking the Kingdom of God, a Man and Women are one person when married as Husband and Wife.

“Every person is a man, but not every man a person,”10 Man is a term of nature; person, of the civil law”11 The status of person is an offer made to men, requiring their consent. Civil marriage is an offer of status. “The union of a man and a woman is of the law of nature.”12 “So, today’s Domestic Relationship of Marriage is neither natural, remembering that the law of nature is “divine will,” nor is it ecclesiastical, which is “distinguished from ‘civil’ or ‘secular,’”13 but it is civil.

"By marriage, the husband and wife are one person in law: that is, the very being or legal existence of the woman is suspended during marriage, or at least is incorporated and consolidated into that of the husband; under whose wing, protection, and cover, she performs everything; and is therefore called in our law-french a fem-covert; and her condition during her marriage is called her coverture." Sir William Blackstone Commentaries, Vol. 1, Chap XV.

In order to subvert the natural lawful union of Husband and Wife, one needs to free the man or the women from their unique bond and the coverture of the Family. This may be done through the application and or participation. The most common policy is to offer another coverture instead or in place of the autonomous family. To change their status in what was originally only a natural, if not Holy domestic relationship, there need to be a civil status established by consent.

The State needed to change her status.

"At common law a married woman's contract is absolutely null and void ab initio ... It is settled by the decisions in this state that married women have no power, except such as is affirmatively given by statute, to bind themselves personally by contract." Saunders v. Powell, 67 S.W. 402, 403 (1933).

If a women was free from the natural bonds of Family and Husband she may go into the bonds of another state or status, under the coverture of the civil State. The State would be her new husband or covering, and the man given to her by the State, would simply be her cohort. Her children would not belong to the corpus or body of the Family, but to the corporation of the State. The purpose and procedure of the marriage license is to bind the husband and wife and the State in a civil status or contract.14

In all statutory civil marriages there are three parties. The third being the State. In Holy Matrimony there are also three parties, the third being God, the Father. In a statutory marriage under civil authority the State is the ruling judge of the marriage by mutual agreement. In Holy Matrimony, solemnized by the rites of the Church, before witnesses and congregations of the people, the Man and the Woman are fully married in the eyes of God and the people by mutual agreement. The couple remain free within their family and the institutions of that union remain a servant and does not exclude a remedy for disputes which the religious community by the representation of the witnesses are ready to provide.

"Marriage is defined to be a covenant between a man and a woman, in which they mutually promise cohabitation and a continual care to promote the comfort and happiness of each other. It is an institution of God, and a very honorable state. The Saviour honored it by his presence, and at such a solemnity wrought his first miracle: Buck Theo. Dictionary, 261, Lonas v. The State, 50 Tenn. 287, 308.

By deciding not to obtain a State license to marry, the couple does not invalidate the fact that they are married in the law. No agency may treat a marriage as void because they have no statutory or civil license without doing an injustice to religious accommodations of a free State. There is religious freedom in many countries. Ceremonies of marriage, as a religious ritual in a well organized Church, and congregational bodies, are a valid solemnization with, or without, State sanctions. In fact the state has long recognized the religious right of marriage under Cannon law as valid.

"It is well established that the failure to procure a marriage license does not have the effect of rendering the marriage void. The requirement of the license preliminary to marriage is wholly of statutory origin ... When a marriage has been proven there is a presumption in favor of its continuance." Browning v. Browning, 224 Md. 399 (1960)

A married couple must be presumed married unless evidence that they are not married can be produced. The regulatory purpose of a state marriage license requirement cannot be enforced by "the radical process of rendering void and immoral a matrimonial union otherwise validly contracted and solemnized."15

In many states it has been ruled that “failure to procure a license does not invalidate a ceremonial marriage... In affirming the marriage as valid, the Court relied on he common law principle that a marriage without a license is universally held to be valid in the absence of an express declaration by the Legislature that such a marriage is void. Hollopeter, 52 Wash. at 45; see Weatherall v. Weatherall, 63 Wash. 526, 529, 115 P. 1078 (1911) (absence of license or failure to properly file a license would not invalidate a marriage otherwise valid.)”

“The rule stated in Hollopeter remains the rule today. In the eyes of the common law, marriage is a civil contract. As Blackstone put it, the law treats marriage ‘as it does all other contracts: allowing it to be good and valid in all cases, where the parties at the time of making it were, in the first place, willing to contract; secondly, able to contract; and, lastly, actually did contract, in the proper forms and solemnities required by law.’ Picarella v. Picarella, 20 Md. App. 499, 316 A.2d 826, 832, n.10 (1974) (quoting 1 William Blackstone Commentaries, Book I, ch 15, section 433.) (Lewis's Ed.) ”16

The same court went on to say, “We are aware of no authority for declaring a marriage to be valid for some purposes but not for others.” If a marriage is valid for one purpose it must be valid for all purposes. This principle is not limited to states of the United States but reaches into other nations and times on an international bases.

“It may be argued that our law should adopt an approach which would tend to uphold as valid marriages unions entered into by persons with a genuine matrimonial commitment. Too zealous an adherence to ‘black-letter’ private international law rules at the expense of a sound regard to the human realities of the situation would be socially damaging and potentially unjust. The favor matrimonii principle reflects the policy that marriages ‘should be held to be valid unless there is some good reason to the contrary’.” 17

What the Church is doing is creating or establishing documents that could be authenticated "using the chain authentication method". We should establish a record that "Matrimony ought to be free"18 and is essentially a religious act. For the state to say that we only recognize state marriages and not ecclesiastical marriages is to violate religious freedom. And, while the parties under civil marriage have prenuptial agreement with the State courts for remedy, that preordained benefit of protection, i.e. coverture, “draws subjection".19

If someone marries by Holy Matrimony rather than a civil license, are they still married in the eyes of the state?

"If a ceremonial marriage is in fact established by evidence or admission it is presumed to be regular and valid, and the burden of showing that it was an invalid marriage rests on the party asserting its invalidity." Overton v. Overton, 260 N.C. 139, 143

In Holy Matrimony in accordance with the Rites of the Church there is a license to marry. The Family gives recorded permission for a member of a family to marry. Without both the families granting permission, the marriage, in one sense, could be considered “illegal” from the point of view of the Family.

By that recorded permission the Church and the parties, and witnesses formerly recognize the natural order of this relationship and document all aspects of the holy union under God. Each Family agrees or grants permission that would otherwise be illegitimate within the coverture of the Family. The individuals marry in agreement, and the people bear witness, and, the Church keeps a record of all and as a body offers a Lex Fori remedy as well as coverture in, but not of, the world.

This is not done simply by witnessed documents and testimony, but by an admission to the existence of both the particular congregation, as well as the network of congregations of the Church. Without that network the marriage has no true coverture or remedy beyond the parties who contract and they may appear to become a “limping marriage”, one with no remedy.

One of the key things to remember is to not present the appearance of what is called a limping marriage in the eyes of the world20. This means that there should be a valid and verifiable congregation and network of congregations as a Church to provide remedy for internal and external disputes concerning the marriage. The servant Church can supply this connection in all social and present aspects of the kingdom of God through assisting in documentation of relationships and intent, providing remedy, and arbitrating disputes. Like the property lines of your home you mark the boundaries with heavy stones or posts.

But many who seek to free marriage under God leave their position unmarked and uncovered with not even a piece of paper to verify who they are. What if husband and wife are incapacitated, attacked or die. Who would care for or raise the children? Who will step in and protect the integrity of the Family? It is the responsibility of each Family to clearly define the nature of their Family relation and the Lex Fori in which they participate. It is customary to call upon the congregation of the people and the servant Church to authenticate their true matrimonial desire and status.

The extent of law within the corporate State is derived from the extent of consent of its members, the people, as persons. In some government forms the power of the state, the deciding of fact and law, rests first and foremost in the families and their heads. In other governments the power rests almost entirely with the leaders of the State, the ruling elite. The balance between these to extremes is often determined by a series of ongoing applications, participation and consent between the State and the people. The more responsible, explicable and diligent the people in the exercise of rights and duties to each other, then the freer the state or status of the people.

In Reynolds v. U.S and interesting opinion is expressed:

“Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such Circumstances.”21

In a definition of Republic it states, “A state or nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens… A state or nation with a president as its titular head; distinguished from monarchy.”22 Titular is defined as, “existing in title or name only; nominal…” while a monarch is “a single or sole ruler of a state… a person or a thing that suppresses others of the same kind.”23 The concern that Government could exist only in name under such Circumstances is exactly what it should do in a pure Republic, when it comes to natural right, and what is more natural than the right to marry.

Can or does the State say that an individual is not married because they did not obtain a civil license to marry? If they do not have a civil contract, are they married? Does the state already say that an individual has a valid marriage even without an application for a civil license?

Using Oregon as an example:

ORS 106.010 defines by statute its offered form of Marriage as civil contract.24 If the state is a party to a contract it has every right and even an obligation to define the terms of that contract by statute. But no state of the United States cannot impair the natural right of others free individuals to contract, nor compel contracts.25 If no one is allowed to marry unless they enter into a a civil contract with the State, then the people are truly subject and the State is truly in position of the Father, Parentis Loci.26

Is Marriage only a civil contract? If there is religious freedom in this country a marriage remains valid according to ORS 106.150 of the same statutes under certain conditions. While there is a requirement in some states to apply for a license in order to enter into a civil contract of marriage with the State there is no obligation to enter into such contract in order to become married. There appears to be numerous ways in which two individuals may solemnize the status of being married.

There is a distinction between being married in Oregon the State and being married under the State of Oregon. Is a truly solemnized Church marriage valid in the eyes of the State? The State can only make rules concerning validating State civil licensed marriages. But the solemnization of marriage is not limited to being a civil marriage.

Can X & Y's marriage be solemnized and valid in accordance with Title 11 Chapter 501 Oregon Laws 2001, SB 704?

According to Section 1. ORS 106.120 (1)(d) of the State:

(1)Marriages may be solemnized by: (d) A clergyperson of any religious congregation or organization who is authorized by the congregation or organization to solemnize marriages.

The state only makes rules about the state solemnization of their contract and license. But in 106.150 no particular form is required. The couple simply assents to the agreement to marry and declares in the presence of the clergyperson that there are no legal impediments according to the established ritual or form commonly practiced by their congregation and Church, then such marriage is deemed valid.

106.150 Form of solemnization; witnesses; solemnization before congregation. (1) In the solemnization of a marriage no particular form is required except that the parties thereto shall assent or declare in the presence of the clergyperson, county clerk or judicial officer solemnizing the marriage and in the presence of at least two witnesses, that they take each other to be husband and wife.

(2) All marriages, to which there are no legal impediments, solemnized before or in any religious organization or congregation according to the established ritual or form commonly practiced therein, are valid. In such case, the person presiding or officiating in such religious organization or congregation shall make and deliver to the county clerk who issued the marriage license the certificate described in ORS 106.170. [Amended by 1979 c.724 §5; 2001 c.501 §2]

How are we to understand this statute?

If the couple has applied for a civil marriage license, with The State of Oregon, the clergyperson shall deliver it to the county clerk. If they have not chosen to enter into a three party contract with the civil authority, their marriage as a natural domestic relationship is not invalidated. The Lex Fori is simply with the Church and in the congregation or society of their choice. They should take equal precaution to authenticate that status with a filing within the Church.

This is verified by what may be consider the most important statement of the statutes.

ORS 106.130 Validity of marriage solemnized by unauthorized person. A marriage solemnized before any person professing to be a judicial officer of this state, a county clerk or a clergyperson of a religious congregation or organization therein is not void, nor shall the validity thereof be in any way affected, on account of any want of power or authority in such person, if such person was acting at the time in the office or the capacity of a person authorized to solemnize marriage and if such marriage is consummated with the belief on the part of the persons so married, or either of them, that they have been lawfully joined in marriage. [Amended by 1979 c.724 §4; 2001 c.501 §5]

Note that the critical factor is "consummated with the belief on the part of the persons so married". By this code the critical factor is belief which validates your lawfully joining in marriage.

So, a married couple of the Church may cite Numerous State, federal and international law, including Title 11, ORS sec. 106.130; as well as, Browning v. Browning, 224 Md. 399 (1960); Overton v. Overton, 260 N.C. 139, 143, State of Washington, v. Mark Denton, Appeal, and Private International Law to continue the authenticated record in an affidavit to verify an unbroken chain.

There is serious problem concerning the right of any government agency or institution to question the validity of the union of marriage, particularly after being solemnized by the religious clergy of a valid congregation continuously associated with the Church, without, said agency or institution of governments, violating other statutes concerning religious discrimination and a failure to make religious accommodations.

There are other numerous ways to continue to verify marital status or to lose that status. It is an individual responsibility to maintain individual rights, but it is a common purpose of the Church and congregation to maintain the perfect law of liberty for individual and neighbor alike.


{{Template:Law}}‏‎ 

{{Template:Network}}

[[Category:Articles]]

[[Category:Definitions]]