|IN DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE|
Table of Contents:
Many people are outraged that activist judges have redefined the term marriage to include perversion, yet we have quietly accepted, over the past 100 years, the slow redefinition of Holy Matrimony as a divorceable civil union. For more than half of the history of America, marriage was until-death-do-us-part*, and legitimate marriage was never divorceable. Christ confirmed in Matthew 19:8, that marriage was not divorceable, even from the beginning of mankind. And Supreme Court decisions up to the 1890’s also confirm this.
No one needs a license to marry according to the US Supreme Court in Meister, quoted later. And, the right to marry is recognized as a protected liberty by the US Supreme Court in Meyer, quoted later. Anyone who has a right to marry does not need a license to marry. By applying for a license to marry, you may be confessing, under oath, that you do not have a right to marry.
When public officers corrupt society, the result, to quote Locke's, is:
“...to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain
of public security...”
Jesus, by quoting Genesis 2:24, confirmed the existing definition of the term “marriage” as the “one flesh” institution created by God for mankind. He emphasized that it is a permanent, until death do they part, Holy Matrimony between man and wife that mankind cannot put asunder. The Biblical terminology “one flesh” relationship has the same significance as today’s idiom “flesh and blood”.
Nowhere in the Bible are there any government marriages or government divorces.
In Mark 10 and Matthew 19, Jesus confirmed the Genesis definition when religious leaders asked him about the legality of divorce. Don’t confuse Biblical divorce with today’s perversion of the term “divorce”.
Nowhere in the Bible are there any civil government marriages or civil government divorces. Yes, Divorce is mentioned in the Bible, but as we shall see, it referred only to living separately. Divorce, in the Bible, never canceled the permanent one-flesh family relationship. As we shall see: remarriage is always adultery.
Divorce does not authorize remarriage. (The only possible exception, which is not explicitly mentioned anywhere, is the figurative death of a spouse. Jesus often spoke of the living as being already dead.)
Here are the marriage scriptures:
Remarriage is always adultery. Adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of God:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NKJV) "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God."
The word “man” in the phrase “let not man separate” (or, in the King James version “let not man put asunder”) is the Greek “anthropos” meaning all of mankind, from which we get our English anthro- words such as anthropology or anthropomorphic. It is not the Greek “aner” which would be used for an individual man. Again we see that until-death-do-us-part Holy Matrimony is not divorceable.
Sexual morality is very important to God. He has two commandments against sexual immorality. God created man in His image, Genesis 1:26. He expects us to honor His rules when we perpetuate His image. [His physical image is re-created by the 38,000 genes in your sexual DNA.]
Psalms 139:13 (NIV): "For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb."
Sexual immorality creates bastard children, which destroys society’s legitimacy. This inevitably leads to captivity. God has always used pagan nations to punish disobedient nations. Conquering nations are instruments of His discipline (Isa 8:4-10, 10:5-6, 45:1-3, Jer 5:15-18, 20:4-5, 24:10, Eze 21:15-23, 30:24-26, 32:11-15).
The remainder of this essay discusses laws and legal history. Before I continue, I want to say that traditional family rights are sacred. They are not made more sacred by written law. They are not less sacred just because you allowed them to be stolen by the society that you had entrusted to secure the blessings of liberty. And yes, the Supreme Court says the right to marry is a liberty.
If you don’t defend your liberty, you will loose it. You will be conquered by brutal pagans who have always been instruments of God’s discipline.
Prior to the existence of any Jewish law, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed, not because they were pagan, but because they tolerated homosex. This was in 1896 BC. Don’t blame the Jewish law for the universal precept of capital punishment for homosex.
The Christian Bible gives these warnings,, which I will not quote. Confirm them for yourself: :
The Jewish law is more explicit than these Christian precepts. See Leviticus 20:13. This is an explicit punishment for consensual homosex, not rape.
Those who love their community will drive out evil. Driving out evil from your community (even as in Deuteronomy 17:7) is an act of love. It is not hate. The community will receive God’s blessing and avoid God’s punishment (Leviticus 20:13, 22-24).
The God of the Bible is an unchanging God. (Malachi 3:6, Hebrews 13:8, Hebrews 6:17-18, Numbers 23:19, 1st Samuel 15:29, Titus1:2). His law lasts forever, Psalm 119:152. The everlasting covenant is everlasting. Jesus said not one jot nor tittle shall fall from the law, Matthew 5:18.
Jesus Himself warned the cities that did not repent. He said in Matthew 11:24 (and Matthew 10:15 and Mark 6:11):
"But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee."
Intolerance of fags is a true Christian virtue.
The US Supreme Court in Arizona v. Bateman, 429 U.S. 864 acknowledged that “sodomy laws are valid as a general proposition.”
U.S. law is based on English Law as it existed in the American colonies when the States were writing their Constitutions. Homosex was considered to be more detestable than child rape. Historically, consensual sodomy was always punishable by death. Queen Elizabeth I (statute 5 Eliz c 17) amended the law so that the death sentence could not be avoided. But first, we need to discuss privacy rights, so that you can see why they usually get away with it.
In the U.S., homosex is protected by the fourteenth amendment due-process right against government intrusion. And ONLY a due-process right. Government cannot take action to learn about these secret crimes. The crime has to be reported to government before an arrest can be made. Lawrence v. Texas recognized ONLY the fourteenth amendment due-process protection against government intrusion. Yet, many people call this a “right to privacy”.
Crimes cannot be converted into rights. Homosex has never had a fourth amendment privacy protection. The Supreme Court in Bowers v. Hardwick has recognized that sodomy laws can be enforced because “The right to privacy does not extend to acts of consensual sodomy between homosexual adults”. This Ruling showed that once the crime becomes known, it was lawful to intrude into their closets in order to enforce punishment.
Crimes committed in secret are not private acts, they are public wrongs. No more so than a child rape committed in secret could be a “right to privacy”.
It has always been so. More than 3,200 years ago Phinehas in Numbers 25:8, without respecting privacy, enforced punishment against the sexually immoral of his day, so that his community was spared God’s plagues. Phinehas will be honored for his righteousness forevermore. Psalm 106:31. Can heroes like Phinehas still enforce God’s punishment to avoid national plagues?
Smayda v. U.S., 352 F2d 251, determined that police can have a camera peephole in a public restroom to catch fags committing their secret consensual act against nature. Secret crimes are public wrongs, not privacy rights. Even though Lawrence v. Texas now prohibits such spying.
Beard v. Stahr, 200 FSupp 766, determined that undercover police can solicit consensual homosex in order to catch those so inclined. The mere intent to commit such an unspeakable crime can be punished, with no actual crime committed. Again: secret crimes are public wrongs, not privacy rights. Even though Lawrence v. Texas now prohibits such spying.
Consensual sodomy has always been a felony more detestable than child rape. It is not love. It is a crime. You love your neighbor by driving out crime. The fourth amendment right to privacy does not extend to any crime. As long as due process rights are observed, the felony shall be punished. Government has a duty to punish crimes. It is a crime to not report a felony.
Has the crime of sodomy become a civil right?
The US Supreme Court often quotes from the 1769 edition of Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England in order to establish what the common law was when the former colonies wrote their State Constitutions. The common law is the law that applies to everyone. As we shall see, Blackstone’s precepts remain valid in America as a solid foundation of American jurisprudence. American versions were published in America up to 1884, and the Supreme Court still quotes from it.
There has always been a deep concern for the due process rights of those falsely accused of crimes committed in secret. Blackstone’s Commentaries on The Laws of England in Book IV, discusses the history of law concerning Public Wrongs. Among these public wrongs against nature are the crime of child rape and the crime of consensual sodomy. Child rape is not discussed in Book IV as a crime against the child, but as a public wrong. In Book IV, Chapter 15, upon concluding the discussion of child rape, on page 215, Blackstone continues with a discussion of a crime more detestable ... of a deeper malignity ... whether with man or beast, of an offense so dark, yet so difficult for an innocent defendant to disprove, that a death sentence (beheading was the more lenient of the three types of execution) may be appropriate for those who make a false accusation of sodomy. This law refers to witnesses of consensual sodomy, as well as rape.
Now, in the year 2004, we find ourselves watching them line up to register their criminal confessions with the marriage-license authorities. They are praying to receive the “due penalty for their perversion” promised by Romans 1:27. They waived their due-process privacy right by confessing to a felony.
Concern for privacy rights is the only reason that sodomy laws are ignored by the courts, primarily Lawrence v. Texas which treats privacy as a Fourteenth amendment due process right rather than a fourth amendment privacy right. Now that they are openly confessing their felonies, due process cannot be raised as a defense against “the due penalty for their perversion”.
[Aside: abortion in Roe v. Wade was also a Fourteenth Amendment due process right, not a fourth amendment privacy right. Roe v. Wade did not legalize abortion – in Roe v. Wade, the abortion doctor, Dr. James Hubert Hallford was remanded back to Texas for his punishment. Those who hate one nation, under God, want you to believe that abortion was legalized, so that sex will have no consequences. God invented sex with life and death consequences.]
[Aside: In Lawrence v. Texas the Supreme Court relied upon a brief by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights to show that many nations tolerate homosex. Apparently the Supreme Court thinks Americans are now subject to the same foreign authorities that approve of slavery and concentration camps, and they have determined that your laws must accommodate those who want to destroy your nation. God has always used pagan nations to punish disobedient nations. Conquerors are instruments of His discipline.]
Sodomy has always been a felony. The fourth amendment right to privacy does not extend to any felony. As long as due process rights are observed, felony can be punished. Death is the historically traditional punishment.
What perversion of logic leads them to believe that confessing to a felony gives them civil rights?
Here is the exact text of Blackstone’s (First Edition, Claredon Press, Oxford, 1769) Book IV, so that you can read for yourself exactly what our Christian society has historically required for mankind to preserve itself. I start the quote from Page 214, to show you that due process of the accused has always been a primary concern in cases of child rape and other crimes against nature that are committed in secret. But once guilt is known, punishment is swift and just:
The terminology “without benefit of clergy” means the case cannot be removed to ecclesiastical court and thereby avoid the death penalty.The terminology “agentes et confentientes pari poena plectantur” is speaking about consensual sodomy, not rape. It is Latin for: “Acting and consenting parties are liable to the same punishment.” (this entire Latin phrase is in the law dictionary, if you want to look it up)
And when we compare this British first edition with an 1803 Virginia version that had been revised with commentary to conform to the U.S. Constitution, we see that these consensual sodomy laws remain unchanged in the United States. (Tucker’s 1803 Blackstone is available at the Constitution Societies’ on-line library www.constitution.org ) And Blackstone’s remained as a renowned reference book for American jurists until the late 1800’s. Cooley’s Blackstone third edition was published in Chicago in 1884.
The Common Law is the law that applies to everyone, even if not legislated.
Ever since we brought forth on this continent a new nation conceived in liberty, the common law that applies to everyone required the immediate execution of homosexuals. As quoted below, Blackstone’s also warned that “licentiousness and debauchery” would destroy both society and government. It is very unlikely that government officers can commit treason by legalizing destruction of society and government. It is also unlikely that government officers can disturb your worship. Worship is defined in the Law Dictionary as “Any form of religious service showing reverence for Devine Being, or exhortation to obedience to or following of the mandates of such Being....”
Because we failed to enforce family rights for 100 years, the wicked now expect a “civil right” to destroy us.
I’ve seen perverts’ bumper stickers “Hate is not a Family Value.” But driving out evil from your community is not hate, it is love. Throughout the history of our once great nation, sodomy – whether with man or beast – has always been a capital felony, more detestable than child rape. My response to their bumper sticker: Jesus spoke of the value of family hate in Luke 14:26 -- and in Matthew chapter 10, starting with Matthew 10:34 (NKJV)
Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword."
this was after his warning in verse 15. God understands family values, He drives out sin by demanding that we punish sinful family. As in Exodus 32:27.
There are two kinds of divorce:
Divorce is an extraordinary remedy by which society may preserve itself by intervening to cut out corruption that would destroy us, such as preventing death by “inhuman treatment” of such severity as endangers the life or health of the party... from which it may be inferred that “inhumanity” is an extreme or aggravated “cruelty”. (source: Black’s Law Dictionary)
This is the compelling state interest (interest that the state is forced to protect) that authorizes divorce. Marriage, like any other freedom, is “susceptible of restriction only to prevent grave and immediate danger to interests which the state may lawfully protect” (West’s Constitutional law, key 84, 90, 91)
Note that Divorce was a forced separation; it did not cancel the marriage nor authorize remarriage. The historical term Divorce conformed to the Biblical definition.
Divorce is so extraordinary a remedy that when the Constitution was written, there had not been a divorce in over 100 years in the state of New York (source: U.S. Supreme Court in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. at page 206).
How did no-fault divorceable civil unions replace enforceable marriage?
The United States Supreme Court in 1819 in Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518, ruled that to divorce a man without his fault and over his objection would be a “flagrant a violation of the principles of justice” (and back then, divorce was not a cancellation of legitimate marriage. Back then; as with Andrew Jackson’s case, you had to risk death to question the legitimacy of a man’s marriage.)
We also notice in Blackstone’s that remarriage is a felony while a former spouse is alive. (Book IV page 164) Bigamy “can never be endured by any rational civil establishment”.
Yet we are now faced with a government that promotes and rewards serial bigamy.
Here are some more attributes of marriage (which confirm the Biblical right to a permanent “one flesh” family relationship -- as if blood relative -- between man and wife, until death do they part, which mankind cannot put asunder):
Only non-marriages could be cancelled (“divorced” in the modern since of the term). Due to flawed original contract. Whereas legitimate marriages must be upheld.
Notice that all the above Supreme Court decisions are inheritance cases. Since divorce cancels the original flawed wedding, divorce bastardizes the children. Bastards cannot inherit property (nowadays they have a government granted privilege to hold the government’s property, if they pay a probate tax). They cannot even inherit a surname.
Slaves, due to their pre-existing slavery contract, could not take vows to remain as a one-flesh family unit, due to the possibility that they could be sold (this has always been so -- Exodus 21:5). They needed their owner’s permission (license) to join in a civil union. Children were fruits of the license, bastards due to the flawed original contract. It was divorceable, yet the Supreme Court still called it a “bond of matrimony”. The marriage (maritagium) was recorded in the owner’s records, whereas real marriage is recorded in their fathers’ family Bibles. Where is your marriage recorded?
Conclusion: Over the past 100 years, legitimate marriages have been slowly replaced by “Civil Unions” that you mistakenly call “marriage” Since civil unions are not marriage, your children are bastards and have no inheritance rights. They can be removed from you at any time, for any reason by a “family court”. And you will not have the protection of civil court rules. Like Esau, you, with an oath, sold your birthright (Genesis 25:33). By the way, God hated Esau according to Romans 9:13 and Malachi 1:3
Marriage cannot be redefined by man. Marriage can only be upheld by man. Bear with me as I try to state this precept in several ways:
Marriage is defined by Divine law, anterior to all human law. Man cannot redefine it. God performed the first wedding. Christ confirmed the original legal definition.
There are essentially two types of marriage.
Maritagium was never part of American common law. Blackstone’s Commentary mentioned maritagium only in contradistinction to matrimony. Maritagium is the feudal right enjoyed by the lord or guardian of disposing of his ward in marriage. This was also called intermarriage. Government Civil Unions are not Holy matrimony. A government “Marriage” License is not issued to the couple. It is issued to an officer of the state to solemnize this disposing of their ward in marriage. As we shall see, The Family Courts consider your children to be bastards that can be transferred to a government appointed custodian at any time, for any reason, and you cannot have access to any legal process other than their Family Court Rules, which are neither Civil nor Criminal. Yet when the American Constitution was written, government was prohibited from promoting civil unions.
Many people assume that marriage is a government granted privilege, granted by a marriage license. This has never been true.
“Marriage is everywhere regarded as a civil contract. Statutes in many of the States, it is true, regulate the mode of entering into the contract, but they do not confer the right.”
at page 79:
Marriage license statutes “... may be construed as merely directory, instead of being treated as destructive of a common law right to form the marriage by words of present assent.”
If government tries to license a right, the license can be ignored and the right can be exercised with impunity. According to the U.S. Supreme Court in Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U.S. 147 (1969).
Aside: marriage licenses enforce slave marriages. I read an article that cited the 1884 law textbook Parsons on Contracts: "since the state married them, the children were fruits of the state"
Notice in Maynard v. Hill that the Maynard’s’ intermarried in the State of Vermont in 1828. This was not a marriage in facie ecclesiae. David Maynard’s first-born son could not inherit his father’s property. The only question before the Supreme Court was whether or not he could claim some of his mother’s estate.
Here is the accepted purpose of government.
We ... are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable Rights... That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just power from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government...
In other words, no one in government (who has sworn an oath to uphold and defend) can suggest that a right be redefined by legislation or by court order or by a vote.
Black’s Law Dictionary Fourth Edition had three definitions of marriage. The first definition was a
“... condition, or relation of one man and one woman united in law for life ...”
Subsequent editions inserted “or until divorced”
The second definition in Black’s Fourth was
“A contract, according to the form prescribed by law, by which a man and woman, capable of entering into such contract, mutually engage with each other to live their whole lives together...”Since then, man has been busy frantically redefining a law that existed prior to the existence of human government. The further we get away from fundamental truth, the more perverted society becomes.
Excerpt from the President’s State of the Union Address, January 20, 2004:
How do you like that? We should hold a vote to determine whether or not we want a moral compass.
I agree that “Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.” But not by a vote. It is defended one family at a time. Example: On May 30, 1806, future President Andrew Jackson successfully defended, on the dueling field, the sanctity of his marriage. Back then, we had a perfectly Constitutional system, whereby one had to risk death to question the sanctity of marriage. That system has been replaced by those who hate one nation, under God. In their new system all they have to do is touch you with a piece of paper to cancel your vows to God and bastardize your children unto the tenth generation, and take half of everything you own and give it as a reward for adultery. Then hide behind judicial immunity.
But it gets worse.
They bastardize the children. Bastards are the children of nobody. This gives judges the right to give the state’s children to a government appointed custodian. Then extort ransom.
Here are Law Dictionary definitions of two Latin terms used by Blackstone:
Blackstone explains the rights of bastards at page 447, book I, chapter 16:
By the way, Christ disapproved of bastards having positions of authority. John 8:41.
Should government be involved in rewarding the crime of adultery, or should they be punishing the crime?
The Bible warned us about those
"who suppress the truth in unrighteousness... whose hearts were darkened... to dishonor their bodies... who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, ... [as are all others who] approve of those who practice them." [Romans 1:18-32 (NKJV)]
The margin note to Romans 1:32 in Tyndale’s 1534 translation says “To have pleasure in another man’s sin is greater wickedness than to sin thyself.” These greater-wicked who are entertained by Jerry Springer’s misfits have become your accusers and jurors. But it is much worse, they control Congress. You have lost the nation.
In the history of our once great nation, two million men have marched off to secure the blessings of liberty to their posterity, never to return home. If you do not have equal protection of the law, equal to Andrew Jackson, then the blessings of liberty have not been secured. They have died in vain. Do not spit on their graves just because pervert lovers tell you to.
Here are the fruits of no-fault divorceable Civil Unions which have replaced legitimate marriages: We have lost inheritance rights, religious freedom to have Biblically legitimate families, the right to enforceable families which are the foundation of society, we have lost a republic form of government, respect for head of household, self-defense rights, and the right to punish “criminal conversion of a man’s wife”, etc – all of which were unquestioned in Andrew Jackson’s day – and for 100 years thereafter.
Conclusion: The American male has been neutered by Civil Unions disguised as marriage. He will no longer defend the sanctity of his family. Those who hate one nation, under God, are now so sure of their overthrow that they expect us to grant them licentiousness (license) to commit crimes such as adultery or homosex. Licentiousness is now spoken of as a civil right. Licentiousness will destroy the foundation of society.
If family is not legitimate, then nothing they create, whether their society, their constitution, or their children, could be legitimate. Without legitimate children there can be no future legitimate voters, or future heirs to government or property (only property owners could be freemen). As I have shown, All of the Supreme Court cases dealing with divorce, up to 1893, were inheritance cases where children could not inherit anything from divorced parents. Nothing legitimate can come from illegitimacy.
The U.S. Supreme Court in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. 205,211 says of marriage:
“...other contracts can be modified ... Not so with marriage... for it. is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress.”
The U.S. Supreme Court in Maynard. 125 U.S. at 213 further confirms that marriage
“is pre-eminently the basis of civil institutions, and thus an object of the deepest public concern... giving character to our whole civil polity”
The U.S. Supreme Court in Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374 (in 1978):
“The decisions of the Court confirm that the right to marry is of fundamental importance to all individuals. ... It is not surprising that the decision to marry has been placed on the same level of importance as decisions relating to procreation, childbirth, child rearing, and family relationships... the relationship that is the foundation of the family in our society... the only relationship in which the [State] allows sexual relations legally to take place. “
[Aside: If marriage is “the only relationship in which the [State] allows sexual relations legally to take place.” then how can divorce courts can get away with violating the Clean Hands doctrine by supporting, condoning and rewarding adultery?]
The U.S. Supreme Court in Maynard 125 U.S. back at page 205 acknowledged that divorce courts [even a divorce of intermarriage] are restrained by a
“regard for certain fundamental rights of the citizen which are recognized in this country as the basis of all government...”
The foundation of all civil institutions is now automatically terminated without fault of innocent defendants in order to reward adultery. The no-fault divorce process has dissolved the moral society that created government. The dissolution of society destroys government, according to John Locke’s second treatise of government (which was the foundation for most of the Declaration of Independence).
The U.S. supreme court at 17 U.S. at 629 said:
“When any state legislature shall pass an act annulling all marriage contracts, or allowing either party to annul it, without consent of the other, it will be time enough to inquire whether such an act be unconstitutional.”
Did those who established your political society for the preservation of their liberty grant the authority to destroy the foundation of all society? Was there a single one of your organic Citizens who could have delegated more power than he himself had, the power to destroy liberty of an innocent defendant? If they did not have the authority to destroy the foundation of your society, then they could not have delegated it to your civil servants in the Constitution they wrote.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16:
“The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection...”
Was congress delegated the authority to destroy society’s foundation? Consider:
The purpose of government is to protect rights. We are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, and governments are instituted among men to secure those rights.
The U.S. Supreme Court, in Dartmouth v. Woodward, said divorce of the innocent would be “flagrant violation of the principles of justice”.
Aside: No-fault divorce bastardizes the children of otherwise legitimate parents. This is destroying the church unto the tenth generation - Deuteronomy 23:2 prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
Divorce bastardizes our future society. Nothing legitimate can ever come from illegitimacy. Blackstone’s Commentaries page 446, book I, chapter 16:
“bastards are not looked upon as children to any civil purposes”
The illegitimate cannot acquire legitimacy. They cannot inherit a surname, Citizenship or participate in church affairs.
[By the word “Citizenship” I’m referring to the class of people who created Government, the word “Citizenship” that is always capitalized in the 11 occurrences in the Constitution. I’m not referring to the created citizenship, the lower case “citizenship” that is used 5 times in the 14th amendment.]
Divorce bastardizes children. They cannot even inherit a surname. Although they can serve as civil servants, no bastard can ever become a legitimate officer in government. Wards cannot become officers because of the legal maxim “protection draws subjection.” This concept was so important that the U.S. Constitution, Article I, section 2 prohibits congressmen (and section 3 prohibits Senators), when elected, from being inhabitants of their State. Again: Wards cannot be officers because nothing legitimate can come from illegitimacy.
Does this diminish the authority of the United States? (If so, then it meets one of the elements of treason)
A well-settled design to destroy the legitimacy of your society’s foundation is treason. Nothing legitimate can ever come from illegitimacy. This diminishes the authority of the United States. This is injury to the United States. Using the color of law to compel the future illegitimacy of a nation is Treason. The use of brutal State-armed martial law police to enforce the state’s will for the “care, custody, education, and maintenance” of the wards they bastardized is armed insurrection against the United States. By accepting their Civil Unions as legitimate marriage, we have unknowingly participated in this destruction.
Blackstone’s Commentaries page 446, book 1, chapter 16:
bastards are not looked upon as children to any civil purposes
Vladmir I. Lenin:
“Destroy the family, you destroy the country.”
Sublato fundamento cadit opus:
Failure to timely defend the Constitution of the United States is a breach of allegiance and may be felony treason.
Treason is the only crime defined in the Constitution. The US Supreme Court still occasionally quotes from John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government. Here are some important concepts from Locke, that existed when the Constitution was written, to help you determine what they intended when they wrote the phrase “levying war against” the State:
Aside: the power to separate man from wife (divorce for aggravated cruelty) comes from this authority to cut out corruption. But it still doesn’t cancel the legitimate marriage.
Do you want your children back? How about their inheritance rights?
Here are some authorities on treason:
Conclusion: Treason requires two witnesses to the same overt act (which need not be a treasonous act – if the elder Haupt can be convicted of treason for opening his apartment’s front door for his son as witnessed by FBI agents [330 U.S. 631, 636-637] or if Cramer “engaged long and earnestly in conversation” with someone who later turned out to be a traitor, but with no proof of what was said [325 U.S. 1, 37], then certainly you can find two witnesses to a court’s overt acts to betray the fundamental foundation of the nation) or confession in open court; after all, the betrayal is in open court, sealed by an official seal.
Legitimacy, by valid marriage*, of the constituents – those who constituted – government is the only foundation by which legitimate government could be ordained and established. Nothing legitimate could have come from illegitimacy. Likewise, voters (constituents, perpetuators of the blessings of liberty to their posterity) must remain legitimate. To claim that civil servants can cancel marriage*, and thereby bastardize their future constituents, is treason to the legitimacy of government. Blackstone equated licentiousness with the destruction of government.
* (the very foundation of society, which existed prior to any earthly government)
Divorce courts, as an official act, bearing an official seal, make a mockery of humanity.
Treaties are equal to the Constitution as
“...the Supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby...” (U.S. Constitution Article VI, paragraph 2).
The Genocide Treaty ratified by the Senate on February 19, 1986, 78 UNTS 277, defines genocide in its Article II as
“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group as such: ... (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) forcibly transferring children of the group to another group”
Can a political power determine the care and best interests of children, contrary to the US Supreme Court’s definition of liberty?
Was parental authority over children forcibly (defined as: voluntary compliance under threat of violence) restrained by the political group that appoints a custodian over children (which meets every element of Genocide)?
Federal Criminal Code defines “domestic terrorism”
5) the term ''domestic terrorism'' means activities that -
(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation
of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State;
(B) appear to be intended -
(i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(ii) to influence the policy of a government by
intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass
destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and
(C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of
the United States.
Do available remedies against ungodly divorce courts include Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949; and the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) of 8 June 1977? Supporting facts:
Marriage is a liberty:
The United States Supreme Court at 262 U.S. 390, 399 defines the term Liberty “Liberty... denotes not merely freedom from bodily restraint, but also the right of the individual to contract, to engage in any of the common occupations of life, to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, to establish a home and bring up children, to worship God according to the dictates of his/her own conscience... “
Do you want your nation back? Do you want your children back? What can we do?
What did the Declaration of Independence mean when it said governments derive
“their just power from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government... “ ?
Christians in the American British Colonies rejected their government and brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty. Many of these principles were previously articulated in a 1644 publication Lex Rex by Samuel Rutherford. He explains that sovereignty comes from the people who create a government, and that men create a civil society when one family cannot contain them. Society, it seems, it the extension of the family. Lex Rex explains that people are sovereign and may retake control of their society to preserve themselves.
This principle was still valid when Abraham Lincoln made his First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861:
“This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it.”
We are engaged in a great war between good and evil. Males in America have already surrendered their families, their fortunes and their sacred honor. (By sacred honor, I refer to wedding vows that are made to God, but surrendered to courts without the feeblest whimper). Only one battle remains to be decided, and George Bush thinks it should be decided by a vote: Is the very legitimacy of society, which existed prior to any earthly government, to be forevermore equal to the perversion, disease, shame and filth of unspeakable crimes against nature? Crimes that have always been more detestable than child rape.
Tolerating perversion is “worthy of death” according to Romans 1:32. But our moral anguish is much worse than merely watching as the world tolerates perversion. God punishes bastards unto the tenth generation. When legitimacy is destroyed, the entire future of the universe is disrupted. Without legitimacy there can be no blessings of liberty for your posterity.
Corruption destroys society on many levels. The authors of the Constitution were well aware that corruption would “cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security...” Woe unto judges, lawyers and legislators who insist that matrimony is a civil union. It is treason. What can decent people do to defend society against the vicious brutal perverts who seek to destroy us all?
Are family rights worth fighting for? How can decent citizens preserve society’s crumbling foundation against perverts who have overthrown your government? What methods have worked in the past? Here are some references to study, so that you can decide for yourself whether or not you want to pay the price.
America will be the land of the free, when it is the home of the brave.
Are we still one nation, under God?
Matthew 11:24 (and Matthew 10:15 and Mark 6:11) warned the cities that did not repent:
"But I say unto you, That it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for thee."