And yet Christians have largely the same divorce rate as non-Christians (the Amish notwithstanding).
-
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
And yet Christians have largely the same divorce rate as non-Christians (the Amish notwithstanding).
I don’t see the connection.
Thus says every client. We’re not magicians and a Ferrari isn’t a business expense.And I'm sure a good tax firm could find ways to minimise the difference where you live!
The problem is that the more weird stuff you have going on the more expensive your tax prep is…
If a legal marriage saves you 5k, and other options save you 2k with a 1.5k tax prep fee…. Most people don’t have the finances necessary to create the shelters that offer a tax benefit that actually is a net benefit after the CPA is done sorting it out so you don’t get audited.
My CPA has my big cruiser motorbike as a business expense... . I don't want a Ferrari, but a Cybertruck would be practical.
My boss records his fishing license as a business expense and I give him side-eye for it.My CPA has my big cruiser motorbike as a business expense... . I don't want a Ferrari, but a Cybertruck would be practical.
A lot of people are relying on the IRS remaining underfunded and understaffed but if that 80 billion actually comes through…
Well, someone will actually answer my phone calls but I will also be busy responding to a lot more audits and letters.
Haha, more power to the boss. Since I don't live in the USofA it won't affect me if your Infernal Revinue Service gets 80 billion more to cause grief to the locals. The BIR here causes us some grief, but that's life as seek to abide by Romans 13:1-7. Cheers
Nah, somebody tipped me off that a pompous purveyor of pap was playing lackey for Big Brother.
The problem for the ignorant is that crooks masquerading as 'government' claim all KINDS of 'authority' they don't have. But it's the ignorant that sign documents which GIVE them jurisdiction when they were only acting under color of law otherwise.
The far bigger problem is that YHVH has already warned things like "my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge." And that you are bound by contracts you accept, even in ignorance, but especially when you should have known better.
Ignorant, and revoltingly proud of it. For those that aren't drinking the kool-aid - look up the term "adherent contract" or "implied agreement." The other legal term is "knew, or should have known." But, either way, as the Bible puts it, "they are without excuse."
No, in EVERY case at the common law, no spouse can be compelled to testify against another. The 'license' is how that once sacrosanct protection (like other privileged communication) has been UNDERMINED, not strengthened!
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge.
Because you have rejected knowledge,
I also will reject you from being priest for Me;
Because you have forgotten the torah of your God,
I also will forget your children. Hosea 4:6
The Arizona Attorney General a few years back (before they quit having honest elections for 'em) made quite a row when he admitted that those who have a marriage license have ceded authority over their children to the State. He said the quiet part out loud. But no one who understood what had happened was surprised.
For those of you with an actual desire to study, and show yourself approved, don't believe me. (No problem for those who don't seem to believe much of anything they don't see on CNN.) Study the difference between the 'common law' (referenced twice in the Constitution) and what has essentially supplanted it (by agreement, whether the victims know what hit 'em, or not): the UCC, or Uniform Commercial Code, based on Roman Civil Law, which dates back to Babylon (what a coincidence) rather than the English Common Law (see 'Blackstone'.)
BTW: This is true for most English-speaking countries, including for those Down Under, although I am not as familiar with how it has been undermined there, other than the result.
Finally, if somebody comes on claiming there's no such thing as a "Clergy Response Team" or that the IRS really DOES have the right to silence 'churches' which didn't know there were strings attached to making THAT deal with the devil? ['church' incorporation, and IRS privilege] They can call it 'doom porn' all they want. But they shouldn't expect His protection when they "rejected knowledge," and "chose that in which," He said, "I do NOT delight." Many found out the hard was during Covid that - whether they knew about those strings or not - they were there. No wonder they don't preach the Truth anyway...
@Mark C, what @The Revolting Man was pointing out is that in practical reality there is no difference in how you are treated by the legal system in either case. I agree with your theoretical position that signing contracts with the government is a bad idea, and so forth. But @The Revolting Man is right to point out that, in his experience, it makes no actual difference when the rubber hits the road.
Regarding a licenced wife being not compelled to testify against her husband - you only confirmed what @The Revolting Man said, when you said that the government has undermined the protection for all wives by only recognising the licenced ones. The practical effect of this would be that only the licenced ones were recognised - so you said the same thing but somehow seem to think you are in disagreement.
It is good to know the common law, and know your true rights. But when you are living under a tyrannical system, they may not recognise those rights. So both the rights themselves, and the practical reality of the system you actually live under that distorts and ignores those rights, are true and valid pieces of knowledge, and it is important to understand both.
Regarding a licenced wife being not compelled to testify against her husband - you only confirmed what @The Revolting Man said, when you said that the government has undermined the protection for all wives by only recognising the licenced ones. The practical effect of this would be that only the licenced ones were recognised - so you said the same thing but somehow seem to think you are in disagreement.
It is good to know the common law, and know your true rights. But when you are living under a tyrannical system, they may not recognise those rights. So both the rights themselves, and the practical reality of the system you actually live under that distorts and ignores those rights, are true and valid pieces of knowledge, and it is important to understand both.
What contract? What contract is involved in a marriage license? Show me the verbiage.
You can’t, not only because there’s none but because you WILL NEVER, EVER take a concrete stand on anything. You will never give a straight answer to any question. You will never simply convey any piece of knowledge.
There is no such thing as a contract with out clauses. There is no such thing as a way to have an intimate relationship with a woman that insulates you from the government. It doesn’t exist. If you just go on a few dates she can still qualify for domestic violence protections .
I knew a man who got arrested because a girl he had a one night stand with wouldn’t leave his house so he took the front door off the hinges when he went to work. He spent the night in jail and had to take domestic violence classes.
Signing a marriage license does not increase the legal jeopardy at all. That’s a myth and not even a very convincing one. Anyone who has ever signed a marriage license can tell you that there is no contract attached to it.
Many, many, many men can tell you that not having one didn’t shield them from anything. I’ve had it fail both ways, there wasn’t one bit of difference between them.
That is not even REMOTELY what I said. The 'license' SURRENDERS JURISDICTION to one "foreign to our constitution and [common] law."
You - then - "don't have a leg to stand on."
The fact that people have been DUPED into thinking that "license == marriage" means - and you make the case - that they don't understand the DIFFERENCE. If you don't know your Rights - you don't have any.
But if you "trade them for a cup of pottage" - you really don't have them at all.
In a police state, when the Rule of Law has been destroyed, you can argue - and that is what some here are saying - that it doesn't matter.
And the atheist and agnostic would agree, it doesn't.
But if there IS a God, then maybe it pays to obey His Rules, whether the Almighty State believes in Him or not.
Let's try this again.
You live in a police state. Congrats. So eat yer bugs and pray to Mammon.
Who do you serve?
You are missing THE essential point. "If Baal be god, then serve him. But if YHVH be God, then serve Him."
When they bust down your door...force you to take the mark...who are you going to call on? His Word already tells us that if you are asking for help from the wrong places, He will tell you to turn there when the $#@! hits the fan. Which it already has. Most just haven't figured it out yet.
If "practical reality" was all that mattered - NO ONE HERE would dare consider "committing bigamy", or bucking what the Whore Church and Whore State - is there any difference? - say 'the LAW' is.
You want a license from Big Bro? Great. Just don't say He didn't warn you. There is NOT ONE single example of a man of Yah in the Whole BOOK who EVER did.
Finally, a point of agreement. But the Still Bigger Issue is Who we serve!
Yes, they can kill you. Take away your guns. Your children. Your wives. But if you "fail to object in a timely manner," "follow after a mob to do evil," "trade your birthright for a cup of pottage," "take the Mark," "make the deal with the Devil..."
..."deny Him before men,"
..."render unto Caesar" that which belongs to YHVH!!!
...then what?
"Do you not know that you are his slave whom you submit yourself to obey?..." Romans 6:16
I'm not arguing people should get marriage licences @Mark C. I agree they're a bad idea.
But in your above posts you do make a strong, serious claim, that could be relevant to those of us who are saddled with marriage licences entered into before we learnt better:
But in your above posts you do make a strong, serious claim, that could be relevant to those of us who are saddled with marriage licences entered into before we learnt better:
This is interesting and concerning if correct. But as @The Revolting Man said:
Can you verify the above claim with reference to primary sources?
"Now by the POWER VESTED in ME by the State of ...fill-in-the-blank...
I now DECLARE YOU..."
...What? Under who's authority? And with what strings attached? Can they come take your kids, poison poke 'em? Dissolve the 'marriage' THEY licensed? Dispose of the corporate property? Declare wage slavery, at penalty of debtor's prison, for the slave(s)?
(Re: "palimony." Remember Lee Marvin? Landmark case: No license, BUT - he surrendered JURISDICTION! Interestingly, SOME of the 'precedent-setting' in Kalifornia, which had abolished "common law marriage" in 1895, hinged on an alleged oral CONTRACT.
)
Yes, they can do it anyway - if you let them. And you don't have protection from a True Authority, whether you know to rest in it or not.
"Primary source," is a bit of a laugher, Samuel. As for 'jurisdiction, read ANY seizure or usurpation case, such as from the USSC. One of my faves is 'deodan': charge the property. Abuses abound. But property doesn't have the right to "face their accuser," assistance of counsel, witnesses...The conclusion always starts with the status of the
I've written and lectured a LOT on the most obvious recent example, Obergefell. (including IIRC on this website, for those with interest, years ago.) USSC cite is easy to find, this is right up front:
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State."
Nuthin' even remotely related to YHVH or Scripture in there! But the 'terms of art' should leap off the page! (If not, keep reading.) WHO's 'blessing,' again?
I have done interviews and shows/podcasts on this (and related law/Constitution) issues for over a dozen years. The case is disturbing, and offensive to those who cannot believe "they" would ever do such a thing. To even summarize the larger case in a two-hour or so lecture is a daunting challenge (one I've attempted on many occasions and in a continuing series) which often starts with the 'first principles' of the Declaration of Independence, and the grievances against THAT tyrant, KG III.
Read carefully the text of the (actually NEVER properly ratified!) '14th Amendment.' Author L.B. Bork, in his book of the same name, properly calls it "The Red Amendment")
It clearly lays out TWO classes of 'citizenship' (of which you will now find MULTIPLE definitions of the "US" flavor in Black's Law) - the primary, now supplanted "natural born Citizen," and the 'second-class' variety, "of the State wherein they reside."
"Reside" is a 'term of art.' Check Black's for a shock. "Sojourn" is a semi-synonym (in legal parlance) some might find familiar. But it is NOT the same as "domicile." (And note the reference in Black's 6th, at least, to a 'divorce' action.)
Which brings us to the key line in the Red Amendment:
"...AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."
Guess how THAT is established. Actually, a number of ways, most of which the ignorant, as I noted above, have already 'signed up' for. An admission in court will also do, as will "failure to assert" a Right, or statement to the contrary, or even a slip, like "use of a term of art."
"Were you operating this motor vehicle?" A 'yes' is an admission you had BETTER have a license to do so! (And before someone points it out - I did a show on it last week, link below - they can and WILL kill people over that asserted 'jurisdiction'.)
And acceptance of fiat, dishonest weights, in "commerce" will do it, too. And guess what there? (as per this thread) -- there is NO PROMISE of protection by YHVH for participation in what He has already called "abomination."
The key here is legal obfuscation. (You made have heard, "Bury 'em with Bull$#!t." But there won't be a "primary source" tell people outright that they've volunteered into slavery, or even "sold their birthright for a cup of pottage." Well, there IS a Primary Source bit of Torah on THAT part...
I will include a couple of links from interviews I've done that directly relate in just the last month:
Author and lawyer Brent Winters is one of foremost experts on the Common Law that I know of:
“Come out of her, My people” Show ~ Mark Call weekly
This week Mark welcomes back special guest Brent Winters, the Common Lawyer, who has a background and expertise that this first show in a set only begins to explore. Regular listeners understand th…
hebrewnationonline.com
“Come out of her, My people” Show ~ Mark Call weekly
Special guest Brent Winters, the Common Lawyer, again joins Mark to complete the discussion of some elements of the history of the “common law” that are SO important to understand ̵…
hebrewnationonline.com
And EX-attorney (by intent!) Harmon Taylor specializes in bondage "by agreement" - what it means, and how to avoid it. (His book is also apropos, "We the People: Voluntary Bondage") He's been a friend and guest for many years, this his most recent, to discuss the execution in Utah:
“Come out of her, My people” Show ~ Mark Call weekly
Special guest Harmon Taylor, from Legal Reality, returns to join Mark and talk about perhaps the most major escalation of the continuing attempt to divide patriotic Americans, and what is being don…
hebrewnationonline.com
PS> You'll note that the young man executed for the crime of being DECLARED a "sovereign citizen" -- he didn't use the term, but that didn't stop what followed -- kept asking for the cop to "show me the agreement." The cop feigned ignorance; he may, or may not, have been lying. But he'd HAD 'training' on dealing with "DVEs". If this is unsettling - it was for Harmon - you'll hopefully appreciate this show.
Last edited:
So no, you can’t verify with any sources."Now by the POWER VESTED in ME by the State of ...fill-in-the-blank...
I now DECLARE YOU..."
...What? Under who's authority? And with what strings attached? Can they come take your kids, poison poke 'em? Dissolve the 'marriage' THEY licensed? Dispose of the corporate property? Declare wage slavery, at penalty of debtor's prison, for the slave(s)?
(Re: "palimony." Remember Lee Marvin? Landmark case: No license, BUT - he surrendered JURISDICTION! Interestingly, SOME of the 'precedent-setting' in Kalifornia, which had abolished "common law marriage" in 1895, hinged on an alleged oral CONTRACT.
)
Yes, they can do it anyway - if you let them. And you don't have protection from a True Authority, whether you know to rest in it or not.
"Primary source," is a bit of a laugher, Samuel. As for 'jurisdiction, read ANY seizure or usurpation case, such as from the USSC. One of my faves is 'deodan': charge the property. Abuses abound. But property doesn't have the right to "face their accuser," assistance of counsel, witnesses...The conclusion always starts with the status of therube slavevictim. ("a resident of the State of fill-in-the-blank; some status that indicates, servitude to 'another master.' Examples include, but are not limited to, 'resident,' 'taxpayer,' 'licensed FFL holder', etc. They don't usually come RIGHT out and say, "slave." Use of the fiat $$$ is another sure trap. No "signature" on doc even needed.)
I've written and lectured a LOT on the most obvious recent example, Obergefell. (including IIRC on this website, for those with interest, years ago.) USSC cite is easy to find, this is right up front:
"Held: The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State."Nuthin' even remotely related to YHVH or Scripture in there! But the 'terms of art' should leap off the page! (If not, keep reading.)
WHO's 'blessing,' again?
I have done interviews and shows/podcasts on this (and related law/Constitution) issues for over a dozen years. The case is disturbing, and offensive to those who cannot believe "they" would ever do such a thing. To even summarize the larger case in a two-hour or so lecture is a daunting challenge (one I've attempted on many occasions and in a continuing series) which often starts with the 'first principles' of the Declaration of Independence, and the grievances against THAT tyrant, KG III.
Read carefully the text of the (actually NEVER properly ratified!) '14th Amendment.' Author L.B. Bork, in his book of the same name, properly calls it "The Red Amendment")
It clearly lays out TWO classes of 'citizenship' (of which you will now find MULTIPLE definitions of the "US" flavor in Black's Law) - the primary, now supplanted "natural born Citizen," and the 'second-class' variety, "of the State wherein they reside."
"Reside" is a 'term of art.' Check Black's for a shock. "Sojourn" is a semi-synonym (in legal parlance) some might find familiar. But it is NOT the same as "domicile." (And note the reference in Black's 6th, at least, to a 'divorce' action.)
Which brings us to the key line in the Red Amendment:
"...AND subject to the jurisdiction thereof..."
Guess how THAT is established. Actually, a number of ways, most of which the ignorant, as I noted above, have already 'signed up' for. An admission in court will also do, as will "failure to assert" a Right, or statement to the contrary, or even a slip, like "use of a term of art."
"Were you operating this motor vehicle?" A 'yes' is an admission you had BETTER have a license to do so! (And before someone points it out - I did a show on it last week, link below - they can and WILL kill people over that asserted 'jurisdiction'.)
And acceptance of fiat, dishonest weights, in "commerce" will do it, too. And guess what there? (as per this thread) -- there is NO PROMISE of protection by YHVH for participation in what He has already called "abomination."
The key here is legal obfuscation. (You made have heard, "Bury 'em with Bull$#!t." But there won't be a "primary source" tell people outright that they've volunteered into slavery, or even "sold their birthright for a cup of pottage." Well, there IS a Primary Source bit of Torah on THAT part...
I will include a couple of links from interviews I've done that directly relate in just the last month:
Author and lawyer Brent Winters is one of foremost experts on the Common Law that I know of:
“Come out of her, My people” Show ~ Mark Call weekly
This week Mark welcomes back special guest Brent Winters, the Common Lawyer, who has a background and expertise that this first show in a set only begins to explore. Regular listeners understand th…
“Come out of her, My people” Show ~ Mark Call weekly
Special guest Brent Winters, the Common Lawyer, again joins Mark to complete the discussion of some elements of the history of the “common law” that are SO important to understand ̵…
And EX-attorney (by intent!) Harmon Taylor specializes in bondage "by agreement" - what it means, and how to avoid it. (His book is also apropos, "We the People: Voluntary Bondage") He's been a friend and guest for many years, this his most recent, to discuss the execution in Utah:
“Come out of her, My people” Show ~ Mark Call weekly
Special guest Harmon Taylor, from Legal Reality, returns to join Mark and talk about perhaps the most major escalation of the continuing attempt to divide patriotic Americans, and what is being don…
PS> You'll note that the young man executed for the crime of being DECLARED a "sovereign citizen" -- he didn't use the term, but that didn't stop what followed -- kept asking for the cop to "show me the agreement." The cop feigned ignorance; he may, or may not, have been lying. But he'd HAD 'training' on dealing with "DVEs". If this is unsettling - it was for Harmon - you'll hopefully appreciate this show.
Sam Speaks
Member
Ok, wait a second. This makes it look to me like there could be a tax incentive to getting legally married and legally divorced over just being legally married and having undocumented subsequent wives.
Suppose a man has 5 wives and children with each. Would it be practical for him to legally marry and then legally "divorce" each one of them in succession? After all, there is no crime in sleeping with your "ex wife" on a regular basis.
Could he pay tax deductible alimony for each ex wife and then remain legally married to the last one so that he gets to file taxes as a married man?
btw, I'm talking about in the US.
Wouldn't each wife receiving that alimony have to file it as income, so the total household taxable income remains the same?
Of course, this might drop taxes if it was designed to keep everyone individually in a lower tax bracket. But there are other more standard and probably much simpler ways of spreading the income between multiple family members for that purpose, and anyone with a home business already does that. This seems a terribly complex way of achieving the same result.
Sam Speaks
Member
I honestly don't know if they would have to pay taxes on it or not. But they would be living as "single mothers" so they would probably get some tax break there. But that may be a wash because they would be "single mothers" anyway.
It could probably get the man in a lower tax bracket, but he would also be giving up having the tax deductions of having the children under his roof, unless he is still living with his "divorced" wives.
I really don't know these answers. I just say dollar signs flash when I saw that alimony was tax deductible. Imagine getting a tax break for alimony and still being able to claim the children as tax deductible dependents. And it is all within the system, since multiple wives are not recognized, but I can get all the divorces I want and nobody bats an eye.
Sam Speaks
Member
...And if you want to be accepted in church, just tell them you have been divorced five times but are on speaking terms with all of them because they are Christians too. Then talk about all the beautiful children you have with each of them. If you are "single again" at the time, then you might even be able to find your next wife in the same church.