It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Marriage is a Contract With the State, Children Are Profit And Property of the State

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 08:29 PM
No, you don't own your children. The STATE does. I hate to think what this information would do to marriage. Or maybe the law should be changed....

Source PDF file

Consideration on the part of the husband and wife is the actual fee paid and the implied agreement to be subject to the state's statutes, rules, and regulations and all court cases ruled on related to marriage law, family law, children, and property. He emphasized that this contractual consideration by the bride and groom places them in a definite and defined-by-law position inferior and subject to the State. He commented that very few people realize this. He also said that it is very important to understand that children born to the marriage are considered by law as "the contract bearing fruit" -- meaning the children primarily belong to the State, even though the law never comes out and says so in so many words.


I would like to see someone debunk this. My parents were married legally and spiritually. Does the State still own me, or did I become free when I became an adult?

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:03 PM
It used to be that when you went to the court house to get an application for a marriage license that it was one long sheet of paper; the top half was a marriage CERTIFICATE and the lower half was a marriage LICENSE.

Even way back when, you were encouraged to fill out the license half and not the certificate half. The certificate half certified that you were legally married but the contract was between the marrying partners and no one else. The license half was a contract between the marrying partners and the state. Big difference. Both were "legal" and recognized but slowly the states began just not offering the certificate part and most people didn't know the difference between the two so didn't ask for the certificate instead.

I am occasionally asked to perform marriages at the court house and I can assure you that, in my state at least, the court house only offers a marriage license. If you want a certificate, go to a novelty store. By the way, certificates are still legal but if you divorce you must sue each other for "breach of contract". Still have to go to court but it's not the same as in family/divorce court. Most lawyers don't even know how to handle such "divorces".

When our government finally confesses that it's been making slaves of us all for years then, yes, the "fruit of your parents contract" will be recognized and enforceable. We're all still too well-armed for the State to insist on its' "rights to property".

When the NAU goes into effect and our constitution goes out the window, none of us will have a legal leg to stand on. Insisting on our constitutional rights will probably just get us shot.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:07 PM
I can totally relate to this story...A couple of years ago when I was first pregnant with my son, (the father abandoned me for awhile) I spoke to a lawyer about my rights. He said first of all, you don't own your child...I looked at him bewildered and said excuse me? He said no, you don't the state does. I thanked the Lawyer for his time and walked out of his office. I could not believe what I just heard. As far as I am concerned, to heck with that. My son belongs to his biological parents and no one else...Our justice system has really gone to crap...

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 09:48 PM
yo yo this should be moved/merged with the Maratime Admiralty Law thread...

this stuff is bananas.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 10:33 PM
reply to post by sollie

And what if Bananas is what they have been feeding you during your life.

The poster above you claims to have heard confirmation from a lawyer.

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:02 PM
sorry, i made a misunderstanding...

bananas to me are delicious and tasty.
i like them. this is very interesting information. keep it up.

if you wish, go to the admiralty law thread. it expands greatly upon this fascinating and important subject.

[edit on 27-9-2007 by sollie]

posted on Sep, 27 2007 @ 11:13 PM
The basic principle of the social contract says society has the right to dictate what the individual does to protect that society, where this breaks down is when only a few in that society are protected.

The ability and acceptance of power to make the final decision of where and how we spend our lives is a form of ownership, they tell us what we must do, wear seat belts, how we can act, and to some extent what we can say.

Why because this benefits those that make these rules. The difference between freedom and tyranny is who makes the rules and who defines what is good for society, the few or the many.

They do claim ownership, we even agree in many cases, jailing of prisoners, taking of children from broken homes, or the ultimate claim of ownership, capital punishment, the actual destruction of the life all together.

For example, abortion is an argument about does the mother own the right to exist of the child, or does society. What about the father? This is an example please lets not go down that discussion, I am only pointing out it is an ownership of right to exist.

But there is one thing they can not take if you do not hand it over, your thoughts and your soul. Sure they can use coercion to change your thoughts, or even deception, but the final decision of where you stand and what you believe is, in all things, your choice and the beauty of the power of the spirit.

posted on Sep, 30 2007 @ 04:17 AM
I don't understand the reaction. Why does this worry anyone? So there is legal merit to the idea that the state 'owns' your children. How exactly does this effect you? How does this change your reality?

You already know that if the state doesn't approve of your child-raising, they'll take your children away. Take drugs, for example, and Child Protective Services will take your children away. You already knew this. What difference does it make that there's a 'law' somewhere that says it's ok for them to do this?

Does the State still own me, or did I become free when I became an adult?

I totally don't understand. What do you mean by 'free?' Hypothetically, let's say that there was a law somewhere that stated clearly and empathically that you were a slave.

Would you be any less free?

Would you feel any more free if there wasn't such a law?

To put it another does the reality affect you? If the state had a mind to execute you, imprison you, deport you, or do anything else that you know full and well that the state regularly does to people...what difference does it make that there are words in a piece of paper somewhere that says it's ok for them to do these things? Would it be any different if those words weren't on paper...but they still did these things? Again, you know that the state does these things. Why are you so concerned about the law? Why aren't you more concerned about the fact that the state does these things?

Laws are simply rules that somebody else agreed to, that most people don't know or understand...but for some reason place some sort of magical faith in.

Laws are social customs put into writing. Nothing more.

My son belongs to his biological parents and no one else

I'm you really want to claim that you 'own' your children? Is claiming ownership of another human being really ok to you, just because you gave birth to them? How is this any better than the state laying claim to them?

new topics

top topics


log in