Tag Archives: is

Marriage License

When you get a marriage license, who are you marrying?

“The state is a party to every marriage contract of its own residents as well as the guardians of their morals.”– Roberts v. Roberts (1947) 81 CA2d 871, 185 P2d 381.

You make the state the senior partner. They then have the last word on your morals, and your children are wards of the state.


Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, defines a license as follows:

“Permission from public authority to do something that would be illegal to do without the license.”

(By the same definition, you know that you do not need a license to do something that is not illegal.)

Now what makes something illegal? There are two forms of wrongness: malum prohibitum, and malum in se. Something that is malum prohibitum is deemed wrong because it has been prohibited by the laws of human beings in a particular society, for their particular society. Literally, it is “wrong because it is prohibited.” Something that is malum in se is wrong because it is “bad in itself.” Determining what is malum prohibitum is easy – you just find out what are the laws in the appropriate jurisdiction. Determining what is malum in se is also easy in my opinion – and in the opinion of the founding fathers of the United States of America. They said things like, “Men do not make laws; they but discover them. True laws originate from the Creator, the Supreme Legislator of the Universe.”

Marriage is not wrong in itself, so it is not malum in se. Neither is marriage prohibited, so marriage is also not malum prohibitum.

Therefore a human government cannot deny you the right to get married (neither permit it only upon the payment of a fee and the obtaining of a license) unless your marriage is malum in se, or malum prohibitum.


But wait a minute, why do marriage licenses exist in the United States then? Very simple: they were instituted for marriages that were deemed by society as wrong, either marriages that were malum in se, or marriages that were malum prohibitum, illegal, prohibited by law. In the history of America, the vast majority of people never got licenses to get married, because their marriages were never deemed illegal or considered wrong.

But up until the 1960′s there were some marriages, now commonplace and fairly normal, that were considered wrong: interracial marriages. Those were the marriages that required a license. (I am not against interracial marriage; I am only explaining the history of the marriage license.)

Even the most current edition of Black’s Law dictionary proves this. Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, defines marriage license as:

“A license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry”

Note that it does not say, “persons who intend to marry,” but “INTERmarry.” So you wouldn’t need a marriage license to marry, only to intermarry. Well, what is “intermarriage”? If you look up “intermarriage” in Black’s Law Dictionary 6th edition, it says,

See Miscegenation.

Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, defines Miscegenation as:

Mixture of races. Term formerly applied to marriage between persons of different races. Statutes prohibiting marriage between persons of different races have been held to be invalid as contrary to equal protection clause of Constitution. Loving v. Virginia…

So now, you don’t even need a marriage license to INTER-marry.

Then why do people still get marriage licenses? Because their pastor, or their neighbor, or TV says you have to. The pastor, if he has a license to be a pastor from the state, and his church is a federal non-profit corporation, has a contractual obligation to act in the interests of the government, not in your interests or God’s interests. It is a conditionality of his license to do certain things and report certain things for the government. Often these obligations conflict with the family of God’s interests.

Share this post about a marriage license: