Deprecated: Non-static method PageLinesTemplate::current_admin_post_type() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/content/p3pnexwpnas14_data02/03/3062003/html/wp-content/themes/pagelines/admin/class.options.metapanel.php on line 30

Deprecated: Non-static method PageLinesTemplate::current_admin_post_type() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/content/p3pnexwpnas14_data02/03/3062003/html/wp-content/themes/pagelines/admin/class.options.metapanel.php on line 30

Deprecated: Non-static method PageLinesTemplate::current_admin_post_type() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/content/p3pnexwpnas14_data02/03/3062003/html/wp-content/themes/pagelines/admin/class.options.metapanel.php on line 30

Deprecated: Non-static method PageLinesTemplate::current_admin_post_type() should not be called statically, assuming $this from incompatible context in /home/content/p3pnexwpnas14_data02/03/3062003/html/wp-content/themes/pagelines/admin/class.options.metapanel.php on line 30
An Octogenerian's Blog | THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT – A NON-CONTRACTUAL (Issue 577)

New York legalized Gay marriage. Much of the news this week is dominated by discussions relative to marriage in general and the marriage contract in particular. Amazing how misunderstood it is.

Listening to some of the opinions on the subject of marriage emphasizes my claim that most do not understand the meaning of Freedom, which is the bottom-line reason this once-great nation is on the verge of collapse. An integral part of Freedom is one’s free-will to execute contractual agreements, in a civilized society.

But how can one enter into a contractual marriage agreement, with expectations it has validity, when it’s a farce from the outset? Two people attempt to contract for non-contractuals. Specifically, in order to contract for anything it must have a boundary. Without a boundary it’s non-contractual.

So let’s examine the so-called marriage contract. When two people stand up before another person performing the wedding ceremony, the usual language is a promise to “Love, honor, and obey.” There may be variations in the language, according to different religions, but the crux of the agreement, called a contract, is this promise to love, honor and obey, excluding all others.

The question is, what is the boundary of love? At the moment a person becomes unlovable, the contract is automatically broken. At the moment a person acts dishonorably, the contract is automatically broken, and the moment one fails to obey, the contract is broken.

Love, Honor and Obedience are value judgments and not principles, therefore changing according to individuals and circumstances. Unlike a principle, which is undeviating and immutable. A contract, in order to be a contract, has an inherent principle, that is, it must have a boundary. Without a boundary it’s a non-contractual.

If one has the audacity to doubt the veracity of this premise, i.e., the marriage contract is a non-contractual agreement, all one has to do is take a second look at a divorce.

In a petition for a divorce, does anyone ever say “I wish to dissolve this marriage with my partner because of the violation of the contract to love honor and obedience.” Does anyone stand before a judge and say, “I want out of this contract because my partner broke it, by not loving, not honoring and not obeying?” I don’t think so.

What happens in a divorce is the parties involved get right down to the economics of the union. How do we divide up the assets, and who pays what? Who gets the house, car, furniture? Who pays child support? The size of marital properties and support responsibilities varies with each case, but a divorce deals with economic settlements, after the dissolution of the relationship, and has nothing to do with those things contracted for in a so-called marriage contract.

The procedure for settlement may be different if there has been a pre-nuptial agreement, because a pre-nup deals with the economics of the union.

When one takes an objective look at the marriage vows, and understands the validity of contractual agreements, and views a divorce for what it is, the question must be asked: What business is it of political government to be involved in this civil union of two people?

The understanding of the validity of contractual agreements is just one component of understanding the meaning of Freedom. A very important tenet of individual freedom, which is the understanding of boundaries relating to ownership, and ownership relating to property. And the difference between Freedom and bondage relates to boundaries of ownership.

An over-simplification can be viewed in a bottle of perfume. One can own a bottle of perfume, so long as it remains in a bottle, because the bottle is the boundary. Once sprayed into the atmosphere, it loses its boundary, and ownership.

All of the current news cycle attention on marriage, and its so-called contract, as a result of political government involvement in the same-sex marriage fiasco, is an opportunity for some elementary understanding about Freedom. However, instead of understanding it for what it is, the news pundits further muddy the waters with confusion by rants and raves about the “marriage contract.”

It’s my opinion that the moral imperative to return to a way of life living free, is an understanding of the difference in Principles and Value judgments, which entails an understanding of that which constitutes Ownership of property, and the boundaries of it, starting with the sovereignty of one’s self. It is in this area there’s so much mis-understanding and confusion, resulting in the erroneous notion that political action, i.e., we can vote ourselves out of the crisis we voted ourselves into. Morality, that which is Right, as opposed to that which is wrong, is not a political matter. It’s in the hearts and minds of the American people. In an understanding of the meaning of Freedom, that is the self-responsibility and self-control of Freedom.

LET FREEDOM RING

JUST ME
AC

Email: annecleveland@bellsouth.net

Share →

4 Responses to THE MARRIAGE CONTRACT – A NON-CONTRACTUAL (Issue 577)

  1. Viney says:

    That saves me. Thanks for being so snesilbe!

  2. Indy says:

    What an awesome way to exlpain this?now I know everything!

  3. Loran says:

    Didn?t know the forum rules allowed such brillaint posts.

  4. Alexandra says:

    THX that’s a great anewsr!