• 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.

No Rings, No Drama, Just Dominion

"Wrong." "Sin." Not words I'd pick. It's a choice that - in FAR too many cases - the Constitution forbids Big Brother to make. Often explicitly.

It will be, virtually without question, the mechanism that enables the 'Mark of the Beast,' based on the legal concept of 'commerce.' (Forbidding to 'buy or sell' - as is already being done for too many businesses and professions - without 'permission.')

It was one of the truly Evil mechanisms used to enforce the COVID BS. Suspending the 'licenses' of any physicians, nurses, or others who might have objected to Medical Malpractice on an international level.

I got what is actually called an "Airman's Certificate," and later an 'endorsement' for Instrument Certification (PPSEL-Inst) because I wanted to learn to fly. And while I can argue that the FAA (especially now) often does more harm than good (and allowed 'pilots' to be MANDATED to take an injection that their OWN "Federal Aviation Regulations" for Medical Certification say explicitly should ground EVERY single 'licensed' pilot who took them: "Do NOT Issuse - Do NOT Fly" - so how's THAT for caring about "safety" and the flying public?) - I will acknowledge that mistakes in aviation get people killed.
 
steve said:
You could say that personal ballistics should also be regulated for the common good, but we have a very specific Constitutional law that prohibits such restrictions.
Click to expand...
Some do, and that's a separate issue, but related.

It turns out that most (I would argue - the VAST majority!) of "government regulation" by way of 'licensing' is not only at least implicitly (marriage, trades, agriculture) but explicitly (arms) forbidden.

The 'argument' above began based on whether something that should NOT be 'licensed' at all from a legal standpoint is whether or not something people (who often don't know any better) should SUBMIT to. I contend that we all have a choice, but that it often amounts to a direct submission to "another master," sometimes at greater cost than the subject-slave is aware of.

Steve brings up a different issue, specifically with regard to the "Right to keep and bear arms," but with more general application.

MOST 'government regulation' (and licensing) is not only unlawful, but outright COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.

This is particularly obvious when it comes to 'firearms' (a term of art used to sidestep the Second Amendment - note what it says carefully.)

To quote Thomas Jefferson:
"Laws which forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
...But such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailant; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
"On Crimes and Punishment," 1764

The obvious but oft-unreported fact that well over 90% of all "mass shootings" occur in what I properly refer to as "Gun-Free Killing Zones" brings that point home.

I can, and have, make a similar argument that licensed marriage is not only counter-productive, but leads to outright evil. Not only broken families, "forbidding to marry," [more than the licensed 'one'] and rampant 'divorce' - but licensed abomination (sodomy++) as well.

There seems to be a more general principle at work here...
 
I agree with you @Mark C that the government should not have a role in licencing anything, and if some day you or I are in a government we might be able to do something about that. But given we are not, the question more relevant is "how then shall we live" given we are in countries ruled by regimes that do issue licences for things.

My perspective on that question is simple - relax, use the system you find yourself in, but without seeing its rules as morally binding. Avoid prosecution, by avoiding being caught if you have to very occasionally do something that would require a license, and by getting the relevant license if you do it regularly or simply require the license to practically do the thing. It's a simple cost-benefit analysis in my mind. The legal landscape is like any other landscape, follow the track that will most efficiently reach the goal. If the whole system is invalid anyway, I see no personal moral problem with either having or lacking a licence.

I am struggling to understand your perspective. Some licences you seem to view pragmatically as I do - such as a pilot's license by whatever name it goes by, we're basically on the same page there. But others you have a severe moral objection to - marriage and firearms licences for instance. This dichotomy confuses me.

If getting a marriage or gun licence constitutes a form of idolatry, bowing to the state instead of God (which is ultimately what ceding authority is), then would not getting a pilot's, driver's or commercial trading license also mean bowing to the state instead of God? We surely have a God-given right to both travel and trade also. I can't understand how you compartmentalise these issues in your mind and see them as so different.

I on the other hand am happy to be married with no license, or get one if it has practical advantages, just as I'm happy to get a gun licence if it's the only way to buy one, or a driver's license if it will avoid getting fined or jailed for exercising my God-given right to travel. I'd prefer they didn't exist but I'll tick the box to live in the world, while remaining not of the world.
 
All I can say, @FollowingHim, is to take a look at Braveheart again. I have said this for years on radio shows:

I'll get on my knees and beg for permission to protect my family (from those that want them dead to begin with) the same day I beg for permission to speak.

William Wallace objected to "First Night." Why? He might have had a nice wife thereafter...

There are things worth fighting for. I don't expect you to fight if you don't see that, just recognize that many Americans fought and died for Rights that others now aren't even willing to speak up for.
 
So if it's worth fighting and dying for, you object to getting a license for it, but you don't think any other freedoms are worth fighting and dying for other than marriage and guns?
 
Last edited:
Honestly Mark I think you just haven't thought this through far enough yet. That's ok. Please just ponder it a bit more before just automatically responding defensively. I think there's something here for you to refine.
 
PS> I fought tooth and nail against mask idiocy (I never ONCE put one on) - against the injection pseudo-mandate - against lockdowns, and against the censorship. I fought - and still do - censorship virtually anywhere (including here). I've done radio shows for a quarter century because it's a more effective way to fight than protesting on some street corner (which I organized in my 'miss-spent youth' as a leader of the Tyranny Response Team in Colorado, where we put thousands on the Capitol steps, and in front of the Governor's Mansion, etc) - and far more effective than an easily-rigged vote.

There are many things worth fighting for. Some worth more than that. But I will not ask permission to exercise a Right, because -- by definition - then it is NOT; it's a mere privilege.

And PPS> Don't ask for a list of those God-given Rights. Patrick Henry gave the proper response there.
 
Last edited:
But travel is a right. Yet you ask permission to travel by plane. I'm probably right to guess you've got a driver's license also, so have asked permission to travel by car.

And I agree guns are a right, but have you seriously managed to acquire whatever arsenal you have without ever once having to fill in a single background check form or other sort of government permission? Maybe you have, I'm not sure how the laws work where you live, but I suspect you have had to ask permission of someone for something at some point.

You've probably got other licences also - maybe a ham radio licence for instance.

I don't think it is possible to actually live with the strict anti-licence stance you are taking. If I'm right, if it's not possible to consistently follow without having to make excuses for why this and that are exceptions to the rule (as you have done regarding a pilot's license), I don't think you've got it figured out right yet.
 
Last edited:
FollowingHim said:
I don't think it is possible to actually live with the strict anti-licence stance you are taking. If I'm right, if it's not possible to consistently follow without having to make excuses for why this and that are exceptions to the rule (as you have done regarding a pilot's license), I don't think you've got it figured out right yet.
Click to expand...
And yet this is precisely the dilemma, and the reason, that I have done the "Come out of her, My people" Show (and ministry) for over a quarter century, in multiple venues.

The reason the process is difficult - and INTENDED to become IMPOSSIBLE! - is why I do the show. Do you think that avoiding the "Mark of the Beast" will be easy? Or that Big Brother will provide you a sound-bite answer that can be posted here?

You ALREADY will have a HELL of a time dealing with being "in the world" without engaging in "commerce" with fiat U$ dollars. And that is one primary mechanism for "licensing" (not just 'firearms,' but businesses, agriculture...etc.) If you are engaged in the "agriculture business" - will you let them come test, and then kill (because the 'test' will come back positive) your chickens, sheep, goats, and cows? They already forced people Down Under to do all kinds of things "COVID" after you were all effectively disarmed.

And that's just one example. There are MANY more, outside of just 'licensing.'

You claim you "listened" regularly, and yet never heard me specifically address EXACTLY that issue? I do it so often I have trouble believing you weren't "prevaricating" on that claim.

In fact, both Pete Rambo and I spoke "on-air" on EXACTLY the marriage license topic (among many others) just this last Thursday, and in a link I know you allowed Zec to have his little jolly-gasm deleting, and sending that nastygram pointing out that some rules here are just for selective enforcement. Had you allowed anyone here to listen, or even see the link, they'd have a clue about that answer.

FollowingHim said:
I don't think you've got it figured out right yet.
Click to expand...
I think you are deliberately baiting me, knowing that the answer is RIGHT THERE, in His Instruction, and that if I try to give you a complete answer on that basis, Zec will wet his pants deleting it before I hit "Post reply."
 
FollowingHim said:
But travel is a right. Yet you ask permission to travel by plane. [sic - no I don't; I won't fly Crowd Killers. ] I'm probably right to guess you've got a driver's license also, so have asked permission to travel by car.
Click to expand...
FYI: I have a friend, whom I have interviewed many times on CooH, who WAS a "licensed bar attorney," and surrender that license in the State of Texas a number of years ago when he realized the truth and wrote a book on it. ("We the People - Voluntary Bondage")

He has spent the last ten years of his life fighting the "driver's license" issue, particularly, working his way through the appeals process, in order to hopefully, SOMEDAY, get to a precedent-level appeals court and reveal the "commercial nexus" decision. If he lives long enough to prevail, he hopes to establish an enduring national precedent. It's part of his ministry effort.

I know probably a dozen people who have fought the "drivers' license" issue besides him; several have spent time in jail for their principles. I'm thankful for their integrity.

Years ago, and I've told this story "on-air" at length...I had a run-in with a "revenue trap", where a cop set up a speed trap in a Skool-Zone and started issuing tickets before the "yellow light" reduced speed-fines doubled zone was active. I fought it in court, even proved (by going to the City Clerk) that the "officer" was acting under "color of law" because the State-required "oath of office" was NOT on record as it was lawfully required to be. I was sure the "judge" (whose oath I also entered into evidence, and WAS in place) would dismiss the case. The bogus cop (in uniform - to which I objected - he was impersonating an officer with no oath, which IS what the statute says!) testilied that it was after 3:30 PM, and I said it was 3:26, and the yellow light wasn't even on. Guess whose testimony, fraudulent on multiple levels, was all that mattered.

The Point:

Harmon, acting as a attorney who knew more about traffic laws than anyone reading this -- ASSURED me that I would prevail on appeal.

But it would take 2 full years, at least two levels of appeal before I even GOT to the right court, and more time than I would want to invest, and cost thousands of dollars, just for court costs. I prayed about it.

Pick your battles!


One of mine, BTW, isn't just "licenses," and jurisdiction, and even "Who we serve." It's censorship, including His Word.
 
Mark C said:
Pick your battles!
Click to expand...
And that's my point also. I agree we shouldn't need licences for all these things, and like you appreciate those who make it their mission to try and change this whether through the courts or politics. But each of us does not have to fight every battle.

The question is, do licences cede sovereignty, or not? And the answer is found in the range of examples we have discussed.

If it is ok for the majority of people to get a driver's license, while a minority make a stand on principle and don't, and if it's ok to tick the boxes elsewhere to fly a plane or operate a ham radio or buy a gun or run a business, even if these licences also should not exist, then these licences do not actually cede sovereignty to the government, only pay lip service to doing so for appearances sake. If they truly ceded sovereignty they would be wrong to get under any circumstances, and should be everyone's battle. But if they pay lip service to it only they're able to be resorted to for practical reasons, we can choose our battles, and only a few people need to choose this one.

If that is the case, then the same logic applies to marriage licences also. Sovereignty is not truly ceded, so it is also ok for someone to get a marriage license to operate in the world we live in today, if there is a practical benefit in ticking that box, and the battle to obtain that benefit without the license is not a battle that individual believes is theirs to fight.
 
FollowingHim said:
The question is, do licences cede sovereignty, or not? And the answer is found in the range of examples we have discussed.
Click to expand...
I would not phrase it so.

There is one Sovereign, and it's not me. And it's not Big Brother. So taking a license can't 'cede' something that was not mine to begin with.

But Scripture says, "choose this day Whom you will serve." We both know the answer.

I choose, for me and my house, to serve Him. And Him ALONE.




When I see that a license cedes a JURISDICTION to a power "foreign to our Constitution and laws," I will not submit. Others will make their own choice.
 
Mark C said:
When I see that a license cedes a JURISDICTION to a power "foreign to our Constitution and laws," I will not submit.
Click to expand...
And yet you do, in various examples both already admitted by yourself (pilot's licence), and assumed by me and not denied by yourself (driver's license, gun acquisition paperwork, ham radio licence). So even if it's morally aspirational, your position is too strict for even you to actually follow.
 
So...over the rainbow jokes aside. I'm genuinely curious about the financial risks this could cause if the friendship took a turn for the worst. It wouldn't just be about ending a friendship or business partnership. Instead the government would now be involved and hold the power to legally distribute your marital assets as they see fit. What if one friend accumulated more wealth than the other, one gets greedy and files for divorce, and now they're entitled to half.
 
theleastofthese said:
So...over the rainbow jokes aside. I'm genuinely curious about the financial risks this could cause if the friendship took a turn for the worst. It wouldn't just be about ending a friendship or business partnership. Instead the government would now be involved and hold the power to legally distribute your marital assets as they see fit. What if one friend accumulated more wealth than the other, one gets greedy and files for divorce, and now they're entitled to half.
Click to expand...
Oh wow, I hadn’t thought of that. You would need an iron clad pre-nup but those aren’t actually ever iron clad. A judge can just throw those out I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top