You are my hero.
-
Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.
Benefits and drawbacks to "legal" wife
- Thread starter NickF
- Start date
Nope. Each woman files head of household and gets a huge earned income tax credit.
Just imagine how great it'll be when Big Bro really does come out with his Mark. I wouldn't even be surprised that they'd let you have all the marked, licensed wives anybody could want, maybe more tax breaks for getting those kids taken care of, too.
The benefits of a "legal" (that which pertains to the Law) woman, is he gets a helpmeet, blessings to your house, a quiver full of children, and returns on investment in the order of thousands and tens of thousands. The others in the town will see her and praise him as a chad, they will seek him out in the gates to learn his wisdom, and they will praise the King he follows. He gains a legacy which lasts for generations.
Shall we explore the benefits of a non-legal wife? A foriegner to the Law, who will draw you away from the King after all manner of phallic idols, the murder of your children, sleeping on the roof in the rain, being ruled by these women and children, your enemy calling for your head at the gates, vanity in which there is no profit, and abandoned in the near end, because once she has destroyed you... She'll move on to the next victim.
Shall we explore the benefits of a non-legal wife? A foriegner to the Law, who will draw you away from the King after all manner of phallic idols, the murder of your children, sleeping on the roof in the rain, being ruled by these women and children, your enemy calling for your head at the gates, vanity in which there is no profit, and abandoned in the near end, because once she has destroyed you... She'll move on to the next victim.
And I'm already lost. You must have an insanely complex tax system.
Remind me what it was you all left the Commonwealth over again?
They tried taking our guns.And I'm already lost. You must have an insanely complex tax system.
Remind me what it was you all left the Commonwealth over again?
And I'm already lost. You must have an insanely complex tax system.
Remind me what it was you all left the Commonwealth over again?
It was quite a number of years before this system was foisted on us.
No one outside a court knows or cares if you have paperwork 'legalizing' your wife. They only know you call her your wife. That practical reality is also the common law reality.
You're worse than merely blind: "Eyes, but WILL not see." Certainly can't read.
I knew a rabid atheist you remind me of. "Don't tell me to PRAY! I prayed, bad stuff happened anyway! And don't you dare give me that 'seek and ye shall find' crap! I did that. Didn't work."
Evidence doesn't matter, since you ignore it. Worse, refuse to see. Lots of people with that identical attitude are STILL taking the poison poke. Many are dead. The rest will take the Mark, soon. And you'll all say we didn't show YOU any 'evidence'.
The reason people get $(r@w*& by the 'legal' system is that they don't know the rules, don't know the meaning of the words AS USED by those who intend to hurt them, and then don't know what hit 'em.
They don't even know whose 'law' they have chosen.
And they are being "destroyed, for lack of knowledge." Yeah, many reject knowledge, too. Even worse.
"A word means what I want it to mean, nothing more, nothing less...
...it's about who is to be master, that is all."
Humpty Dumpty, to Alice, "Through the Looking Glass"
PS> And I'm honestly disgusted with willful idiocy.
Is knowing His Word, and 'your Rights' in a system which ONCE "held these Truths to be self-evident," some kind of magic talisman? WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Buf if you're ignorant, blind, unlearned, and proud of it...He has already told you what to expect.
Is knowing His Word, and 'your Rights' in a system which ONCE "held these Truths to be self-evident," some kind of magic talisman? WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Buf if you're ignorant, blind, unlearned, and proud of it...He has already told you what to expect.
True, @rockfox, up until the bold part. Although it once was. This is where the part that some refuse to acknowledge comes in, in multiple stages.
First, the US/English 'common law' (see Blackstone) still exists, but has been largely SUPPLANTED by the UCC. (The terms "without prejudice" in a contract, among other reservations, can indicate 'choice of law.' WITHOUT such an explicit reservation, most 'courts' will PRESUME the choice of law FOR you. It's called a 'rebuttable presumption,' but you had better know to do it first.)
For those here who actually want to search something a bit more difficult out for themselves, look up the UCC citations:
UCC 1-207. Oops. That one got changed. It seems there may have been attempt to hide some things. The designation was changed to UCC 1-308. Interestingly, most on-line resources seem to skip over it. (Cornell still has it: https://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/1/1-308)
Use of the fiat 'dollar' in a transaction results in a presumption of the UCC (this is part of that pesky "adherent" element that the blind just won't see.) The only way to NOT 'waive' those common law Rights is to reserve them, hence the "Sufficiency of the Reservation," sign "Without Prejudice".
Is reservation of once constitutionally-protected but still God-given Rights sufficient in a police state? That's stage two...
Ask the people who thought they had a right to "petitition the government for a redress of grievance," or a 'speedy trial,' or 'counsel,' or to compel production of evidence, or witnesses in their favor (video of J6 anyone?)
So, do we just give up and eat mealworms? How about 'making war with the Beast?'
I have suggested, and will continue to, that there is an option in accord with His Word. "Come out of her, My people..." - Revelation 18:4 (and others). No, it's not 'magic'. We should know better. But it is a walk of faith in Him.
But, if you willfully REJECT the protection of YHVH by a 'choice of law' contrary to Him...you really are on your own.
People try to make what should be simple complicated, so as to continue to walk in rebellion. Read Isaiah chapter 66.
Nice, except I didn’t take the poison poke and neither did anyone in my house.
What will happen is that your bombast and vague pronouncements if inevitable doom that never come to fruition will drive people even further in to the lie.
You are what has plagued the red pill folks since the ‘60’s, a hysteric screaming about vague threats with no plan and no hope. Everyone is crazy but you. I’ve been shunning your kind since the Y2K debacle and I haven’t been wrong yet.
Judgement will come, collapse will come. But when it does you’ll be as shocked and unprepared as anyone. It will look nothing like what you predicted, it will be nowhere near your (sort of) suggested time line and you will have done everything in your power to discredit the truth beforehand and drive people away from it.
All so you can bellow impotently in an empty room. I’ll see you again in July when we talk about your fast tracked CBDC. You should have stuck with your original plan, at least with vague shouting you can never actually be proven wrong.
No argument from me. I wasn't referring to present legal reality but rather pointing out that the way people normally relate is also how common law does it. English common law in this matter was a mere codification in tradition of the natural way people behave.
Arguably because almost all of it is straight out of Scripture. Especially Deuteronomy.
But to reduce it to tradition is to allow it to be supplanted; kinda like 'marriage'.
A marriage license is not required by law all that is needed is consent or intent, or to coin the legal phrase "consent per verba de presenti"
What IS required is formal acknowledgement from both competent parties that their union is under biblical law which will prevent jurisdiction of civil law aka roman law
It is this exclusion which gives the enemy a gap to exercise jurisdiction.
What IS required is formal acknowledgement from both competent parties that their union is under biblical law which will prevent jurisdiction of civil law aka roman law
It is this exclusion which gives the enemy a gap to exercise jurisdiction.
I wrote a post and an article on this here:
THE MARRIAGE LIE EXPOSED
And Adam SAID, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. THEREFORE shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall c…
yahites.org
I am doing a follow up video and post on it because there are a few things within the case law that I referenced that are extremely interesting and may be of interest to some of you here:
...Marriage between parties capable of contracting is "of common right, and valid by a common law prevailing throughout Christendom." ( Hutchins v. Kimmell, 31 Mich. p. 126.) This common right, or common law, does not extend to marriages which are polygamous or incestuous. (Bishop, sec. 375.) The sanction which the law of civilized nations bestows upon marriages by mere consent is of course not inclusive of marriages which civilization commonly condemns. ( Hutchins v. Kimmell, supra, at p. 134.)...
If any of you would like to join me on a livestream discussion on this let me know and we can arrange a mutually acceptable time, I believe it would be a fruitful discussion.
What’s your channel?I wrote a post and an article on this here:
THE MARRIAGE LIE EXPOSED
And Adam SAID, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. THEREFORE shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall c…
I am doing a follow up video and post on it because there are a few things within the case law that I referenced that are extremely interesting and may be of interest to some of you here:
...Marriage between parties capable of contracting is "of common right, and valid by a common law prevailing throughout Christendom." ( Hutchins v. Kimmell, 31 Mich. p. 126.) This common right, or common law, does not extend to marriages which are polygamous or incestuous. (Bishop, sec. 375.) The sanction which the law of civilized nations bestows upon marriages by mere consent is of course not inclusive of marriages which civilization commonly condemns. ( Hutchins v. Kimmell, supra, at p. 134.)...
If any of you would like to join me on a livestream discussion on this let me know and we can arrange a mutually acceptable time, I believe it would be a fruitful discussion.
Yes, and...correct up until this point...
But that is the issue. The 'adversary' and his minions will PRESUME jurisdiction. It can only be prevented - IFF there still remains any vestige of the Rule of Law, arguably debatable, and worse by the day (see Soros and his DAs) -
by 'rebutting the presumption.' Preferably a priori - up front - before there is an issue.
As for the precedents and 'case law,' @YAHites, (you reference cites which precede the UCC, BTW, and the suppression of the common law) - a number of issues arise, some of which are no doubt even more 'NOT-PC' than even any current acrimony.
The thesis I have promoted, from the 'come out of her,' perspective, is that not ONLY is a 'marriage license' UN-necessary, but that it carries 'strings attached' that are detrimental (especially for those that fear the persecution of terms like 'bigamy'.)
Where the 'case law can o' worms' comes in is at least two-fold: (emphasis added)
The bigger issue, I have long contended, is that "tradition" - and what men thus say He SHOULD have Written, as opposed to what He actually DID - has trumped His Word as actually Written. Thus, 'precedent'. Sometimes wrong. (And I won't dwell on the "ship captain" thing - as if it was just another authority vested with godlike powers to wed.)
But the 'skunk at the party' is the history that marriage 'license' proponents are at best ignorant of, but may even willfully ignore: Jim Crow, 'miscegenation', and "intermarriage licenses". A "license" is (see the law dictionaries), "permission" from a 'competent authority' (not with a capital-A, of course) to do that which is otherwise forbidden. Over time, the Jim Crow-era "intermarriage license," which was not widely used during the Founding era, became ubiquitous during the New Deal. Like Jefferson so correctly observed, the course of things is for "Tyranny to gain ground, and Liberty to yield."
Especially when people do not know, nor value, their birthright. (Gen. 25:34)
The thesis I have promoted, from the 'come out of her,' perspective, is that not ONLY is a 'marriage license' UN-necessary, but that it carries 'strings attached' that are detrimental (especially for those that fear the persecution of terms like 'bigamy'.)
Where the 'case law can o' worms' comes in is at least two-fold: (emphasis added)
Interesting how the allegedly Biblically-literate still conflate "incest" and "polygamy" as if Scripture condemned them both, as opposed to potentially MANDATING the latter. But that's no surprise to anyone here.
The bigger issue, I have long contended, is that "tradition" - and what men thus say He SHOULD have Written, as opposed to what He actually DID - has trumped His Word as actually Written. Thus, 'precedent'. Sometimes wrong. (And I won't dwell on the "ship captain" thing - as if it was just another authority vested with godlike powers to wed.)
But the 'skunk at the party' is the history that marriage 'license' proponents are at best ignorant of, but may even willfully ignore: Jim Crow, 'miscegenation', and "intermarriage licenses". A "license" is (see the law dictionaries), "permission" from a 'competent authority' (not with a capital-A, of course) to do that which is otherwise forbidden. Over time, the Jim Crow-era "intermarriage license," which was not widely used during the Founding era, became ubiquitous during the New Deal. Like Jefferson so correctly observed, the course of things is for "Tyranny to gain ground, and Liberty to yield."
Especially when people do not know, nor value, their birthright. (Gen. 25:34)
I think you people are going crazy. State will do what state's always do. Enforce it's laws.
There are people claiming that 16th Amendments wasn't properly ratified. So they didn't pay income taxes. They are all now in prison. See, here is small legal trick, so state can't harm me.
Same with @Mark C common law. If people only know, we can be protected, blablabla. It won't work.
All laws systems when organically developed (without legistrature) are mostly about property rights. When state enters it corruptes law. It has happened to both roman and common law.
Read laws as they apply now and stop searching for some tricks to avoid state ehere their rules don't apply. Only way to avoid state is by using rules which state has made.
There are people claiming that 16th Amendments wasn't properly ratified. So they didn't pay income taxes. They are all now in prison. See, here is small legal trick, so state can't harm me.
Same with @Mark C common law. If people only know, we can be protected, blablabla. It won't work.
All laws systems when organically developed (without legistrature) are mostly about property rights. When state enters it corruptes law. It has happened to both roman and common law.
Read laws as they apply now and stop searching for some tricks to avoid state ehere their rules don't apply. Only way to avoid state is by using rules which state has made.