The U.S. Constitution (USC) Sucks, The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) is Better: Part 4 of an Open Debate—The NAC’s Marriage Sections


The Right to Travel

Before I get into the marriage sections, I want to address Section 3 of Article II, which says, in part:

…the people of each State shall have free ingress and regress to and from any other State, and to and from other countries, by any mode of conveyance whatsoever in which they desire to exercise their right to travel, without abridgment, regulation, restriction or license…

The right of travel is nearly non-existent in this country under the USC, though I happen to know a guy who has continually won in the courts each time the cops pull him over and find that he doesn’t have a license, but is merely traveling, and the cops now, when they pull him over, recognize him and just tell him to keep on traveling.  But that is in my area.  In your area, they may be quite adamant that there is not, nor ever was, any right to travel, but under the original Articles of Confederation, it was written right into it, though not as expressly as the NAC has it.  Therefore, the NAC is orders of magnitude better than the original Articles. Under the NAC, people are going to finally know what real freedom feels like…

NAC Article III. Section 1.

Neither the united States in Congress assembled, nor any State of this Confederacy, shall have power to abridge, regulate, or license, a man’s right to take a wife, for men shall always be free to marry wives, without restriction and without permission from ecclesiastical or secular authorities, but, for the resulting marriage, whether confarreatio, or coemptio in manum, or usus, or any other form, with or without manus, and with or without a vow, every State shall issue certificates upon presentment of statements or affidavits by the man and his wife, which shall certify the marriage and its form, and such certificates, if available, shall be used in all marriage controversies at law, which controversies shall be judged according to the marriage form and the covenants, contracts, bonds, obligations, oaths, vows, performances, connections, associations or expectations that were made and entered into by the persons involved.

This section ought to be considered a restoration, for in the beginning marriage was ordained unto man (and not unto woman) by God:

and again

verily I say unto you

that whoso forbiddeth to marry is not ordained of God

for marriage is ordained of God unto man [not woman]

wherefore

it is lawful that he [man] should have one wife

and they twain shall be one flesh

and all this that the earth might answer the end of its creation

and that it might be filled with the measure of man

according to his creation before the world was made

(D&C 49:15-17)

So, at the beginning of time, God gave to man a right to take a wife.  He (man) could do it under his own power and authority.  He didn’t need God’s permission, nor permission from other men, or from governments or anything.  This authority and right to take a wife was in him alone.

(Now, I will not explain in this post exactly what marriage is, and although I have written on this blog much about marriage, I have yet to tell what it is, and for those of you who have read my previous writings, don’t think you know what I teach from my previous writings, because these teachings are not there, but are yet to be published…)

Anyway, Section 1 restores this right and power and authority, which was had from the very beginning.  Another thing it restores is the power of manusManus existed from the beginning and was the only form of marriage practiced by man from the start.  Manus was the form given to men by God.  Later on, a new form, developed by man, came forth, which was marriage without manus.  As man had a right to marriage, he also had a right to the form of marriage he chose, therefore with or without manus were equally valid forms of marriage.  Up until quite recently, almost all marriage was assumed to be with manus, but there has been a radical shift in the laws and in the interpretations of the judges, and now all marriage is assumed to be without manus.  The LDS temple ceremony, however, is manus marriage, keeping the ancient form.  Thus, there is a huge contradiction, because the temple sealing is with manus but the civil portion of the ceremony is considered to be without manus.

Also anciently, all marriage was without a vow*, and all marriage was considered to be without a vow.  Taking a wife without a vow was the form of marriage God gave to man at the beginning, but, as man had a right, he later added a form of marriage with a vow.  When a man takes a wife with a vow, he vows to [fill in the blank].  When a man takes a wife without a vow, he doesn’t promise a thing.  At some point in history, marriage with vows became the norm and every marriage was considered, and still is, to be entered into with a vow (by the man).  Again, the LDS temple ceremony keeps the ancient form of marriage, and thus all temple marriage sealings are entered into by the man without a vow, yet the civil law considers that marriage as made with a vow (of monogamy, specifically) anyway.

The disharmony between the LDS temple ceremony and the civil law comes because the LDS Church requires a marriage license from the State before they will marry or seal people in the temple.  The marriage license is marriage by privilege, without manus and with an (assumed and unstated) vow (of monogamy).

The NAC, then, restores the right to marry, as well as the ancient forms of with manus and without a vow, but also keeps the more recent forms of without manus and with a vow.  In other words, men are given their full rights in marriage, and can decide what is best for them, or which form of marriage is best for them to enter into.  Currently, men do not have such a choice, but must choose only one form: without manus and with a vow.

(* The Nephites, although commanded by God not to take more than one wife, did not marry with a vow.  Those Nephites who engaged in polygamy broke God’s commandment, but did not commit adultery.)

No marriage license

The NAC forbids marriage licenses for marriage by right.  Notice that I wrote “marriage by right.”  The NAC does not prohibit “marriage by privilege.”  A marriage license is a marriage privilege, granted by the State.  It gives one permission to do something that otherwise would be illegal to do.  It can be granted and it can be revoked.  If a man wants to marry by privilege, he may still do so under the NAC, by paying the State some money and getting a marriage license.  But if he wants to marry by right, he needs no permission or license from any entity.  Perhaps you might wonder, “Why in the world would a man choose to marry by privilege if he can marry by right?”  Well, if the woman he wants to marry refuses to marry him unless he gets a marriage license (marriage by privilege) and he really wants this woman, he might do that.  Marriage by privilege, of course, means that you marry without manus and with a vow, and also that the State is the arbitrator in the case of divorce, etc.  So, the NAC will still allow marriage licenses.

The State certifies

Another restoration from the very beginning is the role of the State as certifying agent.  That’s right, in the very beginning, according to my understanding, the man entered into a marriage with manus and without a vow and whatever government he was under acknowledged his marriage as validly performed under his own authority.  The governments of the world, in the ancient world, were servants of the men in this regard.  They recognized that all men had power and authority in and of themselves from the very beginning to marry wives and recognized all such marriages as marriages.  They never did as States do today and refused to recognize this or that marriage because there was no marriage license.  Such nonsense, committed by the governments of today, is a usurpation of masculine authority, which has occurred over time until the States of today now totally control marriage and man has no more power or authority over it.

The NAC, then, restores these ancient orders by taking the usurped masculine powers from the State and giving it back to men.  The effect of this can only be that marriage will increase among men again, for many men are avoiding marriage because it is no longer beneficial to them.  It has become a raw deal, one in which the risks out way the benefits.  Once the NAC is installed, marriage will be a benefit and blessing to men again, and they will begin to marry again in droves, choosing whichever form they deem best for them.

Same-sex marriage (SSM)

What of same-sex marriage?  Well, the NAC doesn’t address same-sex marriage, except for this part:

Article X. Section 5.

As the decisions of the supreme court of the former national government were made according to that law which was the United States Constitution and its treaties, which law is no longer binding upon the States, nor upon the people thereof, neither shall such decisions be binding upon any of the States, nor upon their people.

Now, under the USC, which doesn’t mention marriage, at all, the Supreme Court was able to determine that the U.S. Constitution did not allow plural marriages.  Under the USC, which doesn’t mention marriage, at all, the Supreme Court was able to determine that the U.S. Constitution allows a man and another man, or a woman and another woman, to be married.  The U.S. Constitution, which doesn’t mention marriage, at all, apparently still has much to say about which forms of marriage it permits, and which it doesn’t, without ever using the words “marry” or “marriage.”  The USC, then, is a magical document with magical powers beyond my comprehension.  But thank goodness the Supreme Court can comprehend such magical things!  Perhaps it is because they themselves are wizards performing some sort of magic?

The NAC, on the other hand, is not magical.  It takes a simplified approach.  It encodes heterosexual marriage as a right of man and does not seek to restrict that right in any way.  It also does not mention anything other than marriage by right.  Therefore, under the NAC, States are still free to permit SSM (by issuing a marriage license), or ban it altogether (by refusing to issue a marriage license); free to permit polygamy (by issuing a marriage license) or ban it (by refusing to issue a marriage license).  But they are not free to restrict in any way man’s right to heterosexual marriage and are required to recognize such marriages, as governments did anciently.

So, the recent decision of the Supreme Court on SSM is null and void under the NAC, meaning that SSM will become a State’s matter, each State deciding whether they will permit (license) SSM or not.

Divorce under the NAC

The NAC changes the game for divorce, too, at least for manus marriages:

Article III. Section 3.

No State shall have power to divorce men who exercise their right to marry wives with manus, from their wives, nor shall the right and power of such men to issue a writ of divorcement, on their own authority, be abridged or regulated in any way, and such writs shall be binding and valid and final and unalterable decrees in the eyes of the law, so that the law shall view a wife so divorced as loosed from the law of her husband.

This is yet another restoration, for anciently there was no power (outside of the man himself) to divorce a man who married with manus, from his wife.  Only he (the man) had power to divorce, using the same power he used to marry: his own.  Thus, the power to divorce wives was always in men from the beginning.  When Moses allowed men to issue bills of divorcement, he did not confer any more authority than men already had.  He just gave them divine permission to use their rights, power and authority in this way.

Now, under the USC, there is an unfavorable environment for men to marry.  Why?  Because if they marry by privilege with a marriage license, without manus and with a vow, and the marriage goes south, they can lose their house, their money, their kids and even their liberty (jail time).  The risks far out way the benefits of current marriage practices under the USC and many men are walking away.  The NAC, though, creates a favorable environment for men to marry, because they not only get to set all the terms of the marriage from the get-go, as men did anciently, but also all the terms of the divorce, even controlling whether a divorce can happen or not.  This minimizes, or altogether eliminates, risk and gives men who marry by right (with manus) only benefits.  Men will not walk away from such marriage, but will rush into it, reversing all current marriage and divorce trends.  New marriage statistics will shoot sky-high and divorce statistics will become nearly non-existent, under the NAC.

State divorces still can happen

The NAC doesn’t speak on other forms of divorce.  A man is still free to marry by privilege and go through the courts for a divorce and lose everything.  The NAC doesn’t say you can’t sell yourself to the State and then get dragged through the mud by a wife wanting a divorce.  Some men are masochists by nature, so the NAC leaves intact all these other forms and merely gives men more choices, while still allowing the masochists their fun.

Conferral of citizenship by manus

Article XII. Section 2.

Men who are natural-born citizens of any State, that marry wives by right, with manus, shall have power to confer naturalized citizenship upon their wives, provided a wife first passes an English proficiency test and enters into a covenant to obey, honor and sustain the laws of the State of which her husband is a resident, both of which shall be administered by the State of which her husband is a resident; and such men shall naturalize their wives by issuing a writ of citizenship, which writ shall be certified by the State of which her husband is a resident, which certified writ shall be binding and valid in the eyes of the law.

This also is a restoration, for this power existed in olden days and in ancient times.  Thus the NAC returns these stolen powers and rights back to the men and codifies them.  All of these things, taken together, rearrange the centers of power found in the national and State governments, creating a new center of power and jurisdiction, held by men, which really isn’t a new jurisdiction, but an old jurisdiction, for men always held these rights and powers and jurisdictions, in ancient times and from the beginning.

This stuff is in the NAC because I wrote it with a view of the restoration of all things.  It may not seem readily apparent just how important these things are, but their effect will be huge in both shackling the State, re-empowering the people and in furthering the restoration of all things.

Conclusion

The marriage sections of the NAC, I suppose, will be controversial, but they need not be, for they do not force change in current practices, merely adding ancient practices to the modern ones, giving people many more options.  Feel free to disagree on any point mentioned in this post.  Bring your strongest reasons against the NAC and let’s have an open debate.  And for those who like the NAC and want to install it as the Supreme Law of the land, here is my advice and prediction (and also see this comment, and this comment and this comment) :

A continual strategy of debate will install the NAC in this country and I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. I say that Americans will jump at the chance to debate the NAC and to show that the Constitution is better, but, according to the rules of the debate, they will have to read the NAC first, and once read, they will be hard pressed to defend the Constitution. Thus, everyone who hears, or watches, or reads, or participates in, a NAC debate, will become convinced that the NAC is what this country needs.

To read the other parts of this series, click any of these links:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5,

Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10,

Part 11, Part 12, Part 13.

Also see: The New Articles of Confederation (NAC) and The Right to Abolish, Revert and Replace Amendment.

Complete List of Articles authored by LDS Anarchist

Advertisements

Leave a comment

No comments yet.

Comments RSS TrackBack Identifier URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s