I like what this judge had to say. I have been wondering how Christians before the 1960s justified racialism and the quote below makes a pretty good explanation.


That case -- Loving vs. Virginia -- was brought by Mildred and Richard Loving, a married couple convicted of miscegenation in 1959 before a trial judge who declared, "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 marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."
http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3117 (http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3117)

Horrific how much Christians changed since then.

A license is nothing but an abridgement of your inalienable rights.


Very interesting, very good points.


It is ipso facto true that if you do not sign their marriage license and make vows in their presence and sanction, they have no jurisdiction in the case of divorce since they are not a party to the marriage.

Now this is the logic that license supporters are arguing is in the best interest of society. I mean you wouldn't want just anyone getting married. And frankly, with state jurisdiction being what it is, I would have to agree. In fact, I wish that nobody in the U.S. get married via the state and suffer state control over their person, property and family.

What about common law marriages?, in California I have heard that if a woman can prove that she has been together with her buck for more than six months and that they lived together it is legally considered that they were common law married and thus she can make claims.

I would be surprised if that were not true, there is no absurdity that the courts and the state have not yet perpetrated.

Christian attitudes toward race sure have changed. By what mechanism? TV evangelists? Who told christians how they should regard race? I don't believe it was a matter of everyone changing their minds in unison out of the blue. Sheep are led to their pastures.

Christian attitudes toward race sure have changed. By what mechanism? TV evangelists? Who told christians how they should regard race? I don't believe it was a matter of everyone changing their minds in unison out of the blue. Sheep are led to their pastures.


I have a booklet written in 1958 by some southern Christian where he lays it all out according to the Bible. Homosexuality is wrong, race mixing is forbidden by god (there's at least one story in the Bible where God tells the Jews not to race mix with the people they are conquering). So at that time Christians could still think sensibly and speak out for common sense.

Everything for a decent society is in the Bible (plus lots of weird crap) which is why the Bible had to go. Not because of the weird stuff, but because of the decent stuff.

Its present day application is to entice all comers to accept government abrogation of their rights. [/font]
And by signing on that dotted line, you and I give over the jurisdiction of our marriage and family to the state. This would include the fruits of marriage....our children and marital assets. Voluntarily.

Not only are you marrying your betrothed, but your State. This is literally true. This is why the state has jurisdiction over your property in divorce proceedings. And why they have jurisdiction over who gets custody of the children. You and they have become property of the State and thus subject to their every whim.

[font=Arial]It is ipso facto true that if you do not sign their marriage license and make vows in their presence and sanction, they have no jurisdiction in the case of divorce since they are not a party to the marriage.

........ jarl you better stick to poking fun at Christians and stay away from legal theorizing. The fact is the State has authority over whatever "unions" it says it does, whether you say so or not. "common law marriage" is a legal reality in many states where people cohabit as man and wife for a certain time are treated as married whether they've obtained licenses or not. THat's been abolished some places and others not.

Likewise the State can authorize what is marriage and what is not, whether it is between cousins or faggots or Whites and non-Whites etc.

In the old days, Christians believed that the separation of the races was divinely ordained. The Reformed Church of South Africa had quite a developed doctrine on this matter but I wont bore you with it. The bottom line is the Jews wiggled their way into both Church and State and all the sheep followed what they new shepherds said. Jarl's solution is to destroy Church and probably state. I think that's probably both nearly impossible and also un-necessary as they can be retaken with much hard work and coordination.

But it's easier to say ooh, Christianity was Jew plot since day one, and then you never have to try.

No ALL Christians have changed :cool:

Those that have are christian pharisees. How do those who "haven't changed" regard mainstream christians accepting fags and beastiality? With the typical "well that's them". They are claiming cover under "your" banner. Will you defend them, 'cause they're christians too?

Those that have are christian pharisees. How do those who "haven't changed" regard mainstream christians accepting fags and beastiality? With the typical "well that's them". They are claiming cover under "your" banner. Will you defend them, 'cause they're christians too?

You gotta know that America was a Christian country, that Hollywood was started by a bunch of Russkie commie jews to brainwash America into commie ways and that women's lib, diversity, etc. were all enforced in commie Russia before they were here.

If you have a wife or girlfriend who works outside the home, you got that from the commie jews, it's all part of the same agenda. Even you wearing blue jeans and your woman wearing pants is part of the programming from Elder Brothers of Zion headquarters, to make you lowly workers in wonderful world of ZOG. That part was an easier sell than race mixing, and fagism, but it all comes from the same source.

Jarl, the state is no more a party to the marriage contract than it is to any other legally enforceable agreement. You dont "subject yourself' to the state via marriage any more than you do in any other agreement. If you're trying to suggest that one has more 'rights' over a child as an unmarried parent as opposed to a married or divorced one, you're in error again.

Hey Jarl you sound young and like you like to argue. If you're wanting to quote lawbooks now too maybe YOU can be the next Matt Hale. Ever consider law school? Put your energies to work.

That case -- Loving vs. Virginia -- was brought by Mildred and Richard Loving, a married couple convicted of miscegenation in 1959 before a trial judge who declared, "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 marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

Quite possibly the most asinine justification for anti-miscegenation. No wonder it was eventually overturned. But to fair, I guess they didn't know what we know now about the full extent of genetics.

A&E is technically correct.

DUHHH....

Simple Contract Law. It is not beyond the scope of most white men to learn.
....

Van Koten v. Van Koten. 154 N.E. 146.



Gosh Jarl thanks for layin that all out for me. Clear as mud. LOL

So are you going to sign up for law school Jarl? Or is that a ways off yet? Tell us more you seem very confident in your reasoning. Is this the product of some particular educational preparation or what?

Those that have are christian pharisees. How do those who "haven't changed" regard mainstream christians accepting fags and beastiality? With the typical "well that's them". They are claiming cover under "your" banner. Will you defend them, 'cause they're christians too?

They aren’t Christians. They can claim under the banner all they want but they are not Christians. You have to walk a certain path to be a Christian and fags can’t walk the path and continue to be fags nor can a Christian forgive the fag in the name of Jesus and accept them into the folds of the church as fags. No one has the power to change the rules.
Defend them? I doubt that we will be on the same side, we aren’t now. Not all Christians are sheep with no brains. My last church was totally jewed out. I saw it happen and it is not a pretty site. My pastor became Satan teaching good Christians that jews were chosen also. He made us pray for Israel and when I questioned the immediate response was “did a jew do something to you to make you hate them so?” Stupid man! Typical jew tactic; trying to make it seem that I had some illogical hate for the jew.
Christians have the same problem with their church that Americans have with their media, the source is jewed out. Don’t matter who you blame, it’s a done deal and I imagine and hope that most real Christians will leave the church and study on their own. The ones I know have.

Paleo-christians? What will you do about those hiding behind your banner? When, not if, laws are passed against christians, I hope you have a different handle. Or something.
I believe you when you mention this new agenda is the work of the higher-ups. No means of recalling them? I guess it would depend on the sheep/human ratio of the church in question.

Paleo-christians? What will you do about those hiding behind your banner? When, not if, laws are passed against christians, I hope you have a different handle. Or something.
I believe you when you mention this new agenda is the work of the higher-ups. No means of recalling them? I guess it would depend on the sheep/human ratio of the church in question.

I know when to put on my soldier suit. Our cultural religion is being used against us just like our present government. I am just a Christian. The Christian religion just happens to encompass the traditions and morals I was raised with so it suits me just fine. I find that our religion really just keeps in tact the traditions of our culture. That is why it has become so important to work the new agenda within the churches. Best way to attack the traditions.
New agenda starts with a Judeo-Christian pastor. My pastor believes that the jews and Christians worship the same God, both are chosen. He works with a group of jewish rabbis, meets with them on a regular basis. We had a “Stand up for Israel” Day where we prayed for Israel. This is a nation wide group which solicits Christian pastors to pray for Israel. He went to a Messianic Passover during Easter. He just thought that was great being that Jesus was at Passover supper when he was arrested. The sell job is to make the Pastor think he is getting closer to his God by doing old jewish rituals. Hey , we are all praying to the same God so why not. It is kind of the same concept of the Seventh Day Adventist, going back to the old ways before Jesus to bring them closer to God. As a Christian, your belief in Jesus is the only way to get closer to God. He also brought in a jewish dude to tell us how the holocaust was the result of Christian hate for the jew. This was his counter action to Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion. Crazy wild stuff for sure. Funny thing, he would make jokes about Catholics on occasion. Once you get the Christians to accept the jews in, they move in with their own agenda which seems to be taking Christian money and throwing to swine.
I figured a lot of sheep in this church.