| « (21.26) Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section (21.28) » |
Sovereign Marriage
July 18, in the year of our Lord 1999
Dear Janine Hawkins:
I am sorry your dear friend got upset with my views on non-licensing of marriage. I did not wish it. She is a hard worker. She loves liberty. I do not agree with her on a few important issues but on most major issues I agree with her. I realize that many of you think my views are radical. I am radical if you compare me to the Socialists that run America.
I realize that because I have done original research on the law and because I have seen the fraud perpetrated upon the American people by government servants clearly I think differently than most Americans. I realize that my thinking has been thought to be ridiculous and outrageous by those that have not had the opportunity to research as I have been blessed to do.
I realize that it is unwise to promote these views to the average voter as they are complex. They are indeed complex but I am unable to disprove them and there are no issues that I am not prepared to change my views if there is evidence I am incorrect. Many people argue with me but only my fellow researchers on the “TeaParty” take the time to prove me wrong. It does not happen too often but when they find new evidence then I do not feel beaten but elated. I seek only truth and that often scares people who only want to be comfortable in their beliefs.
I have been informed that my opposition to marriage licensing is thought to be anti-Christian. That I must favor homosexual marriage if I do not support marriage licenses. I have, therefore, decided to share a small, easily read, portion of my studies. I believe that this explains quite clearly what I believe is a legal marriage. I have copied it directly from the mentioned dictionary without editing. If this is un-Christian then I am un-Christian.
Marriage has been declared to be an Unalienable right by the United States Supreme Court several times. That does not mean that there are not applicable laws that restrict marriage or more importantly define marriage. An unalienable right to marriage does not mean that homosexuals can enter into a marriage contract as that is not a marriage any more than a crow could marry a whale. A sister and a brother may make a contract to live together, have children, and call it a marriage but no court in 1856 would recognize it as a “lawful marriage” as that was not the definition of marriage. Polygamy was not possible because it was not a lawful marriage and only a polygamy license could make it legal. A rose by any other name would smell as sweet is a fact of law. No union between two people was or is a marriage unless it met the legal definition. A pig is a pig is a pig no matter what a liar or perverter of language or truth calls it. If the lawyers and judges had defined life as well as they had marriage we would not be fighting trying to stop abortions.
You will note at section 13 that in “Louisiana, a license must be obtained” and also that in 1856 (copyright date) that Louisiana was the only State that “required” a license. Then read the sentence that starts with the word “But” in the highlighted area and convince yourself that it was “required.” It may also be of interest to you, if you don’t know American legal history, that Louisiana is the only Union State that has law not based on English common law but on French law. It was and still is very different than all other Union States.
A LAW DICTIONARY
ADAPTED TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
AND OF THE SEVERAL STATES OF THE AMERICAN UNION
With References to the Civil and Other Systems of Foreign Law
by
John Bouvier
SIXTH EDITION, REVISED, IMPROVED, AND GREATLY ENLARGED.
VOL. I.
--------------PHILADELPHIA CHILDS & PETERSON, 124 ARCH STREET 1856
MARRIAGE. A contract made in due form of law, by which a free man and a free woman reciprocally engage to live with each other during their joint lives, in the union which ought to exist between husband and wife. By the terms freeman and freewoman in this definition are meant, not only that they are free and not slaves, but also that they are clear of all bars to a lawful marriage. Dig. 23, 2, 1; Ayl. Parer. 359; Stair, Inst. tit. 4, s. 1; Shelford on Mar. and Div. c. 1, s. 1.
2. To make a valid marriage, the parties must be willing to contract, Able to contract, and have actually contracted.
3.—1. They must be willing to contract. Those persons, therefore, who have no legal capacity in point of intellect, to make a contract, cannot legally marry, as idiots, lunatics, and infant; males under the age of fourteen, and females under the age of twelve, and when minors over those ages marry, they must have the consent of their parents or guardians.
4. There is no will when the person is mistaken in the party whom he intended to marry; as, if Peter intending to marry Maria, through error or mistake of person, in fact marries Eliza; but an error in the fortune, as if a man marries a woman whom he believes to be rich, and he finds her to be poor; or in the quality, as if he marry a woman whom he took to be chaste, and whom he finds of an opposite character, this does not invalidate the marriage, because in these cases the error is only of some quality or accident, and not in the person. Poynt. on Marr. and Div. ch. 9.
5. When the marriage is obtained by force or fraud, it is clear that there is no consent; it is, therefore, void ab initio, and may be treated as null by every court in which its validity may incidentally be called in question. 2 Kent, Com. 66; Shelf. on Marr. and Div. 199; 2 Hagg. Cons. R. 246; 5 Paige, 43.
6.—2. Generally, all persons who are of sound mind, and have arrived to years of maturity, are able to contract marriage. To this general rule, however, there are many exceptions, among which the following may be enumerated.
7.—1. The previous marriage of the party to another person who is still living.
8.—2. Consanguinity, or affinity between the parties within the prohibited degree. It seems that persons in the descending or ascending line, however remote from each other, cannot lawfully marry; such marriages are against nature; but when we come to consider collaterals, it is not so easy to fix the forbidden degrees, by clear and established principles. Vaugh. 206; S. C. 2 Vent. 9. In several of the United States, marriages within the limited degrees are made void by statute. 2 Kent, Com. 79; Vide Poynt. on Marr. and Div. ch. 7.
9.—3. Impotency, (q.v.) which must have existed at the time of the marriage, and be incurable. 2 Phillim. Rep. 10; 2 Hagg. Rep. 832.
10.—4. Adultery. By statutory provision in Pennsylvania, when a person is convicted of adultery with another person, or is divorced from her husband, or his wife, he or she cannot afterwards marry the partner of his or her guilt. This provision is copied from the civil law. Poth. Contr. de Mariage, part 3, c. 3, art. 7. And the same provision exists in the French code civil, art. 298. See 1 Toull. n. 555.
11.—3. The parties must not only be willing and able, but must have actually contracted in due form of law.
12. The common law requires no particular ceremony to the valid celebration of marriage. The consent of the parties is all that is necessary, and as marriage is said to be a contract jure gentium, that consent is all that is needful by natural or public law. If the contract be made per verba de presenti, or if made per verba de futuro, and followed by consummation, it amounts to a valid marriage, and which the parties cannot dissolve, if otherwise competent; it is not necessary that a clergyman should be present to give validity to the marriage; the consent of the parties may be declared before a magistrate, or simply before witnesses; or subsequently confessed or acknowledged, or the marriage may even be inferred from continual cohabitation, and reputation as husband and wife, except in cases of civil actions for adultery, or public prosecutions for bigamy. 1 Silk. 119; 4 Burr. 2057; Dougl. 171; Burr. Settl. Cas. 509; 1 Dow, 148; 2 Dow, 482; 4 John. 2; 18 John. R. 346; 6 Binn, 405; 1 Penn. R. 452; 2 Watts, R. 9. But a promise to marry at a future time, cannot, by any process of law, be converted into a marriage, though the breach of such promise will be the foundation of an action for damages.
13. In some of the states, statutory regulations have been made on this subject. In Maine and Massachusetts, the marriage must be made in the presence, and with the assent of a magistrate, or a stated or ordained minister of the gospel. 7 Mass. Rep. 48; 2 Greenl. Rep. 102. The statute of Connecticut on this subject, requires the marriage to be celebrated by a clergyman or magistrate, and requires the previous publication of the intention of marriage, and the consent of parents; it inflicts a penalty on those who disobey its regulations. The marriage, however, would probably be considered valid, although the regulations of the statutes had not been observed. Reeve’s Dom. Rel. 196, 200, 290. The rule in Pennsylvania is, that the marriage is valid, although the directions of the statute have not been observed. 2 Watts, Rep. 9; 1 How. S. C. R. 219. The same rule probably obtains in New Jersey; 2 Halsted, 138; New Hampshire; 2 N. H. Rep. 268; and Kentucky. 3 Marsh. R. 370. In Louisiana, a license must be obtained from the parish judge of the parish in which at least one of the parties is domiciliated, and the marriage must be celebrated before a priest or minister of a religious sect, or an authorized justice of the peace; it must be celebrated in the presence of three witnesses of full age, and an act must be made of the celebration, signed by the person who celebrated the marriage, by the parties and the witnesses. Code, art. 101 to 107. The 89th article of the Code declares, that such marriages only are recognized by law, as are contracted and solemnized according to the rules which it prescribes. But the Code does not declare null a marriage not preceded by a license, and not evidenced by an act signed by a certain number of witnesses and the parties, nor does it make such an act exclusive evidence of the marriage. The laws relating to forms and ceremonies are directory to those who are authorized to celebrate marriage. 6 L. R. 470.
14. A marriage made in a foreign country, if good there, would, in general, be held good in this country, unless when it would work injustice, or be contra bonos mores, or be repugnant to the settled principles and policy of our laws. Story, Confl. of Laws, Sec. 87; Shelf. on M. & D. 140; 1 Bland. 188; 2 Bland. 485; 3 John. Ch. R. 190; 8 Ala. R. 48.
15. Marriage is a contract intended in its origin to endure till the death of one of the contracting parties. It is dissolved by death or divorce.
16. In some cases, as in prosecutions for bigamy, by the common law, an actual marriage must be proved in order to convict the accused. See 6 Conn. R. 446. This rule is much qualified. See Bigamy.
17. But for many purposes it may be proved by circumstances; for example, cohabitation; acknowledgment by the parties themselves that they were married; their reception as such by their friends and relations; their correspondence, on being casually separated, addressing each other as man and wife; 2 Bl. R. 899; declaring, deliberately, that the marriage took place in a foreign country; 2 Moo. & R. 503; describing their children, in parish registers of baptism, as their legitimate offspring; 2 Str. 1073; 8 Ves. 417; or when the parties pass for husband and wife by common reputation. 1 Bl. R. 639; S. C. 4 Burr. 2057; Dougl. 174; Cowp. 594; 3 Swans. R. 400; 8 S. & R. 159; 2 Hayw. R. 3; 1 Taylor, R. 121; 1 H. & McH. 152; 2 N. & McC. 114; 5 Day, R. 290; 4 R. & M. 507; 9 Mass. R. 414; 4 John. 52; 18 John. 346. After their death, the presumption is generally conclusive. Cowp. 591; 6 T. R. 330.
18. The civil effects of marriage are the following: 1. It confirms all matrimonial agreements between the parties.
19.—2. It vests in the husband all the personal property of the wife, that which is in possession absolutely, and choses in action, upon the condition that he shall reduce them to possession; it also vests in the husband right to manage the real estate of the wife, and enjoy the profits arising from it during their joint lives, and after her death, an estate by the curtesy when a child has been born. It vests in the wife after the husband’s death, an estate in dower in the husband’s lands, and a right to a certain part of his personal estate, when he dies intestate. In some states, the wife now retains her separate property by statute.
20.—3. It creates the civil affinity which each contracts towards the relations of the other.
21.—4. It gives the husband marital authority over the person of his wife.
22.—5. The wife acquires thereby the name of her husband, as they are considered as but one, of which he is the head: erunt duo in carne una.
23.—6. In general, the wife follows the condition of her husband.
24.—7. The wife, on her marriage, loses her domicil and gains that of her husband.
25.—8. One of the effects of marriage is to give paternal power over the issue.
26.—9. The children acquire the domicil of their father.
27.—10. It gives to the children who are the fruits of the marriage, the rights of kindred not only with the father and mother, but all their kin.
28.—11. It makes all the issue legitimate.
PROMISE OF MARRIAGE. A contract mutually entered into by a man and a woman capable of contracting matrimony, that they will marry each other.
2. When one of the contracting parties violates his or her promise to the other, the latter may support an action against the former for damages, which are sometimes very liberally given. To entitle the plaintiff to recover damages, however, the defendant must not have been incapable of making the contract at, the time, and such incapacity must not have been known to the opposite party; as, if a married man were to promise to marry a woman, and he afterwards refused to do so.
3. The canon law punished these breaches of promises by ecclesiastical censures.
4. According to the ancient jurisprudence of France, damages could have been recovered for the in execution of this engagement, and cases are reported which show a considerable liberality on this subject. M. Maynon, counsellor in the parliament of Paris, was condemned to sixty thousand livres damages; and a M. Hebert to fourteen thousand livres. D’Hericourt, Lois Ecclesiastiques, titre du Mariage, art. 1, n. 13. By the modern law of France, damages may be recovered for the violation of this contract.
5. In Germany and Holland damages may also be recovered. Voet, in Pandectas, tit. de sponsalibus, n. 12; Huberus, in Pandectas, eod. tit. n. 19. And the Prussian code regulates the amount of damages to be paid under a variety of circumstances. Part 1, b. 2, tit. 2. Vide 2 Chit. Pr. 52; Rose, Civ. Ev. 193; 2 Car. & P. 631; 4 Esp. R. 258; 1 C. & P. 350; Holt, R. 151; S. C. 3 E. C. L. R. 57; 7 Cowen, 22; 1 John. Cas. 116; 6 Cowen, 254; 4 Cowen, 355; 7 Wend. 142.
SOLEMNITY. The formality established by law to render a contract, agreement, or other act valid.
2. A marriage, for example, would not be valid if made in jest, and without solemnity. Vide Marriage, and Dig. 4, 1, 7; Id. 45, 1, 30.
This was marriage defined. No licenses were required. No homosexuals could ever be married because that is not a marriage any more than it is a baseball game. Anyone that believes that marriages must have a license to be legal have not studied history. To believe you need a license to get “married” is to believe a fraud that was created for the simple purpose of taxing and a more devious intent of being a party of the marriage, a third party, in the contract with a legal right to control the issue of the contract (28.—11. It makes all the issue legitimate.) And to be a controlling partner in the contract or its break up.
What was harmful to the community about marriage? Legally defined marriage.
Only something that is harmful to a community may be licensed and then only in the most least restrictive manor. If you read only 10 of the landmark cases on the first amendment you can understand this rule clearly.
If your friend will demonstrate the errors in my position I will embrace HER truth that to this point I have been unable to find.
Yours in truth,
Christopher Holloman Hansen
I have also added this wonderful letter I just received. I hope you will consider it all.
| « (21.26) Previous Section | Table of Contents | Next Section (21.28) » |