Marriage Licenses Are A Racist Crime Against Humanity

A pastor tells us why the State has no business issuing licenses for a religious establishment:

George Washington 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.

Being granted permission to marry someone by a gang of criminal thieves is the lowest form of submission to State authority a plebe could ever engage in.

I reject the notion that the State has the authority to sanction my marriage.

You should too.

Of course, the First Amendment doesn’t matter since the US Constitution has about as much worth as used toilet paper, but I’ll post it here for you to consider anyways.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Just in case you don’t understand what the word establishment means:

a settled arrangement; especially : a code of laws

  • Pingback: Anonymous

  • http://www.facebook.com/Relleg Eric Alan Geller

    The fact that people on both sides of this manufactured debated don’t understand the fucking law of the land is absolutely revolting… I’ve explained this to countless people and they still harp on about marriage tax benefits and bullshit like that which are also unconstitutional. It’s like some people are fucking machines…

  • MikeDanneskjold

    “Being granted permission to marry someone by a gang of criminal thieves is the lowest form of submission to State authority a plebe could ever engage in.” …SPOT ON!!!

  • Lee

    What would you say to people that need to get a marriage license for immigration purposes? I would have preferred to never get a marriage license, but I feel like it’s a necessary evil, in my case.

    • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

      I would say immigration laws are just as evil as marriage laws.

      In a free society, people should be free to move without restrictions.

  • JPeron

    What ill-informed history. Marriage licenses in colonial America started in 1639, and interracial marriage was legal at that time. A color bar law was introduced in 1705 but then abolished in 1843. So interracial marriage was legal in Massachusetts since 1843. And when the licenses were first issue it was not a crime to be interracially married.

    In Virginia there were two methods to marry. One was a more cumbersome, bureaucratic requirement of announcing wedding banns allowing others to protest the marriage and, possibly putting a stop to it. Jefferson preferred the marriage license method as it allowed a quicker marriage without interference from others. The Washington situation is then used to pretend that marriage licenses didn’t exist then, they did and Jefferson had one. Apparently whoever is being quoted didn’t research it or they would have seen that wedding banns were one method of marriage and a license was the other. The license was the one that gave the couple the greatest amount of freedom.

    • http://www.libertariannews.org/ Michael Suede

      I wouldn’t say the article is ill informed, it’s just an abbreviated summary that didn’t go into detail. Regardless, the primary point being made still stands.