THE ORIGINAL & LARGEST MILLIONAIRE DATING SINCE 2001
Member's Blog > Leonicvirgo's blogs > Applying Common Law- The LGBTT Community

Applying Common Law- The LGBTT Community

Members Only

We procreate with a seed & an egg. That is how a Human is born to this world, and has been the Standard for eon's, including the archiological digs being unearthed today. That's what GOD decided when he made the First Couple(maybe, a second couple). The LGBTT Community is not new. The fact is that there have always been this Community through the age's over this Spance of Time of the Human Race. That's hundreds of thousands of years, if you believe in Carbon Dating. I'm sure you will find Adoption rules in Basic Common Law, through the ages. There are rules set out in Deuteronomy for slaves within the Israeli Community. God never let these people have residence in the Tent Camp, While wandering the desert. The vows one took, through the ages were between the Man&Woman.

 USSC Meister VS Moore set Marriage Laws in 1879 by referring to an 1839? Michigan Common Law. I'm sure there was an LGBTT Community back then, but they were looked over in this Common Law of Marriage. Why?

All of this LGBTT Litigation is to recognize two men, or women as partners due all of the benefits a contractual Partnership covers. There is no need to change the ageless Marriage Concept, according to GOD in Genesis 2:18-24.

We come forward in time to the 90's, and the LBGTT Community active in acheiving a small voting block of the GP Voting Public. THey Today garner 8-10%. It would take some changes in the Tax code to incorporate benefit sharing with the LBGTT Community, but this should never have been solved by changing Historical Common Law with Marriage. That could have been done by a Directive. We must truly protect True Common Law. It has been drawn by over 5 Major Common Law streams, including Pre-Muhammad Islamic Common Law.  85-90% are heterosexual unions, in the USA. 33% of the Nation States are still fighting it out in Superior Court. The other 50+% don't care about the USSC Ruling. That does not change the Common Law Norm.

What are you're thoughts?   LV1

Sort by:
newest post
  • oldest post
  • newest post
Members Only

Forgive me, bloggers for misquoting dates. I realize from the transcript, the note of religious beliefs driving the Common Law of marriage. Once again, this ruling referred to the tenets of an 1838 Michigan Common Law dealing with Marriage.

The Lgbtt Community have been marrying for over 30 years withan Ecumenical Marriage, without the recognition of State Law concerning pooling of resources, and equal protection. Common Law still holds firm, the true marriage to be between a Man & a Woman. GTBK's remarks blamed it on Powdered Wigs-English Law. This Marriage Common Law was taken from Societies beyond the English,and for hundreds of thousand years. I don't think the 30 year rise of the LGBTT Community should be able to change Age Old Marriage Laws  (1 Age is declared on Mayan Stone to be 25,000+ years, and counts over 17 of these time passages). We are an old race, and have declared our union with another for many reasons. Some societies in the US marked, stoned,or burnt alive Women and Men for adultry, no matter if a bond was established between the man& the woman. Children born out of wedlock were considered bastards. This Social Practice also told the Village that the two were, 'Off The Market'. It would be very difficult to find a Minister that would marry 2 men, or 2 women, back then.

 

 I do understand the liberation the LGBTT feels with this decision. The stunt of going to Kentucky- One of the Holdout States, and demanding a License to Marry, drew the line between Religion, Common Law, and LGBTT NORMALITY in this present Society. 

 

I have also indicated that this issue could have been resolved by rewording Tax Laws, and stiffen the bonds of a Partnership Arrangement. This Decision is a hard one to swallow, with the 90% numbers of Heterosexual Husbands and Wives today.
U.S. Supreme Court
Meister v. Moore, 96 U.S. 76 (1877)

Meister v. Moore

96 U.S. 76

 

Syllabus

This was ejectment, brought Oct. 9, 1873, by Bernard L. Meister, for the possession of certain lots of ground in Pittsburgh, Pa.

Both parties claimed under William Mowry, the plaintiff, as the alienee of the alleged wife and daughter of said William, and the defendants, as the vendees of his mother, in whom the title of the property vested, if he died unmarried and without issue.

The plaintiff, to maintain the issue on his part, introduced evidence tending to prove that sometime in the year 1844 or 1845, said William went from Pittsburgh to the Saginaw Valley, in the State of Michigan, and there became acquainted with Mary, the daughter of an Indian named Pero; that in the latter part of the year 1845, Mowry and Mary were married, and thereafter lived and cohabited together as man and wife, and had one child born to them, named Elizabeth; that said Mowry died intestate sometime in 1852 at Pittsburgh, leaving no issue living at his death save said Elizabeth, who afterwards married one Isaacs; and that they, Aug. 27, 1873, conveyed the demanded premises to the plaintiff.

The defense was:

1. That the plaintiff's evidence, even if true, did not, under the statute of Michigan regulating the solemnization of marriage, establish a valid marriage between William Mowry and the Indian woman.

2. That that evidence utterly failed to establish a valid marriage at common law.

The Revised Statutes of Michigan upon the subject of the

solemnization of marriages, adopted in the year 1838 and in force at the time of the alleged marriage, enact as follows:

"SEC. 6. Marriages may be solemnized by any justice of the peace in the county in which he is chosen, and they may be solemnized throughout the state by any minister of the gospel who has been ordained according to the usages of his denomination and who resides within this state and continues to preach the gospel."

"SEC. 8. In the solemnization of marriage, no particular form shall be required except that the parties shall solemnly declare, in the presence of the magistrate or minister and the attending witnesses, that they take each other as husband and wife. In every case there shall be at least two witnesses, besides the minister or magistrate, present at the ceremony."

Members Only

RH...I don't think you've even read Meister VS Moore, and know what I'm speaking of. That is sad when one engages his mouth, without engaging his brain beforehand. Blogs are for Civil discussion; not for attacking character.

 

As a note, Tarkin1 misspelled irrelevant. I did not see you admonish him for his spelling. You must have seen that, but chose to attack me. I believe most people got my drift, and my initial post was coherent. I am a man that researches virtually everything for the finites of issues. Being, Out Of The Box" allows me to view issues from all angles&points.

 

I overviewed 911 to my daughters FB page, and asked at the end if someone could explain the freefall of WT7( Actually all 3 buildings were the first to fall in the history of the planet, due to fire, and a strike by an airplane). If you apply your knowledge of Physics, as over 5,000 Seasoned Professional scientist's did, would you have the Logical Sense to debunk their findings, or would it be another round of Character Asassination like we see here. My daughter seems much wiser than you.  She replied,"Thanx Dad for teaching me to question everything!. Smart girl!!!

Members Only

Is It irrelevant if 1/3 of the Nation States disagree with the change???...

 

...Nen is messed up on something...

 

There are COOLER French, you could address as they come, with respect. You must start to divide THE TRUTH WISELY. You avoid issues, and attack character...I am not here to play little Kindergarten War Games with you, or anyone else...(:LV1:)

Members Only
Quoting Good2BTheKing:

would you all like some croutons with leonicvirgo's word salad?  Maybe some dressing on the side?

No thank you. Croutons seem like a waste of calories.....not to mention the risk of a broken tooth. I'll opt for Bleu Cheese crumbles instead please. 

 

Hmmmm....I think it's supposed to be a code game G2BK. Didn't you ever run with a pre-teenage pack of boys who formed a secret club with secret passwords??   What about pig Latin?  That always confused me too. *wink*

Members Only
View author's info
1 year ago

 

****@G2btheKing****

 

Oh ! I didn't know you could make a good salad ...with crouttons of course ..Its really tasty but I think its not much of utility nowadays ...that was before 10 yrs ... 

 

Well , regarding LEONICVIRGO I know him since I started with the blog so as everybody here ..I know his comments are quite unusual but he is for what he is ..I've tried to cope up with his comments and I would say he had improved a lot  and besides he's a nice guy who never make personified comments ...

Members Only

would you all like some croutons with leonicvirgo's word salad?  Maybe some dressing on the side?

Members Only
Quoting 3345roc:

Put the old thinking cap on Stanley and draw upon all of your powers of deductive reasoning.....

Hint:  It was the very first comment posted on this blog.  Anything come to mind? 

For you both, My first words would be the way a Frenchman would put you in your place...That may come... I've already done that, and you feel the backlash...STUPID GAME!!! (:LV1:) 
Members Only

This is like, a 7 card Run on A Texas Holdem Poker Site; 1/2 Million on the LINE...

Members Only
Quoting Tarkin1:

My thoughts are you can't tell the difference between relevant and irelevant points.  As such, it is pointless to attempt to teach you anything, as you can't recognze good evidence from bad evidence.

 

 

I am confused by your point Tarkin! 

 

Evidence of what?  Do you have examples of good evidence vs bad evidence???  Or is it pointless to attempt to teach me as well????

Members Only

Well...We Crossed the AGE change, Dec 21, 2012, to Aquarius. Saturn is in Libra,now, and One should know how to row his boat through these tossing waves of BALANCE.

The US has not reached equalibrium on this issue. That 1/3rd Of The Procreation Crowd...NOT Going to Change. This is the time to stand on the COMMON LAW side of this issue.

In 1879, USSC went to a 1837-1839 Michigan Law that withstood the ages as Common Law between the Seed&Egg. That's what GOD Ordained. I have not found a WWW Address to put forth GOD's meaning of Creation!!!

Someone out there connected?

We Read&Dig for the Real Truth!!!

There are still, Many Missing Parts of the Mosaic!

Members Only

Can you define Common Law from 17/26K bobbles of our planet, on the Eliptic? Where does this recent find fit on the Brain Density, and Size of Modern Man. Could it be a burial Place for Chimps? Was it on the Tropic Of Capricorn, and had those energies within all 3 of our magnetic zones of Sun Radiation, produce a Primative Grave Site of Stacked Bodies. There is still no link to Modern Man, or woman. Was this Earth a Breeding Ground for Knowledge?

 

Well...That's what we ask of ourselves, Daily! (:-:)

Members Only
Quoting Tarkin1:

My thoughts are you can't tell the difference between relevant and irelevant points.  As such, it is pointless to attempt to teach you anything, as you can't recognze good evidence from bad evidence.

 

 

To Who were you referring, BARKIN1TARKIN1???!!!...?

 

Members Only

We do have a conglomeration of True Constitutional Law. The idea of Fair Governing was always entwined with other Cultures, and the purest aspect of treating an INDIVIDUAL As an INDIVIDUAL. What impedes an INDIVIDUALS Progress is a Judicial Matter. If one see's this License Cherade as a Point Of Law, Then the Point is Nill. Marriage Vows are taken from Genesis, no matter the pairing of the 8%Vote they give. Certainly; 1/3rd are towing the LINE on this issue. GOD talks about the meaning of 3's

Members Only

English common law was not set in stone, it evolved over time.  Either way, America is not bound by it, we can pass statutes or constitutional provisons that supercede any case law precedent.  The Supreme Court said that state laws limiting marriage to heterosexual couples violated the federal Constitution.  It's the interpretation of the Constitution's equal protection (I think) clause that was changed.  The Constitution has won out in conflicts with common law for many years now, that's a settled part of American jurisprudence.  The reason for this is that it's more democratic to let legislatures and the courts change the law rather than keep us stuck with whatever some English judge in a powdered wig decided hundreds of years ago.   

Members Only

My thoughts are you can't tell the difference between relevant and irelevant points.  As such, it is pointless to attempt to teach you anything, as you can't recognze good evidence from bad evidence.