On the Constitutional Side…

Marriage is something everyone seems to take for granted. It is easy to get married and for that matter just as easy to get divorced. If you look at marriage from the outside and pay real close attention, you will come to the conclusion that it is a right of man take on a spouse. I do not need permission do it and, for that matter, I do not need a piece of paper (a marriage license) to prove it. Men and women for centuries have just taken on a wife and started up their family. This was known as common law marriage. In the Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) case the US Supreme Court said that “A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution; and that a flat license tax here involved restrains in advance the constitutional liberty of press and religion, and inevitably tends to suppress the exercise thereof.” Even though this case was a religious test case, the idea stays in tact because your rights given by God, or the fact that you live and breath, cannot be infringed upon by the government by taxing it or placing a fee upon it. Consider this, your right to get married – usually religiously inspired, but may also be a fundamental right of self expression – meaning it can be tied to the First Amendment to the US Constitution (or the Bill of Rights), which is a limitation on government.

A bit of trivia, the first recorded Marriage License was April 18, 1856 — which was recorded in Shawnee County, issued to John D. Skidmore and Arabella Z. Rice, from Tecumseh, KS.

Black’s Law Dictionary defines a Marriage License as “a license or permission granted by public authority to persons who intend to intermarry,..” When looking up the legal meaning of intermarry you are directed to miscegenation. Miscegenation is defined as “Mixture of races. Term formerly applied to marriage between persons of different races.”

This leads us to believe and understand, like it or not, that the marriage license was for people of other races; whether that was Blacks, Chinese, Indian, or the intermarriage between one race and another. This, of course, delves quite deeply into the subject of the differences between the previously know slaves, the Chinese, and the Indians – which were not looked upon as people but rather as property or chattel. This also brings into a very in-depth review of the DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856) case as to the meaning of the founding fathers concerning “Citizens of the United States” (within the body of the US Constitution) and “citizen of the United States” (first seen in the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution.) Key distinctions are made by Justice Taney within that case, which cannot be undone.

This will be one of those subjects that will take much time, but will be attacked on many levels. The 14th Amendment is one of the least understood and perhaps the most misused with respect to the law. A great man people have wrongfully misinterpreted themselves into being a 14th Amendment citizen, or also known as a US Citizen. But that will be another blog on another day, as it is getting far too deep for the subject at hand…but is ancillary to it.


Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. West Publishing

Its Good To Be King by Michael Badnarik

Original Intent (http://www.originalintent.org/edu/)

  • Constitutions
  • Citizenship
  • 14th Amendment Clarified

DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, 60 U.S. 393 (1856)


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s