How to write your own Covenenant: say No to MARRIAGELiscense

Anything else that doesnt fit into the other categories listed under spiritual food
Site Admin
Posts: 7781

How to write your own Covenenant: say No to MARRIAGELiscense

Post#1 » Mon May 02, 2005 1:34 pm ... rriage.htm


Why do you think you must have the permission of the State to marry? You've been programmed in this as in many other things to control you. Did Abraham and Sarah need permission to marry? Did Adam and Eve need a piece of paper?

Remember the plot of "Braveheart" in which William Wallace and his lover intend to marry and the Lord of the Manor demands his first night with the bride? This establishes his right to the children that issue from the marriage

When you beg a privilege from the "Lord of the Manor" you can expect to give up one or more rights. That's always the quid pro quo of licenses and permits from the State. You feel a need to make it "official?" Why? Isn't your word your bond and seal? Do either of you wish to have an enforcer of the contract? Write a common law contract instead.

Here's a Common Law Contract written by a friend of a friend that he and his bride-to-be wrote to take the place of a marriage license. It will give you some idea of what can be done to keep the State from being a third partner in your relationship.

The Covenant

Between ______________ and __________________

We, ______________ and __________________, being of full age and of sound mind, agree to this covenant as follows.

______________ and __________________do hereby declare that we are both of the same spiritual and religious beliefs forming our intent in this matter.

______________ and __________________covenant that the teachings of the bible are the foundation of this covenant between us.

it is not meant, for any involvement, of any of the governments, either state/s or federal, except as stated herein, for the purpose of the specific performance of this covenant, as the full and complete meeting of minds and spirit without any or anyone else’s, interpretation/distortion.

______________ and __________________covenant that we are following our profound beliefs in our god given rights, to our freedom of religion and our freedom of choice.

This is our mutually agreed upon intent and mutual understanding, for this covenant.

Therefore in accordance with our profound belief in God’s teachings ______________ and __________________ covenant, that:

We, ______________ and __________________, take each other in holy matrimony as husband and wife before God and man

We, ______________ and __________________, are hereby married in conformance with our religious and spiritual beliefs.

We, ______________ and __________________, vow to each other to abide by this covenant of marriage and to the following specific, and agreed upon conditions, as being the best of our hopes, wishes and desires, for each other at this time.

We, ______________ and __________________, covenant that here after, should any dispute arise between us we vow to each other the following:

I, ______________ and __________________shall provide and freely give or retain:

[children] [property] [assets] anything else you want !

In the beginning what ______________ and __________________each has ownership over:

_________ brings to this union



We will share and split 50/50 any item that we the union will produce in our lifetime together

Each person’s inheritance is their OWN. Even in the future, what is given to that person thru family or other means will be theirs, and what they do with it will be up to each individual at that time

We will share the Children EQUALLY in Time or other…

We will be dedicated to our offspring and will take into account what is best for them.

We will jointly pay for their:

Medical needs

School needs
Other needs…

We will not seek THE STATE’S help or intervention in ending this UNION.

We will not ask THE STATE to Jail the other partner for failure to pay. We will take into account what is going on in that individual’s life and said individual will provide to the best of his/hers ability at that time

We are to be treated equally in everything we do together that is




I, ______________ shall provide and freely give or retain:

[children] [property] [assets] anything else you want !

______________ brings to this Union:



We will share and split 50/50 any item that We, ______________ and __________________, will produce in our lifetime together.

Each person’s inheritance is their OWN. Even in the future, what is given to that person thru family or other means will be theirs, what they do with it will be up to each individual at that time

We will share the Children EQUALLY in Time or other…

We will be dedicated to our offspring and will take into account what is best for them.

We will jointly pay for their:

Medical needs

School needs
Other needs…

We will not seek THE STATE/S help or intervention in ending this UNION.

We will not ask THE STATE to Jail the other partner for failure to pay. Must take into account what is going on in that individual’s life and said individual will provide to the best of his/hers ability at that time

Common Law is the ONLY means to enforce this

We are to be treated equally in everything we do together that is

· Materially

· Spiritually

· Civilly

This is constructive notice to all whom it may concern

WE, ______________ and __________________, have jointly made the above and following decisions, finally and conclusively:

Because, as will be established below, it is self evident that, after having made a thorough investigation of the issues regarding the government’s control and /or the establishment of religion.

WE, ______________ and __________________, are intentionally agreeing as follows.

In Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 98 S.Ct. 673 (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court held that marriage is fundamental right that requires strict judicial scrutiny if the State wants to interfere with marriage. The High Court held that substantial interference with that right will therefore not be sustained merely because they are rational

The Government or their Agents are not to be involved in this contract, as defined below, except to express the terms set forth herein under specific instructions, ______________ and __________________, do here intentionally refuse any attempt to, or implication of any, knowing, willing, intentional waiver or taking of any and/or all my/our unalienable god given rights.

Our action is taken as a part of our profound religious beliefs that

· the marriage license is against God’s laws

· a government license to marry is without support in the Bible.

· It is the number that represents the mark of the beast.

· It is also, we comprehend, a violation of the united States Constitution, Amendment 1, the Establishment Clause, in its plain and ordinary clear and concise meaning at the time it was written.

· the Constitution’s declaration of the several States’ Establishment Clause, the constitutional Separation of Church and State.

PURPOSE of this Covenant

To protect both parties and the children that will come of this union for the purpose of restraining Government, its Agents from altering / changing / modifying the clear and concise meaning / plain and ordinary meaning of said documents to the government’s benefit or the benefit of either one. ______________ and __________________, unequally.

In order to control/vacate, individuals rights, for their own undisclosed benefit/s through the deceptive use of a license to marry.

According to our, ______________ and __________________, religious beliefs, a third party in a marriage, is against god’s teachings and is therefore polygamy.

We, ______________ and __________________, in no way agree to statutory control of this covenant. WE, ______________ and __________________, agree only to the constitution’s restraint on the government, our god-given , human and fundamental rights done in full knowledge of the following:

The findings in and by the court orders that they are third parties in fact, if not in name, and that their interests are paramount, unconstitutionally becomes the practice, policy and custom of the judges who follow. E.g:

[ a ] “for many years the law has been that the state is a third party, in fact if not in name, in every divorce action”. Welch v Welch 35 njsup 255

[ b ] ”the state is a party at interest to the marriage contract or status, together with the husband and wife...NY Anonymous v Anonymous 62 nys2d 130 in nj. Duerner v Duerner 142 njeq 759

[ c ] “if parties subsequent to divorce, entered into common law marriage, then nothing either party did or did not do thereafter could dissolve marriage. Thomas v Thomas app 565 p2d 722

[ d ] “where there is a conflict between the interests of the State and the interests of either of the spouses, the interests of the State will be regarded as paramount” Feikert v Feikert 98 njeq 444, Marum v Marum 10misc2d695

Judges are as human as anyone and as likely as others to see the world through their own eyes and find the "collective conscience" remarkably similar to their own. Cf. Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 518-519 (1965) (BLACK, J., dissenting); Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U.S. 337, 350-351 (1969) (BLACK, J., dissenting).

If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being a gift of ALMIGHTY GOD, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave. -- Samuel Adams, 1772


The US Constitution, Declaration of Independence, and the Bill of Rights: are to be understood, in their plain and ordinarily clear and concise meaning of/by the average person, without distortion of their original meaning/s, but with consideration for technical advancements….

1. Such as - a car equals. A horse, for the purpose of the right to travel.

2. Slavery equals being compelled to work or provide the fruits of labor.

At no time whatsoever is this to be construed, that we, ______________ and __________________ , are incompetent in anyway to handle ourselves or the affairs of our children by allegations of parens patria.

We do not individually or jointly waive our rights in any form whatsoever.

If the Government claims that we have waived our rights or act like we have, they must provide proof by clear and convincing evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that we intentionally, knowingly and willfully intended to waive said right in question.

We do not agree jointly, individually or on behalf of Children to any contract of adhesion or implied contract that might be alleged by government agents.

We waive any help from Government unless we jointly ask for it in writing.

We do not intentionally, knowingly and willfully ask for any help in Domestic matters from Government agencies, but will seek help from family or friends that we will identify in this Covenant as being impartial overseers

This matter will never go to Family/Equity [or any similar term or meaning] Court but will be dealt with under Common Law.

The STATE is not a party to this CONTRACT in any way.


Divorce -- independent contract -- court has no authority to modify. --Under Arkansas case law, a court has no authority to modify an independent contract that is made part of a divorce decree.

In case of this marriage Dissolving:

It will be a breaking of this Covenant not getting DIVORCED



1: an official agreement or compact
Example: an international ~ on human rights

2 a: a contract in its entirety or a promise within a contract for the performance or nonperformance of a particular act
Example: a ~ not to sue

: a promise relating to the transfer, possession, or ownership of real property
(see also covenant not to compete restrictive covenant)

b: a warranty in a deed assuring the grantee esp. against defects in title
Example: a ~ for quiet enjoyment
(see also run)

3: a common-law action to recover damages for breach of a contract under seal
(compare assumpsit debt)

Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law ©1996.
Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.
Published under license with Merriam-Webster, Incorporated.

Copyright © 1994-99 FindLaw
Roberts v. Roberts, 81 Cal.App.2d 871
[Civ. No. 15818. Second Dist., Div. Two. Oct. 17, 1947.]


Hardy and Hardy and Carlos S. Hardy for Appellant.

Reynolds, Painter & Cherniss and Louis Miller for Respondent.



[4] In all domestic concerns each state of the Union is to be deemed an independent sovereignty. As such, it is its province and its duty to forbid interference by another state as well as by any foreign power with the status of its own citizens. Unless at least one of the spouses is a resident thereof in good faith, the courts of such sister state or of such foreign power cannot acquire jurisdiction to dissolve the marriage of those who have an established domicile in the state which resents such interference with matters which disturb its social serenity or affect the morals of its inhabitants. [5] Jurisdiction over divorce proceedings of residents of California by the courts of a sister state cannot be conferred by agreement of the litigants. [6] As protector of the morals of her people it is the duty of a court of this commonwealth to prevent the dissolution of a marriage by the decree of a court of another jurisdiction pursuant to the collusion of the spouses. If by surrendering its power it evades the performance of such duty, marriage will ultimately be considered as a formal device and its dissolution freed from legal inhibitions. [7] Not only is a divorce of California [81 Cal.App.2d 880] residents by a court of another state void because of the plaintiff's lack of bona fide residence in the foreign state, but it is void also for lack of the court's jurisdiction over the State of California. [8] This state is a party to every marriage contract of its own residents as well as the guardian of their morals. Not only can the litigants by their collusion not confer jurisdiction upon Nevada courts over themselves but neither can they confer such jurisdiction over this state.

[9] It therefore follows that a judgment of divorce by a court of Nevada without first having pursuant to its own laws acquired

American Gold and Silver Currency is Back. Click here for the Liberty Dollar at a Discount.

This is a crazy world. What can be done? Amazingly, we have been mislead. We have been taught that we can control government by voting. The founder of the Rothschild dynasty, Mayer Amschel Bauer, told the secret of controlling the government of a nation over 200 years ago. He said, "Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws." Get the picture? Your freedom hinges first on the nation's banks and money system. That's why we advocate using the Liberty Dollar, to understand the monetary and banking system. Freedom is connected with Debt Elimination for each individual. Not only does this end personal debt, it places the people first in line as creditors to the National Debt ahead of the banks. They don't wish for you to know this. It has to do with recognizing WHO you really are in A New Beginning: A Practical Course in Miracles. You CAN take back your power and stop volunteering to pay taxes to the collection agency for the BEAST. You can take back that which is yours, always has been yours and use it to pay off your debts. And you can send others to these pages to discover what you are discovering.

© 2004, Allen Aslan Heart / White Eagle Soaring of the Little Shell Pembina Band, a Treaty Tribe of the Ojibwe Nation.

Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Legal Reform News - Family Law - Week ending 5-14-05

Post#2 » Sun May 15, 2005 8:27 pm

Legal Reform News – Family Law – Week ending 5-14-05

This week in Victims-of-Law:


Where Law is Whimsy: The Fantastic World of Liberal Judicial Activism


~It's hard to get justice from our judges and juries


~What's Considered Alimony, and Who Pays Taxes on It? The 3rd Circuit Weighs In

~On Fathers' Rights: What to Do

~KY: 51 parents of truants charged

~NY: Pregnant woman gets 30 days in jail for spat with judge

~GA: Panel to determine child support formula

~NC: Long Waits for Some Family Courts

~WI: Appeals court: Judge can’t dismiss charge against woman

~WI: Services in abuse, neglect cases hit as too slow – Children’s Court judges say families’ needs unmet because of delays


Federal Incentives Make Children Fatherless, by Phyllis Schlafly


~MI: Police Flout U.S. Law, Don't Report Missing Kids

~NV: Girl Stabbed in Mesquite Attack Says She Wants to Stay With Foster Family

~Man abused as a child now fights for justice


Judicial News Highlights --

Attorney News Highlights:

Site Admin
Posts: 7781

Seizing homes due to "illegal" guns...

Post#3 » Sun May 15, 2005 8:31 pm

And this prostitician needs to be tarred and feathered.
If he still thinks STUPID, then he needs to be executed for his treason..

Seizing homes due to "illegal" guns...

And guess who is going to lose their homes in domestic violence situations,
where gun collections or a gun is found? They will steal your kids
posterity under this law. No home. No equity. No ability to pay for
college. No ability to retire. Steal your property and then kill
you. Sounds like the Spanish Inquisition being revisited here.

Everyone should contact this NJ Assemblyman and read him the riot act that
he will be removed from office in a hurry if he moves this bill along. He
took an office to uphold and defend the Constitution of the U.S. and
N.J. Now that he is in office, the constitutional protections don't apply
to us; only to him. If this guy promotes this bill, he violates his oath
of office to uphold and protect the Constitutions. It then becomes
official misconduct, which then becomes an impeachable offense. Jam is
e-mails and make his telephone ring off the hook.

Here's his physical address, e-mail address and telephone number :

Louis Manzo, Assemblyman, (Democrat), Jersey City, N.J.

Address: 107 Westside Avenue, Jersey City, N.J. 07305

Telephone: (201) 309-0770


Bruce Eden, Director, Fathers Rights Association of New Jersey &
Mid-Atlantic Region
DADS (Dads Against Discrimination)--New Jersey & New York Chapters

Here is a guy who not only has lost any sense of reality but he shows how
brainwashed and endeared he has become with BIG government.


WEAPONS OF CHOICE>Bill: Seize homes that contain 'illegal' guns>New Jersey lawmaker wants buildings, cars taken if firearms not ermitted
Posted: May 10, 2005 - 1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Ron Strom

A New Jersey state assemblyman has introduced a bill that
would allow the government to seize the home or car of
anyone whose property contains an illegal firearm.
The legislation, sponsored by Assemblyman Louis Manzo, D-
Jersey City, authorizes the forfeiture of "motor vehicle,
building or premise" if a firearm is found in it that is not
possessed legally per state law - "even if the firearm was not
possessed by the owner of the motor vehicle, building or
premise," states a summary of the bill, A3998. The
legislation was introduced Thursday.

Manzo pointed out his bill extends government power now
reserved for targeting those in possession of illegal drugs.
"If we will do this when someone is caught with illegal drugs,
it only makes sense that we should do it for when someone
has an illegal weapon," Manzo told the Hudson Reporter.
"We currently allow this to take place when illegal drugs are
found. This is to keep a landlord or someone driving the car
from turning a blind eye to the drugs people in an apartment
or passenger in the car is doing," he said. "I think if a
landlord knows there is an illegal gun in the house, he or she
should do something about it. And this may encourage
someone driving a car to keep a person from carrying a gun."
Under the proposed law, an unlicensed machine gun,
handgun, rifle or shotgun are considered illegal.
Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America,
slammed the proposal.
"It looks like [Manzo] is going to have a go at the Second
Amendment and the Fifth Amendment," said Pratt, referring
to constitutional rights involving firearms and private
property. "Way to go - a 'two-fer'!"
Pratt told WND police skullduggery could cause law-abiding
citizens to lose their property.
"So if an officer plants a gun in your home, you lose your
house," he said. "It's the same drill they've been using in the
war against drugs. Now they want to use the same tactics
against people who have a gun for self-defense."
Of the bill, Pratt stated, "I hope it's going nowhere, but you
never know with New Jersey."
Manzo compared the cost of his proposal to a current gun
buyback program.
"This is one more tool that law enforcement can use in an
effort to do away with illegal weapons," he told the Hudson
Reporter. "Unlike the buyback program, this doesn't cost the
taxpayers money to get rid of illegal guns."

Ron Strom is a news editor for

Site Admin
Posts: 7781

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage

Post#4 » Mon Oct 16, 2006 8:04 am

[State_Sovereignty] marriage license and Birth Cert.

In Oregon, they have marriage laws that specifically says they do not recognise coverture. Why? This is a strong principal of marriage- often abused as well, but if one doesn't abuse it- it's a good foundation.

Study the ideals behind Coverture

This is the one that I read- not too different from the one you gave. the only thing I disagree with is- Christians- it applies to everyone regardless of their religion or lack thereof.

5 Reasons Why Christians Should Not Obtain a State Marriage License by Pastor Matt Trewhella
Every year thousands of Christians amble down to their local county courthouse and obtain a marriage license from the State in order to marry their future spouse. They do this unquestioningly. They do it because their pastor has told them to go get one, and besides, "everybody else gets one." This attempts to answer the question - why should we not get one?
1. The definition of a "license" demands that we not obtain one to marry. Black?s Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission, would be illegal." We need to ask ourselves- why should it be illegal to marry without the State?s permission? More importantly, why should we need the State?s permission to participate in something which God instituted (Gen. 2:18-24)? We should not need the State?s permission to marry nor should we grovel before state officials to seek it. What if you apply and the State says "no"? You must understand that the authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a right" to do something. The State cannot grant the right to marry. It is a God-given right.
2. When you marry with a marriage license, you grant the State jurisdiction over your marriage. When you marry with a marriage license, your marriage is a creature of the State. It is a corporation of the State! Therefore, they have jurisdiction over your marriage including the fruit of your marriage. What is the fruit of your marriage? Your children and every piece of property you own. There is plenty of case law in American jurisprudence which declares this to be true. In 1993, parents were upset here in Wisconsin because a test was being administered to their children in the government schools which was very invasive of the family?s privacy. When parents complained, they were shocked by the school bureaucrats who informed them that their children were required to take the test by law and that they would have to take the test because they (the government school) had jurisdiction over their children. When parents asked the bureaucrats what gave them jurisdiction, the bureaucrats answered, "your marriage license and their birth certificates." Judicially,and in increasing fashion, practically, your state marriage license has far-reaching implications.
3. When you marry with a marriage license, you place yourself under a body of law which is immoral. By obtaining a marriage license, you place yourself under the jurisdiction of Family Court which is governed by unbiblical and immoral laws. Under these laws, you can divorce for any reason. Often, the courts side with the spouse who is in rebellion to God, and castigates the spouse who remains faithful by ordering him or her not to speak about the Bible or other matters of faith when present with the children. As a minister, I cannot in good conscience perform a marriage which would place people under this immoral body of laws. I also cannot marry someone with a marriage license because to do so I have to act as an agent of the State! I would have to sign the marriage license, and I would have to mail it into the State. Given the State?s demand to usurp the place of God and family regarding marriage, and given it?s unbiblical, immoral laws to govern marriage, it would be an act of treason for me to do so.
4. The marriage license invades and removes God-given parental authority. When you read the Bible, you see that God intended for children to have their father?s blessing regarding whom they married. Daughters were to be given in marriage by their fathers (Dt. 22:16; Ex. 22:17; I Cor. 7:38). We have a vestige of this in our culture today in that the father takes his daughter to the front of the altar and the minister asks, "Who gives this woman to be married to this man?" Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony. Notice you had to obtain your parents permission. Back then you saw godly government displayed in that the State recognized the parents authority by demanding that the parents permission be obtained. Today, the all-encompassing ungodly State demands that their permission be obtained to marry. By issuing marriage licenses, the State is saying, "You don?t need your parents permission, you need our permission." If parents are opposed to their child?s marrying a certain person and refuse to give their permission, the child can do an end run around the parents authority by obtaining the State?s permission,and marry anyway. This is an invasion and removal of God-given parental authority by the State.
5. When you marry with a marriage license, you are like a polygamist. From the State?s point of view, when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, but you are also marrying the State. The most blatant declaration of this fact that I have ever found is a brochure entitled "With This Ring I Thee Wed." It is found in county courthouses across Ohio where people go to obtain their marriage licenses. It is published by the Ohio State Bar Association. The opening paragraph under the subtitle "Marriage Vows" states, "Actually, when you repeat your marriage vows you enter into a legal contract. There are three parties to that contract.
2. Your husband or wife, as the case may be; and
3. the State of Ohio."
See, the State and the lawyers know that when you marry with a marriage license, you are not just marrying your spouse, you are marrying the State! You are like a polygamist! You are not just making a vow to your spouse, but you are making a vow to the State and your spouse.
You are also giving undue jurisdiction to the State. When Does the State Have Jurisdiction Over a Marriage? God intended the State to have jurisdiction over a marriage for two reasons -
1). in the case of divorce, and
2). when crimes are committed i.e., adultery, bigamy. etc.
Unfortunately, the State now allows divorce for any reason, and it does not prosecute for adultery. In either case, divorce or crime, a marriage license is not necessary for the courts to determine whether a marriage existed or not. What is needed are witnesses. This is why you have a best man and a maid of honor. They should sign the marriage certificate in your family Bible, and the wedding day guest book should be kept. Marriage was instituted by God, therefore it is a God-given right. According to Scripture, it is to be governed by the family, and the State only has jurisdiction in the cases of divorce or crime. History of Marriage Licenses in America George Washington was married without a marriage license. Abraham Lincoln was married without a marriage license.
So, how did we come to this place in America where marriage licenses are issued?
Historically, all the states in America had laws outlawing the marriage of blacks and whites. In the mid-1800?s, certain states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. In other words they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal.
Blacks Law Dictionary points to this historical fact when it defines "marriage license" as, "A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry." "Intermarry" is defined in Black?s Law Dictionary as, "Miscegenation; mixed or interracial marriages." Give the State an inch and they will take a 100 miles (or as one elderly woman once said to me "10,000 miles.") Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license.
In 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws. What Should We Do? Christian couples should not be marrying with State marriage licenses, nor should ministers be marrying people with State marriage licenses. Some have said to me, "If someone is married without a marriage license, then they aren?t really married." Given the fact that states may soon legalize same-sex marriages, we need to ask ourselves, "If a man and a man marry with a State marriage license, and a man and woman marry without a State marriage license - who?s really married? Is it the two men with a marriage license, or the man and woman without a marriage license?
In reality, this contention that people are not really married unless they obtain a marriage license simply reveals how Statist we are in our thinking. We need to think biblically. You should not have to obtain a license from the State to marry someone anymore than you should have to obtain a license from the State to be a parent, which some in academic and legislative circles are currently pushing to be made law.
When I marry a couple, I always buy them a Family Bible which contains birth and death records, and a marriage certificate. We record the marriage in the Family Bible. What?s recorded in a Family Bible will stand up as legal evidence in any court of law in America. Both George Washington and Abraham Lincoln were married without a marriage license. They simply recorded their marriages in their Family Bibles. So should we. (Pastor Trewhella has been marrying couples without marriage licenses for ten years. Many other pastors also refuse to marry couples with State marriage licenses.
This pamphlet is not comprehensive in scope. Rather, the purpose of this pamphlet is to make you think and give you a starting point to do further study of your own. If you would like an audio sermon regarding this matter, just send a gift of at least five dollars in cash to: Mercy Seat Christian Church 10240 W. National Ave. PMB #129 Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53227. (
This pamphlet is available in print form. Click here to order.
marriage license
[1/18/2001 5:11:56 PM] __._,_.___

__,_._,___ the article speeks truth- divorce your state
My ex was from Brazil, I thought I had to have a marriage license
Not one Persons, ever required to prove we were married
All I said was this is my wife, I had the marriage license with me but noone ever asked to see it.
I see no reason to have it and this article is many of the reason not to have one.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest