This topic came up in another thread about women, and I've decided to post my comments and those of Aryan Lord here for consideration...
We need to return to "common law" marriages. That state-issued license is the legal agreement that causes so many problems, because the state becomes a THIRD PARTY in your marriage, and can step in and dictate terms and conditions. This has been established in several court cases.
This is where courts get their authority and legal basis for seizing your children if you're homeschooling them, and teaching them the bible, or racism, or anti-government ideas.
If you get a Black's Law Dictionary and look up all the terms related to marriage and licenses, and cross-reference the terms within the definitions, you discover that the marriage license is ONLY for marriages between PEOPLE OF DIFFERENT RACES. Which makes sense, because you would need the state's permission to do something which runs counter to God's Law and natural law.
But somewhere along the line, "they" told us that "everyone has to get a marriage license, it's the law" and the churches, media, etc. all parrot the same line.
How did people marry before the creation of the state?
Write out your own marriage covenant and sign it in the presence of witnesses. If a church is part of your belief system, do it in front of a minister and witnesses (who does not have a 501-c3 tax exempt government-approved church) and record it in the family bible. That's how our people did it long before the kosher state came along.
How then would irreconcilable marriage disputes be adjudicated? In front of a "judge." In our non-kosher future, a judge will be a respected elder of the community who will act as a mediator, and in whom the parties have agreed to abide by his decision. He will not be a state/government employee. I know of rural Christian homesteading communities that are already settling disputes this way rather than go before a court.
Here's what Aryan Lord had to add:
This is a fascinating and thought provoking post.
You are perfectly correct, marriage as a concept has been hijacked by the christian church and then the state as a means of imposing controls upon the Aryan populations.
Our ancient Germanic ancestors did not require pieces of paper signed by a ZOG state or jew[christian] priest.
The `proof of the pudding` was in the eating. All Aryo-Germanic man had to do was take a wife; he required no ceremony or framed certificate.
The whole enterprise has become a nice little money spinner for the clergy and anyone else `licenced` to perform weddings.
It is an entirely semitic way of thinking and behaving.
Aryan man should reject formal marriage as an `institution` and embrace the `common law` marriage of his ancestors.
Indeed this was the custom in England prior to 1754 with the introduction of Hardwick`s Marriage Act which made all non-church sanctioned marriages `illegal`.
I say reject this jewish practice and embrace the ways of your ancestors.
-AM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the state have a say in a common law marriage if it goes south? As far as I know (and I barely escaped this), the state recognizes it's authority over a CL marriage after it has endured a certain number of years.
As racially aware Aryans we must be careful to avoid any contact with the legal system of the enemy, whether this be allowing one`s offspring to be edjewcated by the state or having cohabitations licenced by the state.
We as Aryan revolutionaries reject the ZOG state and all its laws, recognising that it is an alien occupational power.
Indeed I would have to question the genuineness of any Aryanist who seeks `validation` by the state in any way.
We must start living Aryan lives and build Aryan communities and that has to start in the home.
What Adamic Man is suggesting is in my opinion the way forward.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the state have a say in a common law marriage if it goes south? As far as I know (and I barely escaped this), the state recognizes it's authority over a CL marriage after it has endured a certain number of years.
I believe that over the years, something has evolved which is called a Common Law Marriage, which is some kind of quasi-marriage that still involves the state, and which is now defined as a legal term, which is why I put it in capitals.
What I'm talking about is the older use of the term, perhaps I should more rightly refer to it as a MARRIAGE COVENANT. I think that the state has now defined a Common Law Marriage for the purposes of keeping some control while giving the illusion that you haven't signed a contract with them.
I'm just talking about two people covenanting to live together in a bond of marriage, without any recognition from the state. For some, it may not be workable now, plus the state likes to dangle incentives in front of your nose like lower IRS tax rates for married couples if you would just pretty please get a state-issued license.
I'm putting it out there as a concept to be aware of, for the future, after whatever changes occur and we have to rebuild white society from the ground up.
-AM
I believe that over the years, something has evolved which is called a Common Law Marriage, which is some kind of quasi-marriage that still involves the state, and which is now defined as a legal term, which is why I put it in capitals.
I think it depends on the State where you live.
plus the state likes to dangle incentives in front of your nose like lower IRS tax rates for married couples if you would just pretty please get a state-issued license.
And social security survivor benefits. Also, if you have health insurance thru your employer, it won't cover your wife without a gov't sanctioned marriage.