Marriage Relationship Cake Topper
“I now pronounce you Batman and Cat-wife”
[courtesy Google Images]
A man named “John” heard me talking on a recent radio show about my divorce in A.D. 1983. He contacted me by email to discuss his own, current divorce predicament and see if I could offer any insights. Here’s my response:
Hi John,
Marriage and divorce were a primary focus of my life in the 1980s and early 1990s. My A.D. 1983 divorce nearly killed me. Really. I lost everything but my pulse. Put me in a depression that lasted five years. Three years going to bottom; two more years coming back up to a point where I could fake being normal. I never really got over it. But I learned to accept it, live with it. I don’t think about much today.
My point is that divorce issues are no longer fresh in my mind and I no longer have much to say about it.
I will say this: After my divorce in A.D. 1983, I began to study the relevant law intently, obsessively. I learned a lot, but I never learned enough.
However, I knew a man in the 1990s who also went through divorce and studied that affliction in greater depth then I had. Never actually met the man. Corresponded by letters and some phone calls. I haven’t talked to him in 20 years. I don’t recall his name. But his research indicated that the modern “marriage” is not a Godly “marriage” wherein one man and one woman become one flesh. In other words, a Godly marriage includes only two earthly entities: you and your spouse (one man and one woman) that become “one flesh” that was real, not a fiction.
My friend’s research indicated that a modern, state-licensed “marriage” is not Godly because it includes three earthly entities: each of the two spouses and the state. If that research was correct, when you and your wife took out a state license to get “married,” you didn’t get a real, Godly, two-party “marriage” that should last “til death do we part”–you got a three-party “marriage relationship“.
When you take the “marriage license,” you don’t get a real, Godly “marriage” (Holy Wedlock) you get a “marriage relationship“.
All relationships are legal fictions.
It’s a maxim of law that “a fiction can do no harm.”
Being a legal fiction, a marriage relationship can be terminated at any time by any party to that relationship who simply claims to be somehow harmed by the relationship/fiction.
Result? No-fault divorces. If any party to a marriage relationship (legal fiction) simply says “this is no fun,” the relationship between the spouses can be legally dissolved.
It’s not necessary that one of the other parties cause the harm. The maxim of law is a “fiction can do no harm”. If the fiction–the marriage relationship, itself, (but not necessarily the other spouse) causes any perceived harm, the fiction can be terminated if any party demands termination. If any party to the “marriage relationship” simply tires of being supposedly “married,” the “marriage relationship” can be terminated.
More, because the modern, licensed, three-party relationship includes the “state,” it’s like a triangle with you at one vertex, your spouse at the second vertex, and the state at the third vertex. This hypothetical triangle has three “line segments” connecting the three vertices. When you get a divorce, the line segment between you and your spouse is broken, but the two line segments between you and the state and your spouse and the state remain intact and the “state” continues to have standing to exert power and control over you and over your former spouse.
The man I knew in the 1990s actually sued to be divorced from the “state”. I don’t know what happened to him. I heard that a judge told him privately that he was right, but I don’t know that he ever successfully “divorced” the “state”.
Incidentally, homosexuals are entitled to the same phony-baloney licensed “marriage relationship” as the rest of us received if they take out a state-issued marriage (relationship) license. That’s why the homosexual march to get the right to be “married” (actually, to enter into a “marriage relationship”) has been virtually unstoppable. The queers aren’t getting a real, Godly marriage–but, then, neither are the heterosexuals. The queers are every bit as entitled to pretend they’re “married” as the rest of us.
In fact, some animal-lovers are already “barking” for the right to “marry” their pets. You watch and see. It’s just a matter of time before the state grants “animal-lovers” the right to enter in a state-licensed “marriage (relationship) license” to shack up with their dogs or cats. Polygamy is another “marriage relationship” that will probably soon be “legal” in “this state”.
The “marriage (relationship) license” is probably the legal foundation for homosexual, inter-species, and polygamist “marriage relationships”. None of these “relationships” will ever be recognized by God as “real” but if you got the money to pay for a license, those “marriage relationships” will probably be recognized by the this state.
None of these state-licensed “marriage relationships” are real. All are legal fictions. Fictions are lies. In your reading of the Bible, you must’ve seen who is the “father of all lies”. The homosexuals will never “be married in the eyes of God,” but they are absolutely entitled to engage in the same legal fictions “in this state” as the heterosexuals.
If my friend’s research and conclusions were generally valid (and I still believe they were), when I thought I was “married” to my wife, I was only engaged in a fictional, pretend “marriage relationship”. I was essentially licensed by the state to “shack up” with my “girl friend”. But, while I thought the “marriage” was real, it was apparently only afiction.
It was like me dressing up like Batman and my wife dressing up like Catwoman. The state licensed us to play “Batman and Catwoman”. But, because our little “game” was based on a fictional, three-party “marriagerelationship,” it could do no harm. Therefore, whenever my spouse got bored with playing “Catwoman,” she could quit the game and move on to play “Wonderwoman” with someone else–or all by herself, if that’s what she wanted to do.
You can judge for yourself whether my friend’s research seems to “fit” the facts your alleged “marriage relationship” and subsequent divorce.
If my friend’s research was right, by taking a state-issued marriage license you and your spouse may have never been truly “married” in the first place–you may have been just “playing house”.
I can’t say that despite your marriage license, that you and your spouse weren’t married in the eyes of God. WhetherGod ignored your “marriage (relationship) license” and recognized you and your spouse as truly “married” and “one flesh” (not a fiction) is unknown to me. Maybe He makes exceptions for people’s ignorance so long as they are well-intentioned.
But it certainly appears that the third party to your marriage relationship–the “state“–never recognized you and your spouse as really “married” in the sense of Holy Wedlock. The state only recognized you and your spouse as engaged in a three-party “marriage relationship”–a legal fiction, a lie, that could be terminated any time your spouse decided to quit “playing” Catwoman and demanded her right to instead play Wonderwoman.
Your “marriage relationship” was actually a “menage a trois“– in modern terms, a “threesome”. You, your wife and the state. Every time you lay down at night with your wife, the state was also there in bed with you: silent, unseen, unnoticed but watching for the moment when your spouse decided to quit the game so she could play “Wonderwoman”–or you decided to quit playing Batman so you could play “Superman” with somebody else.
.
• Incidentally, if the previous analysis is roughly correct, what would be the status of childrenborn into a fictional, marriage relationship? Would they all be deemed to be “illegitimate“? If your parents took out a state-issued “marriage (relationship) license,” and you were born as a product of that “relationship,” are youdeemed by government to be “legitimate” or “illegitimate”? Insofar as you use your state-issued Birth Certificate, does that use authorize the state to presume you were born “illegitimate” (outside Holy Wedlock)?
What about me? If my parents took out a state-issued “marriage (relationship) license,” before I was born, am I deemed to be legitimate or illegitimate?
Historically, questions of legitimacy could determine whether a child could grow up with or without certain rights such as the right to inherit his parent’s estate. If the child was legitimate, he could inherit. If he was not legitimate, he might not be able to inherit.
If I understand correctly, somewhere in the 1930s or 1940s, the government declared that birth certificates would no longer indicate if the child was born “legitimate” (to parents who were “married” in “two-become-one-flesh” Holy Wedlock)–or “illegitimate” (born to parents who had “shacked up” one night, but weren’t actually married in Holy Wedlock).
It was argued that by eliminating the legitimacy/illegitimacy item on the birth certificate, the government was sparing the illegitimate children from the “stain” of embarrassment and lost rights.
But I wonder.
If you get a state-issued marriage (relationship) license, do you and your spouse have only a fictional “marriage relationship”? Does that mean that you and your spouse did not enter into “Holy Wedlock”? Does it follow that allchildren of a state-licensed “marriage relationships” are deemed “illegitimate” and subject to a loss of rights? Insofar as the vast majority of children are now born to parents who took out a state marriage (relationship) license, does the state presume that anyone who has a state-issued birth certificate is “illegitimate” and therefore of a diminished legal stature?
If you’re born to parents who were not truly “married” (Holy Wedlock, only two earthly parties), when your parents die, do you have standing at law to inherit? Or, being illegitimate, do you only (at best) have standing in equity to inherit your parents’ estates? If your standing to inherit is only in equity, does that allow the state (or its BFFs, the licensed attorneys) to steal part of your parents’ estates?
Thanks to state-issued marriage (relationship) licenses, does the state presume itself to be the “guardian” of all children who issue from that “marriage relationship”?
If the offspring of “marriage relationships” are deemed illegitimate as children, do they remain “illegitimate” as adults? If so, can the state presume itself, its courts and its lawyers to even act in the capacity of “guardians” for adults? Does this presumed capacity as “guardian” allow the state to commit acts and exert powers against the “adults” that the adults regard as wrongful or unconstitutional?
Could it be that–when the state declared that it would no longer identify children as being born “legitimate” or “illegitimate” on their birth certificates–the real purpose was not to protect the minority of illegitimate children from subsequent shame or loss of rights, but rather to conceal from the vast majority of children that (thanks to their parents’ state-licensed, marriage relationships) that they were all now presumed to be illegitimate (born into a legal fiction rather than Holy Wedlock) and therefore with less rights than they might otherwise have had?
Do you follow what I’m saying?
Could it be that the state stopped identifying “illegitimate” children on the state-issued birth certificates because doing so would ultimately reveal that all of the children of state-licensed “marriage relationships” would be deemed to beillegitimate? Could it be that the loss of the legitimate/illegitimate info on the state-issued birth certificate was not intended to protect the illegitimate minority, but instead to help conceal the state’s scheme deprive the vast majority of people of some of their rights?
Inquiring minds wanna know.
.
• The previous comments are virtually all speculation. Take ’em all with salt. They might be more or less true. They might be completely false. But, true or false, those comments are at least intriguing. Plus, true or false, that’s about all I know or suspect about modern marriage relationships.
God bless you and yours.
Al
