Someone complaining about the Obama claim that the "Constitution guarantees same-sex marriage in U.S." stated "Where? I don't remember marriage being addressed in the constitution. In fact, I'm pretty sure it is supposed to be a state issue, NOT a federal issue."
People like to complain about other people and problems but if the solution points to their own problem or error then they get all upset. Complaining is something people do so that they do not have to look at their own error.
One of the reasons people err is they do not understand the terms they use and often shift their use out of the context of time and location. Words and phrases like Civil law and like marriage have many different uses in different times and locations.
According to Black’s Law Dictionary 3rd Ed. page 1163., “marriage, as distinguished from the agreement to marry and from the act of becoming married.” It “is the civil status of one man and one woman united in law for the discharge to each other and the community of duties legally incumbent on those whose association is found on the distinction of sex.”
It should be clear that the term marriage is distinguished, essentially different, from both the “agreement to marry” and the “act of becoming married.” Secondly, marriage is a civil status. “Civil” is a word used in “contradistinction to military, ecclesiastical, natural, or foreign; thus, we speak of a civil station, as opposed to …an ecclesiastical station” 
The modern Relationship of Marriage is neither natural, remembering that the Natural Law is “divine will,” nor is it ecclesiastical, which is “distinguished from ‘civil’ or ‘secular,’” but it is civil.
When you are talking about same-sex marriage you have redefined the word marriage but continue to use the same spelling. So now we should qualify the term with modifiers like same-sex marriage or traditional marriage.
There are other alterations of the use of words like marriage that have already taken place.
When the Civil law was entirely in the hands of the people the community still had an interest in the union of man and woman because that is where society is born. But the community was not a party to that union. Marriage was a contract between a man and a woman only. Even ecclesiastical law clarifies that the Church is not a party to the union.
We must understand how things have changed since in Clark’s Summary of American Law. Chapter I §2 the marriage status or relationship is defined on page 140 as:
- “Marriage is often referred to as a civil contract, but the emphasis in such a reference is not on the word ‘contract’ but upon the word ‘civil’ as distinguished from ecclesiastical; since there is religious freedom in this country a religious ceremony, and rules of ecclesiastical organizations with regard to marriage have no legal significance."
- "Though mutual assent is necessary to enter into a marriage the marriage itself is a status or relationship rather than a contract, the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by the law instead of by the parties themselves. Hence marriages are not within the provision of the United States Constitution forbidding a state to impair the obligation of contracts.”
Today because of numerous changes in the way in which people live and relate to one another and their governments and are united together in wedlock things have changed. Now...
- "Marriage is a civil contract to which there are three parties - the husband, the wife and the state.
Same word but different definition. And now they want to change it some more. And there is no law against changing the meaning of words. But if you want to keep up you may have to be as wise as a serpent.
There are other words we use which have more than one meaning.
- “Civil rights are such as belong to every citizen of the state or country, or, in a wider sense to all its inhabitants, and are not connected with the organization or the administration of government. They include the rights of property, marriage, protection by laws, freedom of contract, trial by jury, etc.” 
Here we see "marriage" is "not connected with the organization or the administration of government". So if your marriage is "connected with the organization or the administration of government" then that is not the marriage you have. So what kind do you have? Is it that three party one spoken of the Van Koten case.
It may become clearer if you read in the same dictionary it goes on to say “as otherwise defined, civil rights are rights appertaining to a person in virtue of his citizenship in a state or community. Rights capable of being enforced or redressed in civil action. Also a term applied to certain rights secured to citizens of the United States by the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments to the Constitution, and by various acts of Congress made in pursuance thereof.” 
Today most marriages are connected to "organization or the administration of government". How is that so?
So we see by an examination of Civil Rights that at least one type of marriage is “civil” or “public”, as distinguished from another, which may be “private,” “ecclesiastical,” or “natural.” Ecclesiastical organizations have “no legal significance” and, therefore, no civil effect. But contracts between the parties may have an legal effect and they may name the terms of the court of their remedy.
So does the "Constitution guarantees same-sex marriage in U.S."?
Not really but it does guarantee our right to contract and it does provide for courts of equity in the Judiciary Act of 1789.
Any one can see that the constitution does guarantee a right to contract in Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: Obligation of Contract.
Marriage licenses are contracts.
Marriage Contracts used to be made by the parents and the couple or the people themselves although people like Herr Carl Marx, Doctor of Philosophy, resident in Cologne, and Fräulein Johanna Bertha Julie Jenny von Westphalin, without occupation, resident in Kreuznach, June 12, 1843 simply wrote up their own MARRIAGE CONTRACT containing the terms of their union.
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married. A marriage license is a document issued, either by a church and its Sacred tradition or holy tradition or state authority, authorizing a couple to marry if the individuals were subjects of the state. The Church acted as a clerk or cleric in creating an official record based on testimony of the parties and witnesses.
The procedure for obtaining a license varies between countries and has changed over time. Marriage licenses were issued in the Middle Ages to permit a marriage which would otherwise be illegal because of the manner or condition of the couple.
In old English law, “Marriage is used in the sense of ‘maritagium,’ (qv) or the feudal right enjoyed by the lord or guardian in chivalry of disposing of his ward in marriage.”
Today, they are a legal requirement in some jurisdictions and may also serve as the record of the marriage itself, if signed by the couple and witnessed. Those legal requirements are attached to the person in relationship to the state marriage which is a contract not merely between the parties of man and woman but include the state.
Chapter 1. of the book The Covenants of the gods
Holy Matrimony vs Marriage
Audio [2 hours] http://keysofthekingdom.info/COG-01.mp3
The International Acceptance and Validity of Holy Matrimony
Is Holy Matrimony a Valid Union of a Man and a woman?
Printable 5" X 8 1/2" Pamphlets
Standard 8 1/2"X 11" Print Friendly
Ignorance is a product of sloth and pride as much as deception if not more.
No one is more ignorant than those who are self-deceived.
Some really ignorant people will say things like "Since marriage was NOT a right or privilege of citizenship, it could be limited or restricted by law in the various states."
Husband and Wife is a domestic relationship based on natural right and social contract and in its beginning is not connected to civil government or political privileges unless we choose to make it so.
State marriage licenses are privileges just like state drivers licenses are privileges. A minister who goes down and signs up for the privilege of performing a state marriage is agreeing to allow the state to dictate the manner and limits of his duties as a minister of the state. Ministers often say, arguing against same-sex marriage, that marriage is a contract between one man and one woman. They are correct as defined by early tradition and the law of nature and God. But state marriages are a contract between one man and one woman and the state where the state becomes a superior party.
Clark’s Summary of American Law, in the statement concerning a state marriage, reveals, “the rights and obligations of the parties thereto being fixed by law instead of by the parties themselves”.
That, of course, is why the Ten Commandments warn you about making covenants. Once you sign those contracts you will lose a lot of your natural God given rights to make choices within your marriage because there is another Party, the state...
The Supreme Court of Nebraska stated that: “It (marriage) differs from all other contracts in its far-reaching consequences to the body politic itself, and for that reason, in dealing with it or the status resulting therefrom, the state never stands indifferent, but is always a party whose interest must be taken into account.”
The same thing is true of pastors who apply for permission to perform state marriage contracts. Once they do that the state can force them to marry same-sex couples. You already have ministers being threatened with jail time because they did just that. They like to scream, "What about my right to choose?" But they just contracted them away and the militant gays who will seek out pastors who do not want to marry gays will say "Hahaha" when the pastors go to jail.
The "disingenuous" Christian will always mock and refuse to actually look at facts and fail to see the truth right in front of them just like the Pharisees before them. The truth is this the above Chapter of The Covenants of the gods has been shared with top attorneys in their field and there are dozens of footnotes so that people can look things up for themselves.
We are not saying anything anti state or anti law. We are just explaining how the law works as we have found it.
"Contract makes the law".
William H. Seawell, professor of education at the University of Virginia stated, “Each child belongs to the state.”
Mr Seawell is correct and children are taken from their parents every day without charging the parents with any crime or wrong doing. The state has the right to do that because your children belong to the state.
The first attorney I took the Holy Matrimony pamphlet to was a Suma Cum Laude graduate of Creighton Law University, practiced law in several states and was writing law books for Matthew Bender at the time. He said the essay was correct and found no legal errors but he warned me that "They will not like you."
Why? Because we are telling the truth people do not want to hear.
Law | Natural Law | Legal title | Common Law | Fiction of law |
Stare decisis | Jury | Consent | Contract | Parental contract | Government |
Civil law | Civil Rights | Civil Government | Governments |
No Kings | Cities of refuge | Voir dire | Levites |
Citizen | Equity | The Ten Laws | Law of the Maat |
Bastiat's_The_Law_and_Two_Trees | Trees |
The Occupy Refuge Movement | Clive Bundy | Hammond |
Barcroft | Benefactors | gods | Jury | Sanhedrin |
Protection | Weightier_matters | Social_contract | Community Law |
Perfect law of liberty | Power to change | Covet | Rights |
Anarchist | agorism | Live as if the state does not exist |
Property rights |
Natural Law |
Common Law |
Fiction of law |
UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS | Parents have a prior right |
Human Rights | Human Events | Human resources | Universal Service | The Way |
Foolishly | Foolish virgins | The Right of Self-determination | Fraud |
Free Assemblies | CORE | Righteousness | Workers of Iniquity | Doers of the Word | Fruit |
Intentional Community |
Sense of Community |
Community Types |
Community Ethics | Community Law | Society and community | Communities Ancient |
Communitarian | Collectivism | Socialism | Communism | Primitive Communism |
Communion | Eucharist | Social Virtues | Daily ministration | Tens | FEMA |
Feasts | Feasts and festivals | Pentecost | Celebrate | Burning Bush Festival |
Law | Rights | Economy | Education | Welfare_types | Stimulus | Building back |
Agorism | Permaculture | The Greatest Reset | Perfect law of liberty |
Benefactors | gods | Covet | First to do List | Fundamental orders | Network |
Chapter 1. of the book The Covenants of the gods
Holy Matrimony vs Marriage
- Civil. Black’s 3rd ed. p.331.
- Ecclesiastical. Black’s 3rd Ed. p. 640.
- Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.
- Right. In Constitutional Law. Black’s 3rd p. 1559.
- Right. In Constitutional Law. Black’s 3rd p. 1559.
- Article I, section 10, clause 1. It states: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
- Black’s 3rd. Ed. p. 1164.
To read more go to "His Holy Church" (HHC) http://www.hisholychurch.org/