Table of Contents:
  1. How did Jesus define the term "marriage"?
  2. What does the Bible say about homosex?
  3. What does history say about homosex?
  4. What does history say about divorce?
  5. How did man's law redefine the term "marriage"?\
  6. What did George W. Bush say about defense of marriage?
  7. Marriage is the foundation of society
  8. Are "Civil Unions" treason against government?
  9. Civil Union Marriage is Genocide of Christians
  10. Is homosex activism an act of terrorism?  How about judicial activism?
  11. Do they rely on military laws to enforce perversion?
  12. Do we still have the right to secure the blessings of liberty?
Related References:
  1. Sovereign Christian Marriage (OFFSITE LINK)-book on how to get married without a marriage license based on Christian principles
  2. PDF Defense of Marriage book -very detailed treatment of the subject of this memorandum of law

by: Steven Miller
Last updated:  11/10/04

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: cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security...
[Second Treatise on Civil Government, Section 222]

1.  How did Jesus define the term marriage?

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:


Mark 10:2 (NKJV)   "The Pharisees came and asked Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?" testing Him."

Matthew 19:3 (NKJV)   "The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?”

Mark 10:3 (NKJV)   "And He answered and said to them, "What did Moses command you?

 Mark 10:4 (NKJV)   "They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her.”

 Mark 10:5 (NKJV)   "And Jesus answered and said to them, "Because of the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept."

 [harmonizes with verses 7&8, below]

Mark 10:6 (NKJV)   “But from the beginning of the creation, God 'made them male and female.’

 Mark 10:7 (NKJV)   "'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,’"

 Mark 10:8 (NKJV)   "'and the two shall become one flesh'; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh."

 Mark 10:9 (NKJV)   “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.’

Matthew 19:4 (NKJV)   "And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,’

 Matthew 19:5 (NKJV)   “and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'?"

 Matthew 19:6 (NKJV)   “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate.’


Matthew 19:7 (NKJV)   "They said to Him, "Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?"

 [see Deuteronomy 24]

 Matthew 19:8 (NKJV)   "He said to them, "Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so."

Mark 10:10 (NKJV)   "In the house His disciples also asked Him again about the same matter."


 Mark 10:11 (NKJV)   "So He said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her."

 Mark 10:12 (NKJV)   “And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.

Matthew 19:9 (KJV)   "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication [NOT ADULTERY*] , and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery."

 Matthew 19:10 (NKJV)   "His disciples said to Him, "If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.”

 Matthew 19:11 (NKJV)   "But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given:"

 Matthew 19:12 (NKJV)   “For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother's womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” 


* Engaged couples were called husband and wife prior to marriage.  As in Matthew 1:19.  In other words, if a man leaves his fiancée, except for her fornication, he is better off to castrate himself and never marry. 

 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.

Matthew 5:31 (NKJV)   “Furthermore it has been said, 'Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.”

Matthew 5:32 (KJV)   "But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication [not adultery, see above note], causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery."

Matthew 22:29 (NKJV)   "Jesus answered and said to them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures nor the power of God."

Matthew 22:30 (NKJV)   “For in the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like angels of God in heaven."

Luke 16:18 (NKJV)   “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery."

 Romans 7:3 (NKJV)   "So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man."

 1 Corinthians 7:10 (NKJV)   "Now to the married I command, yet not I but the Lord: A wife is not to depart from her husband."

1 Corinthians 7:11 (NKJV)   "But even if she does depart, let her remain unmarried or be reconciled to her husband. And a husband is not to divorce his wife."

1 Corinthians 7:12 (NKJV)   "But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her."

1 Corinthians 7:13 (NKJV)   "And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him."

1 Corinthians 7:14 (NKJV)   "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy."

1 Corinthians 7:15 (NKJV)   "But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace."

1 Corinthians 7:16 (NKJV)   "For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?"

 1 Corinthians 7:27 (NKJV)   "Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife."

1 Corinthians 7:28 (NKJV)   "But even if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. Nevertheless such will have trouble in the flesh, but I would spare you."

1 Corinthians 7:39 (NKJV)   "A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord."

Hebrews 13:4 (NKJV)   "Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge."

Malachi 2:16 (NKJV)  God hates divorce.

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.

2.  What does the Bible say about homosex?

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).

In Leviticus 18:22,24-30 the unchanging God of the Bible promises to destroy any nation that tolerates homosex.  And again in Deuteronomy 28

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.

3.  What does history say about homosex?

 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:

MOREOVER, if the rape be charged to be committed on an infant under twelve years of age, she may still be a competent witness, if she hath sense and understanding to know the nature and obligations of an oath; and, even if she hath not, it is thought by sir Matthew Halei that she ought to be heard without oath, to give the court information; though that alone will not be sufficient to convict the offender. And he is of this opinion, first, because the nature of the offence being secret, there may be no other possible proof of the actual fact; though afterwards there may be concurrent circumstances to corroborate it, proved by other witnesses: and, secondly, because the law allows what the child told her mother, or other relations, to be given in evidence, since the nature of the case admits frequently of no better proof; and there is much more reason for the court to hear the narration of the child herself, than to receive it at second hand from those who swear they heard her say so. And indeed it is now settled, that infants of any age are to be heard; and, if they have any idea of an oath, to be also sworn: it being found by experience that infants of very tender years often give the clearest and truest testimony. But in any of these cases, whether the child be sworn or not, it is to be wished, in order to render her evidence credible, that there should be some concurrent testimony, of tome, place and circumstances, in order to make out the fact; and that the conviction should not be grounded singly on the unsupported accusation of an infant under years of discretion. There may be therefore, in many cases of this nature, witnesses who are competent, that is, who may be admitted to be heard; and yet, after being heard, may prove not to be credible, or such as the jury is bound to believe. For one excel-

i 1 Hal. P. C. 634.
.P 215
Ch. 15.
lence of the trial by jury is, that the jury are triors of the credit of the witnesses, as well as of the truth of the fact.

“IT is true, says this learned judgek , that rape is a most “detestable crime, and therefore ought severely and impartially “to be punished with death; but it must be remembered, that “it is an accusation easy to be made, hard to be proved, but “harder to be defended by the party accused, though innocent.” He then relates two very extraordinary cases of malicious prosecutions for this crime, that had happened within his own observation; and concludes thus: “I mention these instances, that “we may be the more cautious upon trials of offences of this “nature, wherein the court and jury may with so much ease be “imposed upon, without great care and vigilance; the heinousness of the offence many times transporting the judge and jury “with so much indignation, that they are overhastily carried to “the conviction of the person accused thereof, by the confident “testimony of sometimes false and malicious witnesses.”

IV. WHAT has been here observed, especially with regard to the manner of proof, which ought to be the more clear in proportion as the crime is the more detestable, may be applied to another offence, of a still deeper malignity; the infamous crime against nature, committed either with man or beast. A crime, which ought to be strictly and impartially proved, and then as strictly and impartially punished. But it is an offence of so dark a nature, so easily charged, and the negative so difficult to be proved, that the accusation should be clearly made out: for, if false, it deserves a punishment inferior only to that of the crime itself.

I WILL not act so disagreeable part, to my readers as well as myself, as to dwell any longer upon a subject, the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature. It will be more eligible to imitate in this respect the delicacy of our English law, which

k 1 Hal. P. C. 635.
.P 216
Ch. 15.
treats it, in it's very indictments, as a crime not fit to be named; “peccatum illud horribile, inter christianos non nominandum.” A taciturnity observed likewise by the edict of Constantius and Constansl : “ubi scelus est id, quod non proficit scire, jubemus insurgere leges, armari jura gladio ultore, ut exquisitis poenis subdantur infames, qui sunt, vel qui futuri sunt, rei.” Which leads me to add a work concerning it's punishment.

THIS the voice of nature and of reason, and the express law of Godm , determine to be capital. Of which we have a signal instance, long before the Jewish dispensation, by the destruction of two cities by fire from heaven: so that this is an universal, not merely a provincial, precept. And our ancient law in some degree imitated this punishment, by commanding such miscreants to be burnt to deathn ; though Fletao says they should be buried alive: either of which punishments was indifferently used for this crime among the ancient Gothsp . But now the general punishment of all felonies is the same, namely, by hanging: and this offence (being in the times of popery only subject to ecclesiastical censures) was made single felony by the statute 25 Hen. VIII. c. 6. and felony without benefit of clergy by statute 5 Eliz. c. 17. And the rule of law herein is, that, if both are arrived at years of discretion, agentes et confentientes pari poena plectanturq .

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 )  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.

4. What does history say about divorce?

There are two kinds of divorce:

  • a forced separation to save the life of a spouse, which does not cancel the marriage, called divorce a mensa et thoro (divorce from bed and board) and
  • a court determination that the marriage is invalid due to a flawed original contract, called divorce a vinculo matrimonii.  All children are bastards.   [Hint: if you signed a marriage license, then you confessed that you did not have a right to marry]

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):

  • U.S. Supreme Court in Maynard v. Hill 125 U.S. at 211: It is a relation for life...
  • U.S. Supreme Court in Maynard v. Hill 125 U.S. at 212: “When formed, this relation is no more a contract than “fatherhood’ or ‘sonship’ is a contract
  • U.S. Supreme Court in Maynard v. Hill, 125 U.S. at 213, confirms that marriage “merged the legal existence of the parties into one”. 

    If so, then how can a divorce attorney (who is an agent of the State) represent just a wife? How can any court settle a legal controversy between one?  Answer: Civil Unions are not marriage.

  • Blackstone’s Commentaries  Page 423, Book 1: “all marriages contracted by lawful persons in the face of the church, and consummate with bodily knowledge, and fruit of children, shall be indissoluble.
  • Blackstone’s Commentaries Book 1, page 428: For the canon law, which the common law follows in this case, deems so highly and with such mysterious reverence of the nuptial tie, that it will not allow it to be unloosed for any cause whatsoever, that arises after the union is made...
  • Mississippi Supreme Court Dickerson v. Brown, 49 Miss. 370 concerning unsolemnized and undocumented marriages: yet, if the parties intend marriage, and their intent sufficiently appears, ‘they are inseparably man and wife, not only before God, but also before men’
  • Georgia Supreme Court Askew v. Dupree, 30 Ga. 173:

    Her honor is saved, and this is worth more than everything, even life itself.  All other contracts may be rescinded, and the parties restored to their former condition; marriage cannot be undone.”

  • Texas Supreme Court Lewis v. Ames, 44 Tex. 341:

    A marriage is a mutual agreement of a man and woman to live together in the relation and under the duties of husband and wife, sharing each other’s fate or fortune for weal or woe until parted by death, ...

  • Washington State Supreme Court McLaughlin’s Estate, 4 Wash. 570, July 1892, concluded that statutory provisions require marriage to be permanent:
    However this question is decided, it may result in hardship in some cases, but we think the lesser injury will come from an adherence to the statutory requisites than otherwise, to the end that these contracts, shall be permanent, and not revocable at the will and pleasure of the parties;

    Note that the McLaughlin’s Estate case was four years AFTER the US Supreme Court ruled in Maynard v. Hill (which was a local case from Washington territory), and three years after the Washington Constitution was altered to prohibit legislative divorces. 

  • Maryland Supreme Court Denison v. Denison, 35 Md. 372
    indissoluble even by the consent of the parties
  • The U.S. supreme court in Meister v. Moore 96 U.S. 76 at 79

    No doubt, a statute may take away a common law right; but there is always a presumption that the Legislature has no such intention,  ... a marriage good at common law to be good notwithstanding the statutes, unless they contain express words of nullity.” 

  • Civil divorce is also defined by well-established law: Blackstone’s Book I at page 423:
    These civil disabilities make the contract void ab initio, and not merely voidable: not that they dissolve a contract already [page  424] formed, but they render the parties incapable of forming any contract at all: they do not put asunder those who are joined together, but they previously hinder the junction.”
  • And ecclesiastical divorce is also well established: Blackstone’s book I, page 445, chapter 16:
    “Likewise, in case of divorce in the spiritual court a vinculo matrimonii, all the issue born during the coverture are bastards ; because such divorce is always upon some cause, that rendered the marriage unlawful and null from the beginning.”

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

5.   How did man’s laws redefine the term “marriage”?

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:

  • Man cannot redefine a permanent law that always exists (anymore than we can legislate the law of gravity). 
  • Nobody can swear an oath to “faithfully uphold and defend the Constitution” and then turn around and suggest otherwise. 
  • Government was created to secure rights.  The right to marry existed prior to any earthly government.
  • Civil Servants cannot redefine rights that they were hired/elected to defend.
  • Marriage cannot be cancelled. (Divorce in the Bible refers to living separately). Let not man put asunder
  • Rights cannot be regulated (conversely, if something is regulated, then it is not a right). Marriage is a right that cannot be regulated.  Not by license, nor by license fees, nor by administrative courts that regulate licensing disputes.
  • Example: the United States Supreme Court in Meister v. Moore 96 U.S. 76 at page 81 ruled that marriage license laws cannot be enforced: “marriage is a thing of common right... any other construction would compel holding illegitimate the offspring of many parents conscious of no violation of law
  • Example: 1892 Washington State Supreme Court McLaughlin’s Estate, 4 Wash. 570, confirmed that ”marriage is a natural right, which always existed prior to the organization of any form of government, and all laws in restraint of it should be strictly construed in consequence thereof.  It is held it should be the policy of the law to sustain all such contracts and relations whenever possible, and that this should always be done ...[590 marriage has] its origin in divine law
  • Example: Georgia Supreme Court in Askew v. Dupree, 30 Ga 173: “marriage is founded in the law of nature, and is anterior to all human law

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.

  1. Marriage, under God’s laws.  Holy Matrimony is a permanent family relationship that mankind cannot put asunder.  The laws of England which existed in the English Colonies when the States wrote their original constitutions, required a marriage license to be issued by the church to assure that underage couples had their parent’s permission and that banns were published.  All marriages “in the face of the church” were indissoluble (un divorceable).  In America, a hundred years ago, conformance to the marriage statutes assured that marriage was enforceable and could not be divorced.  

  2. Marriage, under man’s laws, existed in pagan societies, and was perpetuated under Roman law.  Nowadays conformance to the statutes assures that marriage is divorceable.  During the past 100 years we have been forced back under the boot of Roman Law.

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.

1877 US Supreme Court case Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76 at page 78:

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.

6.  What did George W. Bush say about defense of marriage?

Excerpt from the President’s State of the Union Address, January 20, 2004:

A strong America must also value the institution of marriage. I believe we should respect individuals as we take a principled stand for one of the most fundamental, enduring institutions of our civilization. Congress has already taken a stand on this issue by passing the Defense of Marriage Act, signed in 1996 by President Clinton. That statute protects marriage under federal law as a union of a man and a woman, and declares that one state may not redefine marriage for other states.

Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage. (Applause.)

The outcome of this debate is important -- and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight. (Applause.)


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:

Filius nullius: “An illegitimate child; son of nobody”

Filius populi: “A son of the people.”

Blackstone explains the rights of bastards at page 447, book I, chapter 16:

“The rights are very few, being only such as he can acquire ; for he can inherit nothing, being looked upon as the son of nobody, and sometimes called filius nullius, sometimes filius populi. Yet he may gain a sirname by reputation, though he has none by inheritance.

A bastard was also, in strictness, incapable of holy orders; ...  utterly disqualified from holding any dignity in the church: ... the civil law, so boasted of for it's equitable decisions, made bastards in some cases incapable even of a gift from their parents.”

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? 

  • Blackstone’s discussed adultery.  Book III, page 139:
    “Adultery, or criminal conversion of a man’s wife, though it is, as a public crime, ... considered as a civil injury (and surely there can be none greater) the law gives satisfaction to the husband, for it by action of tresspass vi et armis, wherein the damages recovered are usually very large and exemplary.”
  • The Clean Hands doctrine prohibits government from involvement in crimes, such as adultery or kidnapping or sodomy.
  • As quoted below, Blackstone’s warned that “encouraging licentiousness and debauchery” would destroy both society and government. 

 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.

7.  Marriage is 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 Supreme Court of the United States in Maynard v. Hill 125 U.S. 205,211  says that:
    Marriage... having more to do with the morals and civilization of a people than any other institution, has always been subject to the control of the legislature...  the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations... for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress... It is a relation for life...” 
  • The United States Supreme Court in Dartmouth considered the destruction of marriage without a breach of the marriage obligations a “flagrant violation of the principles of justice”.
  • In Blackstone’s discussion of marriage and divorce, the word “government” occurs only once.  The original law in America equated licentiousness to the destruction of government.  Blackstone’s Commentaries Book 1, page 426:

    “restraints upon marriage [are detrimental] to religion and morality, by encouraging licentiousness and debauchery among the single of both sexes; and thereby destroying one end of society and government, which is, concubitu prohibere vago.”

  • U.S. Supreme Court, Williams v. North Carolina  317 U.S. 287, at page 302:
    That choice in the realm of morals and religion rests with the legislatures of the states... Within the limits of her political power North Carolina may, of course, enforce her own policy regarding the marriage relation-an institution more basic in our civilization than any other. But society also has an interest in the avoidance of polygamous marriages (Loughran v. Loughran, 292 U.S. 216, 223, 54 S.Ct. 684, 686) and in the protection of innocent offspring of marriages deemed legitimate in other jurisdictions.”
  • Julliard v. Greenman, 110 US 421: “Congress can exercise no power which [the people] have not, by their Constitution entrusted to it: All else is withheld
  • John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government paragraph 211: “distinguish between the dissolution of the society and the dissolution of the government... where the society is dissolved, the government cannot remain
  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 16: “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection...

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)

8. Are “Civil Unions” Treason Against Government?

  • Any attempt to redefine the foundation of society is treason against the legitimacy of government.
  • Destroy a nation’s moral code, and you destroy the nation. 

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:

Chapter 13 Of the Subordination of the Power of the Commonwealth:

149. “... And thus the community perpetually retains a supreme power of saving themselves from the attempts and designs of anybody, even of their legislators, whenever they be so foolish or so wicked as to lay and carry on designs against the liberties and properties of the subject. For no man [has a power to deliver up his preservation] to the absolute will and arbitrary dominion of another ... “

155 “...using force upon the people, without authority, and contrary to the trust put in him that does so, is a state of war with the people, ... when they are hindered by any force from what is so necessary to the society, and wherein the safety and preservation of the people consists, the people have a right to remove it by force.. The use of force without authority always puts him that uses it into a state of war as the aggressor, and renders him liable to be treated accordingly.”

166 “ is impossible anybody in the society should ever have a right to do the people harm..”

 Chapter 15 Of Paternal, Political and Despotical Power:

171 “political power is that power which every man... has given up into the hands of the society, and therein to the governors ... with this express or tacit trust, that it shall be employed for their good and the preservation of their [life, liberty or] property...  This power... to punish the breach of the law... so as may most conduce to the preservation of himself and the rest of mankind; so that the end and measure of this power, when in every man’s hands,... being the preservation of all of his society- that is, all mankind in general- it can have no other end or measure, when in the hands of the magistrate, but to preserve the members of that society in their lives, liberties, and possessions, and so cannot be an absolute arbitrary power over their lives and fortunes, which are as much as possible to be preserved; but  a power to preserve the whole, by cutting off only those parts which are so corrupt that they threaten the sound and healthy, without which no severity is lawful.  And this power [is by] agreement and the mutual consent of those who make up the community.”

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.

172 “...despotical power is an absolute, arbitrary power one man has over another... For man, not having such an arbitrary power over his own life, cannot give another man such a power over it, but it is the effect only of forfeiture which the aggressor makes of his own life when he puts himself into the state of war with another.  For having quitted reason.... and made use of force to compass his unjust ends upon another where he has no right, he renders himself liable to be destroyed by his adversary whenever he can... “

 Chapter 18 Of Tyranny:

201 whenever people put power into the hands of government for the preservation of their [lives, liberty and] properties, and is used to impoverish, harass, or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands of those that have it, there it presently becomes tyranny

208 “if the unlawful acts done by the magistrate be maintained, and the remedy, which is due by law, be by the same power obstructed, yet the right of resisting, even in such manifest acts of tyranny, ... [men] have a right to defend themselves, and to recover by force what by unlawful force is taken from them”

Do you want your children back?  How about their inheritance rights? 

209 if “these illegal acts have extended to the majority of the people,... and they are persuaded in their consciences that their laws, and with them, their estates, liberties, and lives are in danger, and perhaps their religion too...  resisting illegal force used against them [is] the most dangerous state they can possibly put themselves in”

 Chapter 19 Of the Dissolution of Government:

211 “distinguish between the dissolution of the society and the dissolution of the government... Whenever the society is dissolved, it is certain the government of that society cannot remain.  Thus conquerors sword’s often cut up governments by the roots, and mangle societies to pieces, separating the subdued or scattered multitude from the protection of and dependence on that society which ought to have preserved them.... where society is dissolved, the government cannot remain.”

222 “The reason why men enter into society is the preservation of their [lives, liberty and] property .... it can never be supposed to be the will of the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure by entering into society, and for which the people submitted themselves to legislators of their own making; whenever the legislators endeavour to take away and destroy the [lives, liberty and] property of the people,... they put themselves into a state of war with the people, who are thereupon absolved from any  farther obedience, and are left to the common refuge which God hath provided for all men against force and violence.  Whensoever, therefore, the legislative shall transgress this fundamental rule of society, and ...grasp ...or put into the hands of any other, an absolute power over the lives, liberties, and estates of the people, by this breach of trust they forfeit the power the people had put into their hands for quite contrary ends, and it devolves to the people [to] provide for their own safety and security, which is the end for which they are in society.... [this] holds true also concerning the supreme executor, who having a double trust put in him... acts also contrary to his trust when he employs the force, treasure, and offices of the society to corrupt ... to cut up the government by the roots, and poison the very fountain of public security... ”

227 when “legislators act contrary to the end for which they were constituted, those who are guilty are guilty of rebellion. For [they take] away the umpirage which every one had consented to for a peaceable decision of all their controversies, and a bar to the state of war amongst them... [by] introducing a power which the people hath not authorised, actually introduce a state of war, which is that of force without authority; and thus by removing the legislative established by the society, in whose decisions the people acquiesced and united as to that of their own will, they untie the knot, and expose the people anew to the state of war. And.. legislators themselves... who were set up for the protections and preservation of the people, their liberties and properties... [put] themselves into a state of war with those who made them the protectors and guardians of their peace, are ... with the greatest aggravation, rebellantes, rebels.” 

231.  “That subjects or foreigners attempting by force on the properties of any people may be resisted with force is agreed on all hands; but magistrates doing the same thing may be resisted, hath of late been denied; as if those who had the greatest privileges and advantages by the law had thereby a power to break those laws by which alone they were set in a better place than their brethren; whereas their offence is thereby the greater...”

Here are some authorities on treason:

  • “Under the laws of the United States the highest of all crimes is treason.  It must be so in every civilized state; not only because the first duty of a state is self-preservation, but because this crime naturally leads to and involves many others, destructive of the safety of individuals and of the peace and welfare of society...”  In re Charge to Grand Jury – Neutrality Laws and Treason C.C. Mass 1851, 30 F.Cas. 1024, No. 18,275.   There is no power extrinsic to that of the national government by which its laws can be rightfully resisted or their obligation impaired.”  In re Charge to Grand Jury – Treason, D.C. Mass, 1861, 30 F.Cas. 1039, No. 18273.
  • “If the object of an assembly of persons... to resist the exercise of any one or more of its general laws,... is treason against the state” In re Charge to Grand Jury, supra.
  •  “... to prevent the exercise of the national sovereignty within the limits of the state, this would be treason against the United States.” In re Charge to Grand Jury, supra.
  • “it cannot be maintained that levying war against the United States by persons however combined and confederated (even though successful in establishing their actual authority in several states) would not be treason here” Keppel v. Petersburg R. Co., C.C. Va. 1868, 14 F.Cas357, No. 7722
  •  “... overt act manifesting treasonable intent is not essential element of the crime.”  U.S. v. Chandler D.C.Mass 1947, 72 F.Supp. 230
  •  “Overt act need not of itself be criminal in order to warrant conviction for treason.” D’Aquino v. U.S., 1951, 192F.2d 338
  • The overt act is not an essential element of treason.  U.S. v. Haupt, 1943, 136 F.2d 661

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.

9. Civil Union Marriage is Genocide Of Christians

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)?

10.  Is homosex activism an act of terrorism ? How about judicial activism? 

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.

11.  Do they rely upon military law to enforce perversion?

  • Family court rules neither civil nor criminal.  What authorizes the courts to deny defendants access to normal civil process?  Could it be martial law?
  • Is there a threat to use State-armed martial law police to enforce the state’s will for the “care, custody, education, and maintenance” of their children?
  • Can an innocent civilian be denied his liberty during time of declared war, without a showing of military necessity?
  • This seems to be contrary to the U.S. Supreme Court 1866 ruling in Ex parte Milligan that military courts cannot be used to try civilians if the civil courts were available.

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:

  • In 1973 the Report of the Special Committee on the Termination of the National Emergency, U.S. Senate Report 93-549 confirms that there has been 63 years of ongoing emergency powers: “Since March the 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.  Under the powers delegated by these statutes... martial law ... control the lives of all American citizens

  • We were declared to be the enemy.  The March 9th 1933 national emergency referred to by that Senate report invoked against Americans the authority of the Trading With The Enemy Act of October 6th, 1917.  FDR signed into law on March 9, 1933, chapter 1, Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1: “The actions, regulations, rules, licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed.

  • The authority invoked by Trading With The Enemy Act of October 6th, 1917An Act to define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes” was amended March 9, 1933 to include “any person within the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof

  • Although the World Wars and the Civil War hostilities had armistices ending the hostilities against belligerents, Congress has never terminated the wars it declared.

  • President Lincoln’s martial law code, the Leiber Code, states that a declaration of martial law is never necessary. The mere fact that there are government-armed troops in the streets is sufficient notice that we are under martial law.   Back in the old days, it was never a government function to kill people without a trial, except in war – a policeman had to provide his own sidearm if he wanted to defend himself.  – the action of defending oneself is never a government act, and cannot be funded with public funds or equipment, except in war
  • International law requires a showing of military necessity to deprive a civilian of his liberty.

12.  Do we still have the right to secure the blessings of liberty?  

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. 

  • John Quincy Adams: “Posterity – you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom.
  • Thomas Jefferson on November 13, 1787, wrote the following to future Congressman William S. Smith:

                “... God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?  Let them take arms... What signify a few lives lost in a century or two?  The tree of liberty must be [refertilized] from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

    These are not the words of a young radical fighting the Revolutionary war.  This was the former Governor of Virginia, and Ambassador to France, the man who proposed the Bill of Rights.

  • Abraham Lincoln:
    Our safety, our liberty, depends upon preserving the Constitution of the United States as our fathers made it inviolate.   The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.
  • Christ tells His apostles in Luke 22:36 to sell their clothes, if necessary, in order to purchase advanced military assault weapons.  This was His final command to His apostles.  (also see Jer 48:10, Matt 10:34)
  • George Washington April 5, 1765 wrote on the topic of liberty:
    That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment to use arms in defense of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion...
  • Edmund Burke 4/23/1770: “All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing
  • John Philpot Curran, July 10, 1790:

    The condition upon which God hath given liberty to man is eternal vigilance; which condition if he breaks, servitude is at one the consequence of his crime.

  • Daniel Webster:
    "God grants liberty only to those who live it and are always ready to guard and defend it."
  • Patrick Henry, June 5, 1788 quoted in Elliot’s Debates Vol 3, page 45:
    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.  Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.  Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.  Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
  • Thomas Jefferson’s inscription on his ring:
    "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."
  • Luke 11:21 a strong man, fully armed, defends his own home.
  • The cowardly have their place in the Lake of Fire (Rev 21:8).

America will be the land of the free, when it is the home of the brave.

Are we still one nation, under God?

  • The patriarchal form of government (family government) worked just fine for the first ten Books of the Bible until Saul was elected as King.  This election was evil in the eyes of the Lord, I Sam 12:17.
  • 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.  We are now asked to spit on their graves.
  • Divorce always bastardizes children, which God punishes unto the tenth generation. (Children are surrendered by perjury on a divorce form verifying that there is a broken civil union – allowing the full armed police power of the State to brutally enforce the surrender of children they bastardize.)
  • There is now a “civil right” granting unpunishable adultery.
  • Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil Isa 5:20.
  • Adulterers cannot go to heaven 1 Cor 6:9
  • Has the absolute command “let not man put asunder” become permissive?

 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."