History of the Marriage License: The Rise of the Marriage License

              

                         

By D.I. Muhammad

The Christian missionaries came in and slowly implanted themselves on the land. Overriding any other system of belief until Christianity itself was the  number one belief system in the new United States.

The states were encouraged to make their own Constitution on how they wanted to be treated.

"For three years, from 1778 to 1780, the political energies of Massachusetts were absorbed in drafting a charter of government that the voters would accept. One of the most contentious issues was whether the state would support the church financially. Advocating such a policy were the ministers and most members of the Congregational Church, which received public financial support, during the colonial period. The Baptists tenaciously adhered to their ancient conviction For three years, from 1778 to 1780, the political energies of Massachusetts were absorbed in drafting a charter of government that the voters would accept. One of the most contentious issues was whether the state would support the church financially. Advocating such a policy were the ministers and most members of the Congregational Church, which received public financial support, during the colonial period. The Baptists tenaciously adhered to their ancient conviction that churches should receive no support from the state.[citation needed] The Constitutional Convention chose to support the church and Article Three authorized a general religious tax to be directed to the church of a taxpayers' choice on needed] The Constitutional Convention chose to support the church and Article Three authorized a general religious tax to be directed to the church of a taxpayers' choice." 

(Christianity in the United States, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States)

In 1801 Danbury Baptist wrote a letter to Thomas Jefferson contesting the fee they had to pay for Congregational support. They were residents of Connecticut. They did not want to support the Church.

In 1802, Thomas Jefferson responded to their letters summing up the First Amendment with the words we know now as separation of Church and State. 

"Largely unknown in its day, this phrase has since become a major Constitutional issue. The first time the U.S. Supreme Court cited that phrase from Jefferson was in 1878, 76 years later." 

(Christianity in the United States, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_the_United_States)

There were different sects of Christianity that ended up on the shores of the new United States, but Catholicism held the majority of believers.

As we go through a time line of events such as:

"All states now granted married women the right to own property in their own name 

•LDS Church President Joseph F. Smith issues the 1904 "Second Manefesto", which stated that the Church was no longer sanctioning plural (polygamous) Marriages and would excommunicated anyone who participates on future polygamy. 

•1907 Under the Expatriation Act of 1907, American women will lose citizenship when they marry a foreign husband. 

•1913 The federal government formally recognizes marriage law for the first time with the passage of the Revenue Act of 1913. 

•1929 All states now have laws regarding marriage licenses." 

(Timeline of civil marriages in the United States)

Let's stop here for a moment and look at what they proposed. Marriages were moving away from informal arrangements to civil codified documents.

In 1927, all states enacted their own laws for a marriage license. To show which states functioned under statutory law and which under common law, Geoffrey May LL.B, wrote a Manual called the, Marriage Laws And Decisions In The United States. In the Manual 49 states are covered. 

"Statutory law is enacted by local law-making bodies, in the American states by the legislature. These laws are published after each legislative session in volumes commonly known as session laws. Periodically such session laws as are of general public nature are compiled by subjects into volumes known as Codes, Consolidated laws, Revised Statues, and the like. These Codes are in turn amended and supplemented by later session laws...Behind these statues and Independent of them is the common law.

In theory it is a universal concept (in English speaking countries) existing even as social relationshjps themselves exist. It is unwritten in a sense that any social systems is unwritten: the evidences , the interpretations of it alone are written. Such interpretations are expresses in decisions of courts on particular cases coming before them. They are an expression of the application of this body of the common law to the particular set of facts in litigation. The court decisions theoretically do not create the common law; they express it." 

(Marriage Laws And Decisions In The United States: A Manuel, pgs. 5-6, Geoffrey May LL.B)

May is giving his reader a broad look at what common law is in a foundational sense.

Common law marriages have been around in the U.S., since 1629. Common law marriages are known as marriages that did not require a priest. It was simply a couple agreeing to be married and presenting themselves as such without a formal civil license or a religious ceremony. It was viewed as legally binding.

Common law marriages were still practiced among those who could not afford the marriage license. In 1639, Massachusetts is the first recorded state to issue a marriage license. Over the years other states would adopt the practice of using the marriage license.

In the 1900's, it was now common to issue out marriage licenses to couples. For the government it was now easy for them to keep track on the couple for census data and in order to enforce anti-miscegenation laws. A law against interracial marriages.

As of 2026, there are eight states and the District of D.C., that still recognize common law marriages, while there are 42 states that have abolished the practice of it completely. Those states are: Colorado, District of Columbia, Montana, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Texas, Kansas, Iowa and Utah. The only restriction in Utah is that the couple has to petition the court to recognize their relationship, proving they lived together, mutually assumed martial rights, and acquired a general reputation as spouses. A petition needing to be filed for recognition while still in the relationship or a year after termination.

As we continue down the timeline:

"•1933- Married women granted right to citizenship independent of husband's

•1948- California Supreme Court overturns interracial marriage ban (Perez v. Sharp)

•1965- The Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting married couples from using contraception ( Griswold v. Connecticut)

•1967- The Supreme Court overturns laws prohibiting interracial couples from marrying. ( Loving v. Virginia)" (Timeline of civil marriages in the United States)

Our focus of where we want to be lies between 1948 and 1967. This is where the true origin of the marriage license begins.

What makes me upset, while doing the research, is coming to the realization that when the Europeans and the traders came to America how easily and sufficient it was for them to marry into the Indigenous tribes here in America because it was about the outsiders assimilating into something that wasn't theirs, but once they got in they could claim as theirs. No one was hollering interracial marriage was wrong. But once they got there hands on all the land, integrated into the tribes pushing the true Indigenous ones off their land into subsections of land, then the states are keeping track of who is marrying who. Monitoring who can and  can't marry. Stay within your race. This was not about supporting you in love. It was about control.

Andrea Perez and Sylvester D. Davis were a couple living in 1948, Los Angeles,  California.   Perez was Mexican who was classified as white, and Sylvester was a black man. They met working in the defense industry.  Andrea and Sylvester decided they wanted to marry, and both being Catholic went to the priest and asked if the priest would do so. The Priest had no objection to it. They planned for a Catholic marriage with a Mass to take place.

Andrea and Sylvester went to the city clerk to apply for the marriage license,  to be refused by W.G.S Sharp. The City Clerk.  He refused to issue a marriage license according to the laws on the record, that,

"refused to issue the license based on California Civil Code, Section 60: "All marriages of white persons with Negroes, Mongolians, members of the Malay race, or mulattoes are illegal and void" and on Section 69, which stated that "no license may be issued authorizing the marriage of a white person with a Negro, mulatto, Mongolian or member of the Malay race". At the time, California's anti-miscegenation statute had banned interracial marriage since 1850, when it first enacted a statute prohibiting whites from marrying blacks or mulattoes." 

(Wikipedia, Perez v. Sharp, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp)

Andrea and Sylvester sought out representation from Atty Daniel G. Marshall, who petitioned the court with a original writ of mandate, stating that the couple were both Catholic and wanted to get married.

"One of their primary arguments, adopted by Justice Douglas Edmonds in his concurring opinion, was that the Church was willing to marry them and so the state's anti-miscegenation law infringed on their right to participate fully in the sacraments of their religion, including the sacrament of matrimony." 

(Wikipedia, Perez v. Sharp, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp)


The court voided the California Statue stating it was to vague, discriminating,  and it went against the right to marry and the fourteenth amendment.

"The court held that marriage is a fundamental right and that laws restricting that right must not be based solely on prejudice. The lead opinion by Justice Roger Traynor and joined by Chief Justice Phil Gibson and Justice Jesse Carter, held that restrictions due to discrimination violated the constitutional requirements of due process and equal protection of the laws. The court voided the California statute, holding that Section 69 of the California Civil Code was too vague and uncertain to be enforceable restrictions on the fundamental right of marriage and that they violated the Fourteenth Amendment by impairing the right to marry on the basis of race alone. In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Douglas Edmonds held that the statute violated the religious freedom of the plaintiffs since the anti-miscegenation law infringed on their right to participate fully in the sacrament of matrimony.

In a separate concurring opinion, Justice Carter wrote that the statutes under consideration were "the product of ignorance, prejudice and intolerance, that "never were constitutional" because when first enacted "they violated the supreme law of the land as found in the Declaration of Independence". 

(Wikipedia, Perez v. Sharp, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perez_v._Sharp)

"In 2000, Alabama became the last state to repeal its interracial marriage ban when residents voted to remove an anti-miscegenation provision from the state constitution—more than 30 years after Loving made it unenforceable." 

(https://calendar.eji.org/racial-injustice/may/05?fbclid=IwY2xjawTUcMhleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZA80MDk5NjI2MjMwODU2MDkAAR60scjM7WkIS1EkuA0znv9jIYu9T5aXTkuHhNih5c4xbpWa8SM18zRAmOpD1g_aem_UIE5w0GHpdiFj2Jzu_UDYw)

Andrea and Sylvester won their case, and were married until Andrea passed in 2000. 

Anti-miscegenation laws go back farther before Perez v. Sharp. In 1881, Tony Pace, a black man, and Mary Cox, were arrested because their sexual relationship violated the anti-miscegenation laws of Alabama.  They were charged for living together in a state of fornication, and sentenced to 2 years in the penitentiary. 

  

"Tony Pace, an African-American man, and Mary Cox, a white woman, were residents of the state of Alabama, who had been arrested in 1881 because their sexual relationship violated the state's anti-miscegenation statute. They were charged with living together "in a state of adultery or fornication" and both sentenced to two years imprisonment in the state penitentiary in 1882." 

(Wikipedia, Pace v. Alabama,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama)

Pace and Cox being an interracial couple under anti-miscegenation laws would not have been able to marry.  Anti-miscegenation laws were to govern interracial married couples, but Alabama chose to have it cover interracial couples regardless of martial statues. It was damn if you do. Damn if you don't.  Pace and Cox,  were not married,  and  did not live with another.  They stayed in close proximity, but in Alabama, that had consequences.

"Interracial marital sex was deemed a felony, whereas extramarital sex ("adultery or fornication") was only a misdemeanor.

Because of the criminalization of interracial relationships, they were penalized more severely for their extramarital relationship than if they had been of the same race. The Alabama code stated:

If any white person and any negro, or the descendant of any negro to the third generation, inclusive, though one ancestor of each generation was a white person, intermarry or live in adultery or fornication with each other, each of them must, on conviction, be imprisoned in the penitentiary or sentenced to hard labor for the county for not less than two nor more than seven years." 

(Wikipedia, Pace v. Alabama,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama)

In the appeal to the state Supreme Court, Cox  argued that her cased should be squashed because they had her middle name listed as Ann and not Jane when they indicted her.  That effect failed, because they essentially said, your first and last name is correct irregardless if your middle name is Ann or Jane. We got who we want.

"Cox argued to the state Supreme Court that her indictment should be quashed on the basis that she had been charged and indicted under the name "Mary Ann Cox", but her name was in fact, "Mary Jane Cox". The Alabama Supreme Court rejected this argument and upheld the indictment:

"The law knows but one Christian name, and the insertion or omission of a defendant's middle name in an indictment is entirely immaterial; and a mistake in the middle name will not support a plea of misnomer." 

(Wikipedia, Pace v. Alabama,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama)

Pace received an appeal from the Supreme Court of the state. His judgement being affirmed based on,

"insisting that the act which he was indicted and convicted under conflicted with the final clause of the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution, which declares that no state shall deny to any person the equal protection of the laws." 

(Wikipedia, Pace v. Alabama,  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama)

The Alabama Supreme Court saying that the arrest and punishment was not based on race or color,but for the offense. They viewed it as a evil tendency that would have been greater in that relationship,  then in one if both parties were of the same race.  To sum it up, they were saying, without trying not to say it, that, 

"it could lead to “a mongrel population and a degraded civilization.” The true severity of their offense did not really stem from the interracial relationship, but instead that the fornication could end in an amalgamation, or, simply, a mixed-race child." 

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pace_v._Alabama)

Anti-miscegenation laws were Federally enacted. The states were codifying a marriage license as mandatory.  The 1920's were known as the Eugenics Era.  In 1924, Virginia,  The Racial Integrity Act was formed. The Act specified the definition of a white person, and prohibited interracial marriages.  In 1926, segregation happened under the Public Assemblage Act, and in 1930, defined what a black person was. Because of the Racial Integrity Act is where the one drop rule came from. Distinguishing bloodlines through man-made Acts and prejudices.

Before Perez v. Sharp, California enacted a statute that race be stamped on marriage applications in 1943.

"California had banned interracial marriage between white and Black people since first achieving statehood in 1850. A law passed that year declared that, “all marriages of whites with negroes or mulattoes are declared to be null and void.” California later expanded the law to also ban white people from marrying people defined as "mongolian" or “malay” in response to a subsequent increase in immigration from Asia. The state’s white community widely supported the enactment of these policies and the officials who passed them...The California Supreme Court struck down both the 1943 statute requiring race on marriage licenses and the state's much older ban on interracial marriage on October 1, 1948."

(To Prevent Interracial Marriage, California Requires That Marriage Licenses Indicate Race,https://calendar.eji.org/racial-injustice/may/5)

The mandatory licenses created in each state was used to track interracial couples seeking to marry, and to stop the process in its tracks by denying them the opportunity to marry. To make it look like it was for the benefit of everyone, and, not racial profiling everyone wanting to marry, was encouraged to apply.  It was the perfect paper trail.

1n 1965, Women were legally denied birth control if they were single.  Married women had no problems being prescribed the pill. But that wasn't always the case until Dr. Estelle Griswold and Dr. Lee Buxton were arrested for counseling married couples about conception. 

"a Connecticut law prohibited the use of “any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception” and punished anyone who “assists, abets, counsels, causes, hires or commands another” to do so. Put simply, it wasn’t a crime to sell birth control devices, but it was a crime to use birth control or any drug or medical instrument to prevent pregnancy or help anyone else use birth control. Griswold and Buxton were clearly in violation of the law." 

(Griswold v. Connecticut Case Summary, https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/griswold-v-connecticut-case-summary.html)

This during a time when the Comstock Laws were still in effect.  They sued stating the law violated their constitutional rights, and that couples had a right to privacy.

"the Court decided that the state law against contraceptives violated a “zone of privacy” inherent in the Constitution. Notably, the Court found constitutional protection emitting from “penumbras,” or shadows, within several amendments to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

As the majority opinion put it, 

“. . . specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” According to the Court, one of these guarantees is a certain measure of privacy and liberty from government control over private life and beliefs.

In describing this right to privacy, the Court pointed to the First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment gives a right to free speech and freedom of religion. The Third prohibits the government from stationing troops in homes. The Fourth prohibits the government from conducting unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth, meanwhile, allows citizens to avoid incriminating themselves under oath."

 (Griswold v. Connecticut Case Summary, https://supreme.findlaw.com/supreme-court-insights/griswold-v-connecticut-case-summary.html)

Single women were not apart of this equation. The Supreme Court based its decision solely on the autonomy of a married couple under zone of privacy, not under individual autonomy.

William Baird, a birth control advocate, was in agreement that women should have to deal with their bodies in the way they saw fit.  Baird gave a lecture at Boston University in April 1965, on contraception and overpopulation. After the lecture he gave a 19 year old student contraceptives.  Baird was arrested by Boston Police on the spot. He was sentenced to 3 months in the house of corrections.  Baird would take this matter to the Supreme Court in 1972, Eisenstadt v. Baird. It was ruled that the right of a person belongs to the individual. 

Birth control to unmarried women brought in fear of an increase in premarital sex,the breakdown of the traditional family unit. During this time under the Tenth amendment states held police powers that gave them access to regulate public health,  safety, and morals.

"In United States constitutional law, the police power is the authority of the U.S. states to pass laws regulating behavior and enforcing order within their territory for the betterment of the health, safety, morals, and general welfare of their inhabitants. Police power is defined in each jurisdiction by the legislative body, which determines the public purposes that need to be served by legislation. Under the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the powers not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people. As a result, the police power primarily belongs to state governments, although the U.S. federal government possesses it in limited contexts where it has an express power, such as over conduct occurring within the territories of the United States and activities related to interstate commerce." 

(Police power United States Constitutional Law, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_power_(United_States_constitutional_law)

By legalizing contraception only for married couples, the Supreme Court allowed states to keep using their police powers to regulate the sexual behavior of unmarried citizens.


Mildred Jeter, a black woman, and Richard Loving, a white man who resided in Virginia wanted to get married. Because of Virginia's 1924 Racial Integrity Act, that had to leave Virginia to go to Washington D.C., in order to marry.

"June, 1958, two residents of Virginia, Mildred Jeter, a Negro woman, and Richard Loving, a white man, were married in the District of Columbia pursuant to its laws. Shortly after their marriage, the Lovings returned to Virginia and established their marital abode in Caroline County. At the October Term, 1958, of the Circuit Court of Caroline County, a grand jury issued an indictment charging the Lovings with violating Virginia's ban on interracial marriages. On January 6, 1959, the Lovings pleaded guilty to the charge, and were sentenced to one year in jail; however, the trial judge suspended the sentence for a period of 25 years on the condition that the Lovings leave the State and not return to Virginia together for 25 years. He stated in an opinion that:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

( Justia, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/)

The Lovings moved to Washington D.C.  They  began to miss living in Virigina, and in 1964, contacted the ACLU.  Their Attorney General was Robert F. Kennedy.  The Lovings also filed their case with the Federal Court.  The Supreme Court heard their case modifying the sentence but confirming their conviction.

"Justice Warren did not accept Virginia's argument that placing equal penalties on spouses of each race made the law non-discriminatory. He pointed out that the law did not criminalize marriage between persons of two non-white races, which suggested that it had a white supremacist motivation. There was no other legitimate purpose that could justify this law or any others like it, Warren held, since it infringed upon the fundamental right of marriage.

Concurrence

• Potter Stewart (Author)

Largely echoing Warren's reasoning, Stewart simply wrote an additional opinion as a reminder that he had advocated striking down anti-miscegenation laws in an earlier opnion from the case of McLaughlin v. Florida." 

(Justia, Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/388/1/)

Loving v. Virginia  would  open the way to Obergefell v. Hodges, that would pass a  5-4 vote, passing marriage between those of the same sex.  It was in 1971 that the Supreme Court refused to hear the challenge to a Minnesota Supreme Court ruling allowing prohibition of same-sex marriage. It would be in 1973 that Maryland  would become the first state to define marriage as being between a man and a woman.

Conclusion

From the Annunaki  to Sumeria  and Egypt women were married through consent and consummation. The Church slowly making its appearance known in Rome where most of our modern day marriage traditions  started.   Same-sex relationships were not frowned upon, but marriage was not acknowledged if done.  Leading us to Turtle Island with the Chahta and the Cherokees. Marriage was familial,  ancient  without the process of priest, and licenses until after the Europeans arrival and the state's were requested to make their own Constitutions for their state, which lead to each state  creating their own laws.

Laws were created. Statues were created. Marriage Licenses were set in place.  A couple now had to apply for a license to get married.

License: "a formal, legal permission granted by an authoritative body to do, use, or own something that would otherwise be illegal, restricted, or unauthorized." (Barneswalker.com)

Essentially,  one is asking a governmental body for permission to marry. Something that outside of it would be viewed as illegal.  Wouldn't that be against the 14th Amendment?  The set-up for the marriage license that was purely created to patrol, track, and monetarily line the pockets of each state?   We could theorically apply this license to everything. Drivers license,  Medical license,  Law license,  Real Estate license,  etc.

Marriage was about love, consent between the parties wanting to marry and consummating the relationship. 

As time has gone on and certain fights have been won, marriage since 1929 requires a marriage license.  Except for Alabama, where in 2019, the marriage license was repealed. Those that look to get married no longer require a marriage license.  Instead, the couple fills out the marriage license,  gets it notarized by two notaries and submits it to the Alabama judge who is required to accept the certificate. 

According to Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, some states are making digital updates to how the marriage license is handled.  Alabama, Arizona, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, New Mexico, New York, and Utah, have made it easier for couples to obtain, complete, and submit a marriage license application online, as well as to go online to request a certified copy of a marriage certificate.  They don't require applicants to appear in person to obtain a license, allowing officiants to sign marriage certificates electronically, and delivering marriage certificates electronically.  In Colorado and  Pennsylvania a couple can self marry without an officiant or priest.  States still only recognize a two person marriage. It considers polygamy, bigamy.

There are couples who would like to marry, but don't want to deal with the laws, of getting married.  Through my research, there is paperwork one can fill out that would help legally cover them.   

There are ceremonies called,  Commitment Ceremonies/ Private Marriages, where the couple can still have a wedding, but the officiant doesn't file paperwork with the state.  In the eyes of family, friends, you are married.  This relates back to how couples consented to be married, but with the state you are still considered legally single.  Because a marriage license was not signed family courts have no jurisdiction over you.  


If you want to make sure that you and your partner can take care of one another in case of an emergency, it overrides blood relatives,  these two forms are the most important.

Medical Power of Attorney - This form gives your paper consent to make decisions on your behalf in case of a medical emergency,  illness or unable to speak for yourself.   Giving you the protection making you seen as your partners,  immediate family.  It covers hospital visitation, medical decisions, and you can stipulate your end of life choices into the document.

Durable Financial Power of Attorney - Must state its durable to give your partner access to act on your behalf if you are cognitively injured.

Living Will (Advance Directive)- This document is to state your end of life wishes. (Life support, whether or not to resuscitate).

HIPAA Release Form-This document authorizes doctors to release and share your charts and medical conditions.


Under state law if you don't possess these next forms and your partner passes away, anything such as homes, bank accounts, 401k, investments will roll over to parents or siblings. Leaving you with nothing.

Last Will and Testament-Explicitly names your partner to inherit your belongings (house,car, beneficiary.


Revocable Living Trust- Document to pass large investments to your partner, like a home.


Transfer-On-Death/ Payment-On-Death- Free files you file with your bank, 401k, investment firms naming your partner as beneficary.


These documents bypass a prenuptial for those doing a Private Marriage.

Cohabitation Agreement -  contract dealing with how rent/mortgage is dealt with, exactly how these assets are divided and who ends up with what on a break up and  who owns household items.


Family LLC Operating Agreement-  Used if you buy a home or run a business together.  The LLC owns the property and operating agreement,  while the partners financial shares and buyout terms are defined.

Tenancy In Common Deed- Real estate deed you use if you don't go the way of the Family LLC Operating Agreement.  It outlines the percentage of property each person gets.



The last forms are the Child/Parenting Forms, if needed.

Co-Parenting Agreement- Financial responsibilities if the relationship ends, joint parenting conditions, custody expectations.

Delegation of Parental Powers ( Minor Medical POA)- It temporarily grants a non- biological parent legal authority to sign for a child's medical treatments, school enrollment and field trips.

To make this legal print the forms according to your state. Sign them in front of a notary along with two witnesses.  Submit a copy to your primary care doctor,  if you have one, keep your originals in a safe place.

There is a company that assist in giving everything needed for this process I  found online called, Deep Sea Royalty, that offers a Premium Divine Law Covenant Bundle for those choosing the Private Marriage route. They say that the bundle, "was created with one divine intention: to restore  to covenant, and protection to unions that choose to stand under Divine Law rather than solely under the systems of men."

The company is leaning back on ancient principles that have been shown here in this blog. Because in 2026, 49 states live under the statues of a marriage license, not divine law, and couples have to cover themselves accordingly.

I came across the following video that basically sums up everything that I have written through this blog starting from Rome and the Church making its why over to Turtle Island up to the present moment. I didn't go looking for this. It found me, and I think it's worth a listen. 

  For those who aren't able to view the video or would rather read the transcription, here it is.

"Ya see this hat right here? Freedom 250 years. That's right 1776 to 2026, that's today.  People see me in this hat, white man with a southern drawl, and they think they know what I stand for. They come up to me and say, "Dixey, why you hate white people?" So, let me get one thing straight right now, so we don't have to visit it again.  I don't hate white people. I am white. I ain't got no damn guilt complex. I'm proud to be white. I ain't got no problem with my skin. My mama was white.

What I absolutely despise is white fucking behavior.  Why? I'm ashamed of our greed, of our white narcissist,  and this sickness of Christian fascism,  that's rotting us from the inside out. We wave this flag and holler about patriotism,  but using the system keeping one race in power, over everybody else ain't patriotism.  That's a betrayal. We so terrified of our own history,  that we banning books  and hiding behind censored curriculum,  praying the world doesn't see the blood on our foundation.  

Ya want the receipts? Look in your own damn wallet, we carry proof of America's original sins in our pockets everyday like a lucky charm. Look at the 20 dollar bill of Andrew Jackson.  Looka there. Folks down here treat him like a hero, but let's be brutally honest. You worshipping at the alter of a racist. He wasn't just some tough guy, he was a human trafficker,  who used the U.S. military  to steal millions of acres from Native people, just to expand the empire of Slavery. It don't just stop with the 20 dollar bill. Look at George Washington on the 1 dollar bill, Jefferson on the 2 dollar bill.  These men wrote, All men are created equal,  while keeping  hundreds of human beings in chains. We build a holy trinity out of morally bankrupt narcissist who treated human life like currency.  We celebrated white greed as a virtue. This want to be new dictator Trump, is just the new messiah of that exact same fucking disease.

You know white people like to talk about civilization like we brought it here on the fucking boat. Please.  Hell, the Aztecs built the cities cleaner and more sophisticated then anything in Europe. They gave us crops, kept the world from starving. How did we pay them? We stole their gold, then we stole the blueprints for democracy to write their own Constitution.  And let's look at the Black soul, the truth why America really wants to skim. 'Cause if we admit what Black folks actually did, white genius looks like a fucking lie.

Black folks didn't just create the swamps and build the White House.  They built the modern world. You watching me on a cellphone right now because of Jesse Russell, pioneer, digital cellular technology.  You survived surgery  'cause  Charles Drew figured out the blood bank. We living in a house by the minds we trying to cage, and we still trying to ban the authors who wrote the truth about it. This is the white intellectual  bankruptcy.  My daddy and I used to huddle a lot, let me tell you a universal truth,  when the rabbit got the gun,  ain't no fun. 

People, we spent 400 years of holding and taking of the narrative and white America  is terrified. You scared Black and Brown people want to do to us what we've done to them. You projecting your own violent heart onto them. Waiting for a payback that fits your own blood thirsty hungry history.  Here's the raw and honest truth about Black people. They never wanted revenge. They never did. That's a white fantasy born out of guilt. They just want to live their fucking lives without asking your permission. They just want what's fair. Basically, they just want to be left the fuck alone. We're in our own heads, that we weaponize the system against them. 

And white women, you played innocent for 4 fucking centuries.  But your tears have been death warrants for entire communities from Tulsa to Emmitt Till, and I don't give a fuck if that hurts you, and I don't give a fuck if I'm a man telling  you, 'cause I'm coming down on our white men too. You are the weapon that makes the system work. Don't believe me look up fucking Tulsa. Look up fucking Rosewood.  The white women tears created that shit. So white America,  we tried  everything else. We tried to hate. We tried to fear. We tried to dominate  everyone who doesn't look like us, and failed us. Isolation is death. When we turn off the flow to diversity,  you aren't just starving your neighbors, you're tying a tourniquet around the veins of our democracy.  Fact.

America is diversity! Strength wasn't in our walls, it was in our ability to fuse different minds into something unstoppable.  Love is the most powerful,  untapped, revolutionary resource in our entire fucking universe.  It is the the only thing that can turn a broken system into a sanctuary.  I do this work because I love my people  enough to tell them the fucking truth.

Look at the fucking comments and tell me if you see any fucking white people. They all run from me like little fucking cockroaches. We have to bury the lie. We have to reclaim our humanity as white people. This Freedom 250 hat, stick it up your fucking ass, because America ain't never been fucking free. As the great Maddie Lou Hammer said, "Nobody's free", that includes you white America, "until everybody's free." 

Let that penetrate your little fucking minds. A dawn is coming,  and the choice is yours."

History of The Marriage License: Rome, Barbarians and The Church

 

By D.I. Muhammad 

As empires expanded and cultures merged, marriage became increasingly shaped by legal codes and religious authority. In Rome, marriage was recognized through civil law and family consent, while Germanic customs emphasized kinship alliances and dowry exchanges. Over time, the Christian Church began asserting influence, gradually transforming marriage from a family contract into a sacramental institution. These overlapping traditions laid the foundation for the formal marriage regulations that would later emerge in medieval Europe.

As we move over into Rome, we find that Christianity has slowly entered I to the lives of the people.


The family being considered an intergal, and autonomous mini-state. Rome at that time was guided by Augustus from 27B.C.- A.D. 14. The Barbarians, Germanic people, were also peacefully immigrating onto the land. 

"Coincident with the Great Migrations was the rise of the Christian Church from powerless, persecuted splinter sect to state religion of the Roman Empire. It enjoyed extraordinary success with the barbarians. Where the Roman proletariat came over gradually and the Roman elite tardily and reluctantly, the Germanic invaders of all national persuasions embraced Christianity with innocent enthusiasm,  even though some of its doctrine promised serious conflict with barbarian custom, as it did with Roman law." 

(Marriage and Family, pg. 40, Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)

The Roman family consisted of a larger group dynamic known as a familia. 

" Like the Greeks, the Roman's gave a name to the parent-child unit but to the larger group contained in the household (Latin familia, Greek oikos).  A poor household might comprise parents, children, and other relatives such as a brother's widow or a grandmother. A middling household might also include three or four servants, whether free or slave. A wealthy household numbered scores of persons, mostly slaves; a very wealthy one, hundreds." 

(Marriage and Family, Ch. 2, pg.40,  Roots: Roman, German, Christian)


Roman familia was economic, social, legal, educational, and the religious unit of society. 

" The economic role comes first, because the family's function as chief producing unit was the basis for all the other roles, which flowed naturally from this one. Property was held jointly by the family.  Individual members, blood- related or not, slave or free, owned little property and had few rights as individuals. Crime was punished within the family or settled between families,  public law only rarely intervening on occasions when the security of the state was affected or public order threatened. Religious worship was so strictly centered in home and hearth that a modern writer has described Roman religion as " hardly more than a spiritualization of family life." 

"The "high gods" of the Olympic pantheon were more literary symbols than objects of worship. The function of the temples of Rome was largely restricted to requests for special favors. In contrast, every household had its private altar, whose sacred flame was kept perpetually burning by the vigilant devotion of the women. There the entire household gathered to worship." 

(Marriage and Family, pg.41,  Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)


It is important to note how Roman religious life functioned prior to the institutional dominance of the Church, as later ecclesiastical reforms dramatically altered daily practice.


Familia was not those who lived in the home, but the ancestors who were highly acknowledged in their religious observance were considered apart of what is called gens, or clan. 

"...the large kinship group described as consisting of all persons descended from a founding ancestor, real or mythical. The distinctive Roman system of nomenclature was based on it."  "Families belonging to the gens were divided into two classes, the Patricia's or true members, and the clients, who formed an auxiliary underclass. In structure every Roman family was autocratic.  The head of the household,  whether father, grandfather, uncle,  or slave owner in relation to its other members, under the title of paterfamilias occupied the position of petty absolute monarch."

 (Marriage and Family, Ch. 2, pgs. 42-43, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)


Marriage in Medieval Rome


Just as in Sumeria and Ancient Egypt,  marriage was performed without a need for a clergy member, and was not viewed as a necessary permission by the state. The dowry existed,  but in a sense not for the bride, but for the groom, to help assist with the marriage.

"...the distinctive feature of Roman marriage was its private, familial character. In the time of Augustus nearly all Roman's married without benefit of clergy, and at no time was an official of the state involved. Nevertheless,  Roman marriage had a strongly legal significance.  The principal element in early Roman marriage, the bride purchase ( coemptio), by historic times had dismissed to a token payment. Simultaneously  there appeared the dowry (dos), a payment in the opposite sense, a contribution from the bride's family,  seeming to imply a shift in the marriage market from demand for bride's to demand for husbands. The dowry differs from the bride purchase in another way. Where the purchase price went to the bride's family or Kinsmen, the dowry went to the bridegroom to help support the marriage. " 

(Marriage and Family, pg. 46, Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)


Roman marriages took a step farther as regards to women. It was now the consent not just the consummation that would make a marriage legal between both parties. Wealthy Roman's needed a dowry for the bride. 

" Despite the subordinate position of the bride, Roman marriage custom was in advance of many of its contemporaries in requiring the consent of both principals as a condition of valid marriage,  a rule expressed in the legal formula Nuptias Consensus non concubines facit (consent, not intercourse, makes marriage). And in the third century B.C., a new form of marriage was introduced that wrought a decisive change in favor of women. Known as marriage sine Manu (without power transferred), the new form permitted the bride to retain  membership in her father's Familia despite moving into the home of her husband. By so doing she kept her inheritance rights as a daughter, assuring a considerable degree of independence from her husband. The husband in the marriage sine manu received only the bride's dowry,  and even that conditionally.  Under the Empire marriage  sine manu became overwhelmingly the more popular form." 

(Marriage and Family, pgs. 47-48,Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)

"In the marriage of wealthy Roman's, sustaining the "burden of matrimony " was perceived as requiring the assignment of an appropriate amount of income-producing property to the young couple. Under the Republic and early Empire, the bride's dowry remained the most important instrument for this intergenerational transfer of wealth, but under the mature Empire the pendulum swung.  The custom of a substantial marriage gift ( donatio) from the groom's family to the bride was introduced and by the third century A.D. came to exceed the dowry. By mid-fifth century the donatio, pledged and delivered before the marriage ceremony could take place, had grown so large as to constitute an obstacle to marriage for many young men, who as a result tended to delay marriage plans,  whereas young women ( and their families) sought to arrange as early a match as possible." 

(Marriage and Family, pg. 48, Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)


Interclass marriages


Interclass marriages were frowned upon, but persisted between the two classes who sought to be married.  Second cousin marriages were forbidden as well. Uncle, niece were forbidden until a senate member sought to marry his niece.  The law was then relaxed. Slave marriages were not acknowledged. 

" Most forms of intercession marriage were forbidden or hindered by legal obstacle or social disapprobation. Even when sanctioned,  such a matrimonial non Justus was long handicapped by assignment to the children of the status of the lower-ranking parent. Nevertheless,  intercession marriage persisted, as indicated by repeated legislation.  Slave marriage was not recognized  by law, which  did not prevent slaves from marrying and treating their marriages as serious. Even stronger than the bar to intercession marriage was the proscription against incest or marrying "in". Early Rome forbade marriage between second cousins, but over time the rule was relaxed, and even first cousins were allowed to marry. When the Emperor Claudis (reigned A.D. 41-54) chose for his fourth wife his niece Agrippina, the public was shocked, but the Senate  obligingly  revised the legal definition of incest, and ( according to Suetonius) at least two other uncle-niece marriages were recorded."

"Bethrothal and wedding,  private in the public in the sense of not involving officialdom, were public in the sense of overt. It was important for the community  at large to be informed. Besides the exchange of pledges (dos and donatio) the betrothal ceremony involved the exchange of promises between  groom-to-be and father of the bride-to-be: " Do you promise to give your daughter to me to be my wedded wife?"  " The gods bring luck! I betrothal her."  

The couple kissed and the young man placed an iron ring on the third finger of his fiancee's left hand. A Roman conviction that a vein ran from this finger straight to the heart was passed on by Macrobius (c. A.D.400) to the Middle Ages, whose bridal couples transmitted the tradition of ring and ring finger  to modern times. The wedding ceremony a few days later was also marked by long-lasting symbols: white bridal gown and veil, a best man ( auspex) who pronounced a legal formula, a shower from the wedding guests not of rice but of walnuts, a wedding feast, and carriage of the bride over the threshold of the bridal chamber. Once it had achieved its sine manu state,  Roman marriage changed little over a period of centuries.  Not so its dissolution, which underwent extensive modification under Augustus, not all in accordance with the government's intentions." 

(Marriage and Family, pgs. 50-51,  Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)


Roman Divorce


Not unlike marriage during Ancient Sumeria and Ancient Egypt,  marriage dissolution was not hard to break from. Divorce was legal if one committed adultery, drunk to much, was preparing  poison concoctions and , 

"counterfeit house keys. The upper elites divorced at will, the women having this privilege  as well because they still belonged to their father, not solely to the husband.  Polygamy  and concubinage only among the elites was legal."  

" Termination  of a Roman marriage had always been possible, and even quite easy for a Roman husband. This legal expression of the inferior status of women was a logical interference from the old marriage cum manu. The cum manu husband who wished to rid himself of his wife summoned a council of his family, to which the wife now belonged and cited his reasons,  among which the custom-honored were adultery, poison concoction, excessive drinking, and counterfeiting household keys. Yet though the husband's right to repudiate his wife was inherent in his legal power over her, the family's approval was evidently more than a formality, and the act of repudiation in the absence of convincing reasons  socially depreciated."  

"...increasing wealth brought to Rome by wars of conquest, did upper-class husband's gradually succeed in appropriating the right to divorce at will.  The prerogative may be seen as a substitute for the institutions of polygamy and concubinage, both practiced by the men of contemporary elites. In Rome concubinage was legal, but two principles of the law deprived it of much of its potential value in Roman eyes: a man could not keep both a wife and a concubine, and children of the latter were ineligible to inherit. Thus concubinage did not do what easy divorce could do. But Roman men did not monopolize the new freedom. At the very time they began practicing divorce at will,  Roman women obtained virtually equivalent license  via marriage sine manu. Since the sine manu wife still belonged to her father's family,  her male guardians could repossess her (abducted uxorem) or even without their intervention, she could exercise her own legal right ( Sul juris) and recover her own liberty. By the close of the Republic a wife could even secure a divorce under marriage cum manu if her husband deserted her, if he was convicted of certain crimes, or if he was made prisoner of war. The paramount consideration was the wife's  property. The husband repudiation his wife pronounced the formula " Tuas res Hbi agito"

 ("Take back what is yours"). The repudiation wife's formula ran "Tuas res tibi hibeto"(Keep what us yours"). ( Marriage and Family, pgs. 51-52, Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)

"Since it was desirable to facilitate remarriage of divorced couples,  a need was felt for a greater formalization if divorce.  Henceforth seven witnesses were required to attest to the dissolution of a marriage.  The procedure among the upper classes was for the divorcing partner to send a freedman bearing the message to the other spouse."  "Wives,  however were equally capable of breaking off the union " 

(Marriage and Family, pg. 55,  Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)


Reproductive Health


Abortion was illegal.  Contraception was also practiced, but not with great outcomes. A woman could still end up pregnant.  

" In early times the cult of ancestor worship conferred a mystic value on child birth, which did not however prevent the practice of abortion, socially frowned on and vainly prohibited by the  imperial government in the second century A.D. Previously it had been illegal only if performed without the permission of the paterfamilias.  Contraception was likewise  widely practiced,  though with only mediocre success. Preparations to insert in the vagina to block or kill seven had a long history antedating Rome, as did the rhythm method. Hippocrates, whose oath  contains an explicit condemnation of abortion but not of contraception, erroneously specified that the most fertile period was that immediately following menstruation. " 

(Marriage and Family, pgs. 57-58, Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)

"In A.D. 318 Constantine,  acting  under the humanitarian influence of the Christian Church,  and also out of a concern for population decline,  made infanticide a capital crime. Infanticide and the sale of children notwithstanding." 

(Marriage and Family, pg. 59,  Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)


Adultery at a time was viewed solely a, 

"crime only for women. Under the Republic a husband had the right to kill an adultress wife caught in the act, together with her lover, if he was a freedman or slave Augustus's legislation substituted a more humane and more worldly penalty in the shape of a fine based on the size of the woman's dowry. The law also touched on a husband's conduct. A little later the the wronged wife was given the valuable right of recovering her dowry, but not until Constantine three centuries later did Roman adultery become an equal crime for either sex.

Augustus in fact was mainly concerned with husbandly complacency and the thrust of his law was to compel  divorce proceedings.  In a sensational  invasion of traditional privacy, a corps of paid farmers was authorized to provide testimony against erring wives of forgiving husband's. Neither custom, lae, nor Informers prevented wives from continuing to stray I to other arms,  as is indicated by reenactments of legislation by later emperors,  and by a wealth of satiric literature." 

(Marriage and Family, pgs. 60-61,  Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)


Same sex relationships, as I have shown, have been around since Ancient Sumeria. The practice of it in Rome was among the male elite.  There is no mention of same sex relations among women as it was mentioned in Ancient Egypt.

"The practice of homosexuality  ,especially male, was evidently widespread, at least among the Roman upper classes. Slave boys like slave girls were made to serve their masters' pleasure (and on occasion also that of their mistresses, who by law of Constantine  were threatened with the death penalty for such fornication)." 

(Marriage and Family, pg. 62,  Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)


Property


Parafamilias were a big part of Roman households. Property was in the control of the paterfamilia only until things were changed, and removed this and gave the individual the control over their property. 

"Throughout the early Republic the parafamilias exercised his unchallenged authority, but as time passed the steady growing power of the Roman state began to impinge on it. A significant  change in family  relationships came about through the wars that formed so conspicuous a feature if the national history. A soldier's booty had always been treated as a legal property  of his paterfamilias  but as conquest extended the booty grew u til the government intervened. Henceforth the veteran solider retained his plunder, which he might use to equip his own estate. For the first time, individual property rights were recognized as opposed to family or clan property rights. The wars also brought a degree of defacto liberation to Roman women by freeing them from the surveillance of absent male relatives and awarding them masculine responsibilities such as running the farm or estate. By the time Augustus, Greek observers were struck by the freedom of upper-class Roman women; where the ladies of Athens remain secluded at home while their husband's socialized, those of Rome  accompanied the men to dinner parties, creating a small but noteworthy revolution,  the world's first elegant mixed society." 

(Marriage and Family, pgs. 44-45, Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)


Barbarian migrants lived among the Roman's. The society that the Germans built among themselves was one of, " the family...the basic unit, economic,  social,  legal, and religious.  Families were aggregated into kin groups for ehich the German term was SIppe, and whose structure, character,  and exact functions have been the subject of extensive controversy and conjecture among modern historians. 

" Before the Migrations, " Tacitus, who had contact with them as an official in the provinces a century and a half later, reported private (individual family) ownership of cropland, along with common ( evidently Sippe) ownership of pasture. By the time of the Migrations,  the German family typically raised wheat or barley, and sometimes flax, peas and beans, and herded a few sheep or cattle. In their new homes I side the Roman Empire they adapted quickly to the more advanced Roman techniques.  The Lombard law code, written down in the sixth century but largely reflecting earlier conditions, mentions vines, fences, mills, animal pastures,  fruit and olive trees, domesticated fowl, beekeeping, pigs, and swine herds. In addition to forming,  Germans engaged in both manufacture and trade. Ironwork, including fabrication of weapons was a male vocation, pottery making, both by wheel and by hand, largely female. Among products long imported into the Roman Empire from the Germanic lands outside it were slaves, furs,  skins, and amber."

 (Marriage and Family, pgs. 67-69, Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)


Barbarian (German) Property

"The barbarian equivalent of the Roman father's patria potestas, sometimes called the mundium, awarded very similar authority  with only one important subtraction: barbarian sons attaining majority ( the age varying among different peoples) acquired legal independence.  Family solidarity was assumed as the basis of law and order, with crime treated as tort and the family and clan given the responsibility for translating individual grievance into resolution by collective action. The injured individual solicited his family's support and the opposing party's  family undertook to defend him or to make suitable amends. To facilitate the process, the Germans had developed an ingenious legal instrument,  the wergeld, or "man-worth," a value attached to every individual  on the basis of sex, age, and status. Pay-off compensation  for a crime against the person was assessed as a fraction or multiple of the victim's wergeld. Thus for a crime of rape the Burgunduan law code exacted nine times the wergeld of the victim. Taciturn reported compensation in kind- cattle, sheep, or chattels- but as the barbarians settled down in the money economy of the Roman empire, gold solidi and silver denari were substituted." 

(Marriage and Family, pgs. 69-70, Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)


Marriage


Barbarian marriages were male dominated and Family oriented. Marriages were arranged by male relatives of the bride. The marriage consisted of a promise, of marriage,  a feast, the brideprice. According to Tacitus, 

"The bride...completed the marry a gift of arms to the groom, but it us clear that the main direction of endowment was from the groom. The significant difference between barbarian and Roman practice was the source of the endowment: the barbarian paid for his wife, the Roman contributed for his daughter."

 (Marriage and Family, pg.71, Ch. 2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)

Divorce

Divorce among the women was double sided, even though the women were seen with some sense of value.

“The double standard was even more manifest in German than in Roman attitudes…Despite their subordinate status, barbarian women were valued, and not only for sex and procreation. They possessed particular skills, passed from mother to daughter: besides making pottery, they spun and wove with a skill attested by garments recovered by archaeologists from peat bogs…Legal texts reveal another value: descent was commonly reckoned in the female line for the good reason that female descent could be more reliably determined than made.” 

(Family and Marriage, pgs.72-73, Ch.2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)

The Effects of Christianity

The Church would soon find its position of authority among the people. Since the beginning of its presence it captured the attention of the barbarians. It was the Romans who were not so easily swayed.

“In the fourth century, as the Great Migrations swelled toward their climax and the vast military-administrative apparatus of the Roman Empire strained and cracked under the pressure, a new force entered into the turbulent European scene. After struggling through three centuries of persecution and indifference, the Christian religion matured into a position of status and authority, routing the gods from the Pantheon and the Lares from the hearths. Among the Romans it won its converts more rapidly in the cities than in the countryside, where pockets of paganism and remnants of pagan practices survived for centuries, or even permanently, without preventing the triumph of the cult throughout Europe. It gained first official toleration (A.D. 313) and then (A.D. 380), while simultaneously and even more dramatically it captured virtually the entire mass of barbarian invaders as they crossed the frontiers.” 

(Family and Marriage, pg.78, Ch.2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)

The Christian community was now forming, aligning itself with the Empire that was crumbling. The Church now had to find a way to silence the teachings of Gnosticism, Manicheism, and Arianism. Doctrine was now designed, 

“to answer esoteric theological questions and to provide rules of conduct for everyday Christian life.” 

(Family and Marriage, pg.79, Ch.2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)

Augustine and other Fathers of the Church argued what now would constitute marriage. Everyone had their own opinions. The New and Old Testament of the Bible was considered by some. St. Paul’s view was beyond mutual consent even though regardless of which Testament of the Bible was viewed, the Bible itself did not go against marriage.

“Augustine concluded that marriage for Christians must be regarded as a sacrament (sacramentum), a permanent union. It contained three discernable goods: fides, faith; proles, offspring; and sacramentum, a scared bonding not merely of two persons, but of whole lines of descent, a priniciple, by no means foreign to pagan thought, either Roman or German. As with Romans and Germans, Christian doctrine held that the two relationships of blood and marriage must be kept distinct through the incest taboo and the rules of exogamy. In this direction the Church reinforced the law of Moses (Leviticus 18:6-21, 20: 11-12). With marriage accorded the status of sacrament, a nuptial blessing by the priest seemed no more than logical. Yet the priest’s participation long remained more incidental than central, and not essential for a valid union.” 

(Family and Marriage, pg. 63-64, Ch.2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)

Divorce became forbidden and polygamy and concubinage was frowned upon.

“Constintine and succeding Christian empires had acted to restrict the old freedom of divorce, but they had made no attempts to abolish it.” “Augustine rejected all the grounds for divorce allowed by existing secular law, such as prolonged absence or captivity. He was “the workman who put the final hand to the theory of indissolubilty”, according to canon-law authority Adhemar Esmein.” 

(Family and Marriage, pg.85, Ch.2, Roots: Roman, German, Christian)

Conclusion

Marriage in Romanian and Germanian culture was the beginning of the Church coming in and laying new rules on what marriage was in now defined to be. Unlike what the culture was in Sumeria and Egypt were marriage was ruled by consent and consummation the Church now decreed that marriage had to be overseen by a priest to be considered as binding. That certain rituals needed to be performed besides having the permission of the family, having a feast and the consummating the relationship. It was now becoming ruled by the Church and if you chose to become Christian you had to follow the laws of what marriage now looked liked. Divorce was fought over but came to the point of, if your in, your in, there is no easy way out.

We will now travel overseas to explore how the two tribes, the Choctaw and Cherokee dealt with marriage, and how their values would soon be replaced with the Church intervening.

The Church took hold in Rome with the Romans and Germans. It became the ultimate authority in religion among the people. The missionaries were preparing to set sail across the ocean to a new land. The Chahta and Cherokee had no idea what was to come.

Series 4: Marriage of Choctaw and Cherokee Nations 

Lydia Durham: Daughter of Trump & Houston?

 

 

When I came across this picture I nearly spit the food out that I was eating.  Then I said, "This can't be true. Stop it.  I got to research this one."  That is what I did. I found a couple interviews.  No one will take on her story. Why? Is she the real Durham report?  This woman and her children's lives are at stake, and no "truthers" want to interview her.  Put your bias to the side and get her story out, and let people come to their own opinion.

Until then here are a couple interviews I found.

She mentions this person in her interview 

Lydia Durham:Trumps Daughter pt1

Lydia Durham pt 2

Anonymous Launches Lydia Durham into the Universe

Lydia's Petition 

https://www.change.org/p/who-is-lydia-durham-is-she-the-unknown-trafficked-daughter-of-45th-president-donald-j-trump 

Now go make your own unbiased opinion.

Trumps Illegitimate Daughter Lydia Durham

Polygany A Needed Solution?

by Imani Muhammad

I have heard both sides of the argument when it comes to a polygamous marriage. You have men and women who are against it and feel that man only needs to marry one woman at a time. That this is some type of new hustle for men to get pussy from a woman. That we live in the U.S. and you can’t have any more than one wife any way. Then there are those who proclaim that there is nothing wrong with a man having more than one wife. That it would strengthen the community, get that woman off of welfare, that’s if she is on it, provide a male image for her children, and just uplift the Black family. That it puts the man back in his rightful place which is to provide and to protect the woman and the child(ren).

Polygamy is practiced in some African countries, but not all. It is a structure that brings together unity for sisterhood between the two women, upliftment and love for the family unit. To be practiced amongst any body here in the states it has to be done with commitment, fairness and maturity. This system of marriage is not to be  played with or to be entered into lightly. It can’t be entered into lightly because you are dealing with peoples emotions, and just like any monogamous relationship you must be ready as an individual before you should enter this type of relationship as well because you are dealing with the individual’s time, energy, and most of all emotions.

So, you might ask, ‘Well what side are you on?’ Being that I have seen polygamous marriages work and fall, and not only experienced them from watching on the outside but have been in one as well, I am for them. Would I do it again? Yes, with the right man I would. But before I did me and the man that I was interested in marrying  would have to have a long talk. He would have to make it crystal clear to me why he would want to be in a polygamous marriage. I mean make it so clear that there would be no room for misinterpretation on my part of why he wanted to do this. Mines did not work for reasons I will not put here, but it is a beautiful system. Not everyone is ready or willing to deal with being in a polygamous marriage. Most black women will be ready to cuss you out and fight you knowing that there partner was dealing with someone else. Not knowing that he may be seeing someone else. It’s not about the sex and should not be treated as if it is all about the sex. A person can enter a monogamous marriage or relationship and that too can be seen as just sexual, and most are. So if you are entering a polygamous marriage and this is your out look on it then its not for you. Your not marriage minded period as of yet.

I was in a polygamous marriage while I was practicing Islam. I no longer practice. Before I decided to enter into such a marriage I saw the goodness of it. Meaning I saw how beautifully it worked, and I saw the nastiness of it. I heard of stories where the second wife knowing this was the type of relationship she was entering would just mentally break down and call the first wife and say to her, ‘This is my man not yours. He is staying with me and you can’t have him back. Go find you another man.’ She clearly wasn’t ready to enter into a marriage such as this. There should be no jealousy or cattiness brought into this. Then I’ve seen the ones that worked. The sisters helped one another out, there was no cattiness, any problems that arose they took care of because it was between them, not them and the husband. Most of the time the husband never even knew a problem existed.

While I was practicing I had a sister I knew invite me over to her house. I would visit her from time to time but today was different. Today when I came to visit her she took me away to her room so she could talk to me privately. The conversation…her husband. She was telling me what a good man he was, and how well he treated her and her co-wife, who I knew as well and that I would make a wonderful addition to the family. Then the other co-wife came over and told me some of the same things she did but also explained to me what the polygamous marriage was all about. Things changed though when I met the husband who was a friend of my ex-husband. He told me that he asked my ex-husband was it okay if he asked to marry me and that my ex said yes, and told him what a good wife and person I was.

The element changed when I met him because his energy did not sit right with me. You know the type, they come into a room and all of a sudden you start to feel tired and drained. They call it psychic vampirism. Well that’s what I felt around him. I loved my sister friends and I was so honored that they approached me for marriage to their husband and into their family. They also told me the only reason why they did chose to approach me is because every time they where in my presence or saw me out in the masjid, they would watch how I behaved around other sisters. This brother had three wives when I married my first husband and he had a wife who I became best friends with. So, the brother knew of me for a while. I just could not risk putting my friendship on the line with these two beautiful sisters knowing in my heart that it would not work between he and I. He was trying to be the provider and protector because I just had a baby around that time.

This is how I feel a polygamous marriage should work. The woman picks who would be a good fit into the family. If I’m the first, I want to know the woman coming in. I want to sit down and talk to her. See her in her environment around people and how she functions and acts. I want to get to know her genuine, authentic self just like I wanted to get to know my husbands genuine, authentic self. This is how I feel it should work. I was honored to have those two sisters approach me to be apart of their family. You also want to make sure of the sisters mentally stability. Because what affects one will eventually affect the whole and that's what a family structure is a whole.

I can agree with a polygamous marriage when the man is seriously going to protect and provide for his family, and any children that come into that family. This means that he has the financial means to do so. I don’t like it when I see men (mostly Muslim) who marry three or four women and have those women in the welfare office. He clearly does not have the means to have all these women but because his religion told him he could, he does. This right here is a dis-service to the woman and to the family unit. Another man is providing for you and that woman in the house and you are supposed to be doing this for her. As a woman who has a man she should never have to go to another man to have things provided to her. Not even her father. You married the woman and this is now your job. If a woman is on assistance and you want to marry her, in order for her to let go and trust in your provision as a man you must show to her you can provide for her and her child(ren). Its backwards to have it go the other way around. You marry her and then marry two more and now you got them all on assistance. None of them should be there. In her eyes that kind of devalues your manhood.

So the questions I put out are:

If I am the first wife how long before you decide to want to take on a second wife?

Why do you want to be in a polygamous marriage? Make your intention crystal clear so there can be no misinterpretations? Make your intention to why you want to marry her crystal clear?

If I were to agree to enter back into a polygamous marriage. I would do solely because I have a ten year old child who I wanted to spend more time with. Possibly have another child if we were both in agreement with that. Like I said we would have to have a serious talk. He would have to court me so I could make sure he was the one I did really want to marry. Off subject. Back to the questions.

How do you intend to provide for your wife(s)?

How do you view the women and the role they play in a marriage like this to you? If it’s a first wife, then how do you view her role in marriage to you?

What do you expect to get from a polygamous marriage?

When choosing a second wife does she also have a say so in the decision?

What will be the processing for how the second wife is chosen?

What will be the living arrangements for both wives? Separate apartments, shared living, etc.

What type of life style are you able to provide to them?

Will the marriage be open for everyone to witness or in private? Explain what private means to you?

Will the marriages be registered with the state you married in?

What type of ceremony will you two have?

Would you want to have children or have more children if you have them already?

Are you requesting that wife(s) be tested for STD’s? Even you. (This is a big concern when women think about polygamy)

Are you okay with her working outside the home or just being in the home?

If she decides to stay home are you willing to provide her an allowance?

If she works outside the house, do you feel she should contribute some of her earnings into the family unit?

If taking on a second wife, how long should you two get to know her ( if you two agree on you dating) before you actually marry?

What do you have in place in case of your death for your wives?

Now, I ask this last question because most men have nothing in place for there wives once they transition and the last thing you want to do is leave your woman being destitute after you provided for her for so long. What do you have in place that both of your wives will still be able to live on for a while without having to go seek assistance..

It can work. The first wife and the husband must first have a solid foundation. Solid foundations are the basis for anything lasting. Relationships are meant for two people to come together as a unit. To grow and become stronger. With polygamy everyone in that unit has the ability to strengthen there relationships with one another and grow. You still have your own individuality were you are growing and being stronger within your self as well. This is not for everyone. Most people are fine with monogamy, open-relationships, polyandry, serial monogamy. What you do may not fit everyone else. In my journey on the earth so far I have ran into women who are married and tell me, he seeing another woman and I keep telling him to go but he won’t. Or I know where he goes when he is not with me, and I have a garden or I cook something and send it with him to give to her.

Polygyny

the practice of having more than one wife; a form of marriage existing throughout history and found chiefly in patriarchies. In its late forms, polygyny was retained in the class society of certain Muslim peoples of the East as a privilege of the ruling classes. Polygamy, a less precise term, is sometimes used instead of polygyny.

The Great Soviet Encyclopedia (1979).

Polygamy

Marriage to more than one spouse at a time. Although the term may also refer to polyandry (marriage to more than one man), it is often used as a synonym for polygyny (marriage to more than one woman), which appears to have once been common in most of the world and is still found widely in some cultures. Polygyny seems to offer the husband increased prestige, economic stability, and sexual companionship in cultures where pregnancy and lactation dictate abstinence, while offering the wives a shared labour burden and an institutionalized role where a surplus of unmarried women might otherwise exist. The polygynous family is often fraught with bickering and sexual jealousy; to preserve harmony, one wife may be accorded seniority, and each wife and her children may have separate living quarters. Polyandry is relatively rare; in parts of the Himalayas, where brothers may marry a single woman, the practice serves to limit the number of descendants and keep limited land within the household.

http://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/polygamy

Polygamy

Polygyny (Polygamy) Is Already A Practice

                                                   The Social Historical Basis for Polygamy (Part 1).mp4  (Video)


                                                     The Social Historical Basis for Polygamy (Part 2)

                                                      The Social Historical Basis for Polygamy (Part 3) 

                                                      The Social Historical Basis for Polygamy (part 4)