Go Back   Club Conspiracy Forums > General Conspiracy Discussion > Social Engineering
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 08-18-2005, 06:32 PM
rushdoony rushdoony is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 556
Default Desecrating Marriage


Desecrating Marriage

A marriage license means that the state claims ownership of your relationship, that you have to go to the political mob to get permission to wed, (and in some places to make love) to end the union and you have to accept their terms, which they can change at any time--how degrading. Why should adults have to go to a paternalistic political mob to get permission to make love and get permission from a judge you don't even know to end the relationship and allow that a judge who doesn't know you or your children to determine the future of your children?
Licensing sexual acts is intolerably paternalistic, its licensing people like cattle for breeding purposes. The state coerces couples into signing a marriage license which signs over decision making power over the terms of your relationships, how it may be ended and who gets custody of the children after divorce. Its like the devil getting you to sign over your firstborn, only the devil usually offers you something in return to get your consent, the state offers you nothing and threatens you with violence (arrest for cohabitation or fornication) if you don't sign it -- consent means nothing to the statists and the anti-sex cultists who are more evil than the devil.
The immorality of coercing people into a system where they are rewarded or punished for sexual behavior as determined by political dictators is intolerably degrading. The concept of domestic partnership leads toward a system where people are coerced or even required to register all types of sexual or personal relationships and submit themselves to political judges, it is Orwellian and intolerable, the only solution is for the state to get out of licensing and interfering in personal relationships altogether.
Submitting to a political licensing of marriage violates the sanctity of marriage -- its against our religion. Because a license is the granting of permission by the owner to allow someone to use what is theirs under their conditions. Supporting political marriage licensing is absolutely morally wrong, it's not just a choice involving the couple, accepting the license imposes obligations on other people at the point of a gun and allows politicians to arbitrarily change the rules of marriage, and it allows political judges decisions over custody of the children after divorce.
The state has claimed ownership of marriage (which pre-dates the state) as a monopoly intellectual property, the materialistic state has substituted itself for the church, people are required to perform the political-religious rituals of going to the county clerk's office and getting a license, the courthouse has become the new church, the clerk is the minister, the license is the blessing, and the state has become the religion that sanctions it. Politicians have desecrated the wedding ceremony by inserting the blasphemous phrase 'with the power vested in me by the state." When couples get married in a civil ceremony they are in effect marrying the state, as the state becomes their partner and the judge over their relationship terms and behavior. They are not free to simply decide to end their marriage on their own, they have to get the state's permission to end it, and they are not free to set their own terms for the relationship and its ending including having the full right to make decisions about child custody on their own, which seems to me, that they are more married to the state than they are to each other -- that's what makes it degrading and immoral. What a disgusting form of adultery, a constant betrayal of each other that never allows them sovereignty as a couple with no other people or entities adulterating their union. When a minister performs the ceremony and declares that his power is vested in him by the state rather than by Theius (god) he is committing blasphemy and declaring his religious allegiance to be with the materialist state, and the couple are consecrating their union to a system of materialism that has set itself up as a religious cult presuming to have the authority over Theius (god). At their wedding, Libertarians(1) Sharon and Jimmy Harris said they "insisted that the minister leave out the words 'with the power vested in me by the state'."
State cultists have incorporated political licensing into their religion calling it moral to desecrate marriage, extort benefits from of taxpayers, impose obligations on businesses and sign over the terms of your relationship and children to the political mob, while calling freedom, natural love and personal responsibility that imposes no obligations on others to be immoral, branding it with slander like "fornication." This is just a scheme to control personal relationships and prostitute everyone to the state through taxes and mandatory benefits which are to be used to manipulate the relationship for political reasons.
For people who believe in traditional marriage for religious reasons, that's fine for them have a certified commitment, but it's wrong to impose that requirement on others and to make it so that licensed marriage is presumed to be the only "legal" sexual relationship -- its to impose their religion on others.
Marriage is just one type of relationship, there are good marriages and bad marriages, a license doesn't make it good or right, what makes a marriage real is what's in the hearts of the lovers, the morality of their behavior and their personal commitment based on trust. A license doesn't guarantee any of that.
Even though the state dictates the terms of marriage, divorce and custody, people can't really choose their own definition of marriage or get their personal union contracts effectively enforced nor can they get protection against matrimonial transgressions.
Andrew Sullivan, an advocate of calling perverse same-sex partnerships "marriage," writes, "Marriage is a formal, public institution that only the government can grant."
By taking the most personal, intimate, private relationship and coercing people into signing away its integrity, the political manipulators declare what is most private and personal to be yet another public institution. A public institution? How did the personal love and private sexual activity of a couple get to be "a public institution?" If marriage is public then the married people should be able to have intercourse in public. A public institution belongs to everyone and no one. A public institution is a piece of meat thrown to the wolves, where every avaricious group who has an interest in the institution lobbies, bribes, coerces and fights to seize control of that institution and remake it to serve their own selfish interests. Marriage as a public institution is a thieving prostitute thrown to the political dogs to be torn apart in the streets like Jezebel.
Kurt A. Jaeger wrote(2) that "family law [is] very lucrative [for lawyers] to pit two people against each other who already have problems relating. The carrots and sticks are marital assets and children. Typically, a fragmenting family loses all liquidity and the equity in their home to lawyers who represent their own interests rather than their clients. And more often than not, one parent has their relationship with their children severely restricted. A relationship that was intact until outside interference was introduced via "the state." An increasing number of psychologists, court personnel, mediators, legal assistants, and others with vested interests gain, while the American family becomes an endangered species. Family law and public recognition of marriage exists in the U.S. for no other reason than to facilitate the immensely profitable divorce industry."
The idea that the natural and sacred union of a man and woman is granted by a mob of thieves, murderers and terrorists who invade and usurp every institution and activity in existence in order to control it to enslave the people is yet another act of war against the human family. Marriage has existed as the natural mating relationship between males and females long before the first bandits enslaved their victims in the political gang known as the state, and marriage will long out live the evil, misguided institution of the nation-state.
When couples ask the state for permission to love and be wed, they sell themselves, their future children and the integrity of their family to the devil by bringing the state into their relationship. By determining that marriage contracts are not really contracts and don't mean what they say or what is implied according to centuries of tradition, but is instead a permissive license, the state rules that a marriage does not belong to the man and woman, it belongs to the state, that their marriage is not private, its a public institution, owned by the state who may change its terms, and even its definition at their whim. The political mob now threatens to betray everything that marriage is, which is based on the natural union of a man and woman, established through thousands of generations of tradition, and pervert to the institution into an entitlement for homosodomites to use as a weapon of war to undermine the family.
The UN declaration on the rights of women prescribes equality in the roles of spouses in marriage and the home. How they intend to enforce that is unclear, though, through indoctrination and socialist programs, states could began imposing regulations on private behavior in the home, such threats have already been made.
What they call "lawful marriage" is against our religion and is immoral because it's selling out, betraying each other, Theius and our children over to the heathenistic cult of the state. Political marriage licensing is a desecration of the sacred union, a betrayal of your vows, a surrender of your rights and an extorted entitlement imposed on other people. Only by maintaining sovereign ownership and control your own lives, responsibilities and relationships can you protect your rights. Private contractual marriages based on the terms of the couple and enforced through private neutral courts provide the best protection for the institution, and its terms could not be changed by anyone without the couple's permission. Couples would then not be betrayed by politicians who had changed the terms of their contract without their consent.
The vicious fraud is that, as the state coerces people to get married, the political mob betrays the contract formed between the spouses by changing the rules and even negating the terms and conditions of marriage that have been established on traditions created through thousands of years. The political licensing of marriage is not only a sacrilege to the union, it is a betrayal of each other and your children. The state is a bastard, it is entirely illegitimate and cannot be tolerated. It is absolutely morally wrong to prostitute yourselves to the state. Marriage is a natural relationship that exists between a man and woman who make a commitment to each other according to the consensual terms of their union within their chosen community and which is formalized by their families, the larger community and there chosen religious institution. Consensual society should and must discriminate in favor of marriage, legitimate marriage, based on the life long commitment of one man and one woman to each other and their potential children under the legitimate personal contract, a covenant, between themselves, their families and society and their deity. Under legitimate government, in consensual society, contracts are enforced, so marriage contracts would remain unadulterated as though it were carved in stone, because no one would have the authority to change what a man and woman made together. The traditional Christian marriage declares: "What God hath joined together let no man put asunder." But politicians do just that, they take the sacred union and change its terms at their whim and even threaten to pervert it into institutionalized sin. If you're a person of religious faith and you believe that marriage is an institution created by Theius (god) which cannot be compromised by worldly institutions, then it must be considered against your religion to betray that covenant to a political body whose declared intent is to define that relationship according to their own ever changing political whims.

--Libertocracy Association; Aug. 11, 2001 (9/9/5001) by Gregory Flanagan

This site www.libertocracy.com has been
axed from the internet. The whole site is gone.
Greg Flanagans email and phone disconnected.
Wonder what happened? Rushdoony

Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New York Times wrong again-This time its about marriage cuda Opinions 0 01-22-2007 01:50 PM
Conspiracy of the State Marriage License rushdoony Social Engineering 0 07-18-2005 03:49 PM


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:49 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.12
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.