Direct Link to Latest News

 

Why I've Never Married

May 14, 2011

marriage-laws.jpg

by Joshua Daniels
(henrymakow.com)
 
 
I am a young 43 years old.  Just today, a very pretty 19-year-old girl gave me the eye, meaning, I have no trouble getting attention from women.  At least five different women have told me they wanted to marry me, I've earned nearly a million dollars in the last twelve years, I'm college educated and very smart, very handsome, I'm good at conversation, I'm in touch with my emotions, I want children, and I want to be married.
 
So why aren't I?
 
Women have laid a minefield between themselves and Men. I will not cross it.  I see the bodies of the foolish and foolhardy on the ground ahead of me, and I know better.  I can see the other side, and there are NO survivors.  Not only that, I know that if I brave the obstacles, and so win fair maiden, she will not be my wife: I'll be hers.
 
That's just not an arrangement I'm interested in.
 
The legalities of marriage are a brazen affront to my manhood and would strip me of the authority necessary to fulfill my responsibilities as husband and father.
 
I'm a Man, not a boy, not a guy, not a featherless biped: I'm a Man.  By my very nature as a Man, I have the right and the authority to bind myself by my signature or given word on any matter. 

The States of the Union and of Europe, though, claim that I can bind myself in every matter except my own life.  I can sign a contract to pay twenty million dollars for a house, and it's valid and binding, and the State will enforce it with guns and clubs, whether I actually have the money or not, but if I sign a commitment to be Husband and Father, it means nothing to the States without their permission, and they would refuse to acknowledge my rights as Husband and Father in their courts.  Only the signature of some state-authorized "dignitary" has the authority to grant meaning to my signature on that marriage license; without that official's signature, legally, I didn't make any commitment at all.
 

What I'm describing here is the legal concept of "solemnizing," that is, for a state official to make my agreement "solemn," or, in plain English, "serious."  No man or woman's signature on any marriage license anywhere in the US means anything unless a state official solemnizes it, or "makes it serious."  Read the law in your state; it says exactly that.  
           

You couldn't make this stuff up.
           
How about the fact of licensing itself?  A license is official permission.  This is true perversity.  I need no one's permission to make an illegitimate child except the woman involved.  I need no one's permission to join Big Brothers and be a surrogate father to someone else's child except the Big Brothers organization.  But to make and raise my own sons and daughters, and to give them my name and cover them with my wing while they learn to fly, which is their birthright and beyond any government's right to deny them, the state thinks I need its permission.       
 
Sheer fantasy.  Utter arrogance, backed with weapons wielded by over-age boys who fear Men.  They fear Women, too, while we're on that subject.  Look at how they treat them.
 
But the real problem here is that women have believed this lie, and insist that a marriage be "legal."  Are you more honest or committed because you got the state's permission to say "Yes?"  Really?  Then go away.  You just admitted that your word is worthless without a gun to your head.  "Let your Yes be Yes and your No be No.  Anything more is of the evil one." - Jesus
 
Legal marriage also brings me under a family court.  I have never, ever, heard of a just decision from a "family court," nor will I.  I have seen only devastation and destruction wrought by these family meat grinders.  In law, marriage is a business.  I am not making this up; it's written in the statutes.  The children are the "produce" of that business, and are owned OUTRIGHT by the state, because the state licensed the business.  I am also not making that up; check your own state laws on it; they're on Findlaw.com.

The State thinks it owns my relationship with my wife and children.  The State thinks that it owns my children outright, and that it has the right to dismember my family, to strip me of authority while saddling me with impossible financial responsibilities, and imprison me if I refuse this theft and humiliation.
 
The State is wrong.  It has the power to inflict evil on me, as do any group of men who are better armed than I, but never, ever, will it have the right.
 
Because I know these things, I understand that I'm guilty of sin against myself if I participate in my own castration. I would be guilty of sin against my family if I subject them to these wolves in black dresses who call themselves Family Judges.  I would be guilty of sin against God if I yield the authority He delegated to me.
 
I won't do that.
 
Today's American woman wants a man who'll take responsibility without authority.  Absolutely every time I've set down with a woman who was interested in marrying me for a serious discussion about it, she refused to address the issues.  Simple questions about who would have what authority and which responsibilities belong to whom, as she sees it, have been ducked, ignored, or countered with angry changes of subject.  Really.  That means they want the normal arrangement, in which the husband has all the responsibility but no authority whatsoever.
 
When you have responsibility without authority, you are a scapegoat, pure and simple.
 
I am no one's scapegoat, nor shall I ever be.
 
American women look to the Government to be their protector and provider.  The one that a woman looks to for protection and provision when she's no longer under her father's care is her husband in her heart.  The man she's sleeping with, even with a marriage certificate, is the Other Man.
 
I'm no one's Other Man.  Please notice that that sentence ends with a period.
 
I've saved the worst for last.
 
American women have repudiated the contract of marriage at its most basic level.  The contract is this: he gets children, and she gets to be part of a family lineage.  If the couple is infertile, the relationship takes on a different character, sometimes good, sometimes bad, but the contract, at its heart, is children for membership.
 
American women have declared, with the backing of men in black dresses who control sheriff's deputies, that the children are theirs no matter what, and they'll keep the name and the money and property, too.  They take, but do not give, and what should be given, they claim the right to take back, with government backing, so the husband and father is always under a sword.
 
So, since there's nothing in it for me from any white woman I've ever met, and I won't mess with a DNA formula that's been top-notch for at least six thousand years, I'm not married.
 
Let me be clear, women: you have changed the arrangement so that there is NOTHING in it for me. 
 
You've even made the "love" and "acceptance" that should come with a wife into worthless words lacking substance by the stance you've taken on the matters that weigh more.
 
Given the choice between dying castrated and without lineage versus frustrated and without lineage, I will choose frustrated and without lineage, every time.  Other men may make other choices; that is their business, and the women who choose them will forever whine about the lack of real Men in their worlds.  You harvest what you plant. 

The reason women's harvests are empty of commitment is because at planting time, they planted none.  They always held in reserve the right and power to steal back what they were "giving."  "Giving" is in quotes there because the thing they do isn't really giving, no matter how much they whine about it being so much, all the best years, all their heart, etc. 
 
I won't even be friends with a woman any more, though I enjoy their company tremendously, because they assume that time spent equals marriage interest, and fall hard for me, while insisting on keeping me in Other Man status and rejecting the basic marriage contract.  My basic integrity prevents me from putting more women in that position of falling hard without hope, and my responsibility to God for the position and authority He's given me keeps me from settling for anything but Husband and Father status.
 
When, and if, I ever meet a woman who understands these things, has renounced her Government Husband-Father, and who is still of childbearing age, and who is attractive enough that I don't cringe when she reaches for me, I will consider her a candidate for Wife.  Women who endorse the evils listed here are alone, or lonely, and with good reason. They are afraid of Men, and insist on attempting to join with over-age boys who accept the castration and humiliation of the system those women endorse.  They wish they had Men, but fail to realize that only Women get Men.
 
There are real Women out there, but they have already discerned for themselves the lies of the blatantly mistranslated Romans 13:1, and have made or are making themselves ready for a real Man, who submits to God and no other.  Those who threw cubs with an Other Man and were surprised to find themselves abandoned are dealing in fantasy as they search for the arrangement they can no longer fulfill.  They are the "silly women" of 2Ti 3:6-7  "Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth."

 

--

Joshua Daniels can be reached at:

www.sealionsfoundation.com
[email protected]

 

Comments for posting: [email protected]


 
 



Scruples - the game of moral dillemas

Comments for "Why I've Never Married"

James said (May 15, 2011):

Any license is giving ownership over to a state. Avoid them at all cost.


A better idea would be a more formal business agreement/contract. This way if IT does not work out, then it would be a lot cheaper to resolve. In the agreement would be all things that should/could/would happen in the “business agreement” (marriage).


Think of how much easier it would be to resolve the relationship if all areas are covered. When business partners part ways and if the agreement is clear of who gets what, then it is much simpler to resolve.

This doesn't mean it will be a simple breakup. But is will keep the courts out of most of it. This way, if a house if involved and is co-owned, would be sold to either to one of the partners or on the market and this would go for most of the property. This would also go for the children too (to some extent).


I have had many women friends. I have found it better to take classes at a community college or join a club to find intelligent women who also have brains. This way, if you are taking a class of interest, especially if you are really interested in it, might find someone who shared your interest. It also might be better to lie and tell them you are in a relationship, so as to throw them off, because those that are willing to be your friend will be a better partner, because after the sex falls to the wayside, which is will with less and less of it happening, you had better have a very good friend by your side who you call by their first name and love the sound of it as well as love hearing your name called by her.


DL said (May 15, 2011):

The article is extremely well writ, and the comments (so far) say "amen" with one accord. This is unusually refreshing. Rather than simply say "ditto", i hope to add a point.

One: I have observed that without a strong Father, the most well-meaning woman, one who sees the points you make, will have great difficulty in maintaining her respect for her Man, especially over time. When faults arise to the surface (and they must; it's how we deal with them), the issue of respect will always rear its ugly head. ... This, i think, is why we're given the scriptures to fall back on; can you imagine what would happen if we had only civil law to fall back on? You don't have to imagine it; just look around.

Two: I found my Woman (from Canada) when i was 34. ... i wasted no time in making her my own. We climbed a mountain together and had the marriage ceremony on the top, composing our vows before God and his angels. To be a Man, one must understand that one's Word is inviolate. When a Man breaks his Word, he is no longer a Man, be it a casual remark concerning taking out the garbage, or the promise to provide the full structure of Family, the which the Woman will fill with life and children.

After ten years, i am just beginning to get to know my wife, and she me. And it's hard. Very hard. When all one's hidden faults are forced to the surface by dint of being so near someone so loved, the pain is near unbearable, especially if we have harbored arrogance and pride.

"But let endurance have its perfect work, that you be perfect and entire, lacking nothing" (James). But it is infinitely worth it. When i look at my son, i see that all i've accomplished and discovered will continue on: stronger, more vibrant, and hopefully with less of the ridiculous struggles with non-issues that surround us.

Long comment. You've obviously struck a chord. Godspeed to you and your integrity.


JC said (May 15, 2011):

I have had the unfortunate experience of being "married" and divorced twice by wives. Nasty women they are. Charming during courtship and like cancer after the "legal religious ceremony" performed by an agent of the state - the state licensed Christian minister. Neither women worked or earned a dime after the ceremony, but the courts gave them most of the money and assets at divorce. With regard to the family unit, the corporate state wants it destroyed. The North American women are brainwashed by our culture to destroy the very thing they were created to form - a strong family unit.
North American women, with few exceptions, should be avoided by all real men. These predators do not want to be morally and ethically married to a real man, just legally. They want his sperm, his name for their children, the money he earns and saves, the "stuff" the money buys, but not "marriage" or a strong family unit. They could care less about family. Without real women, our culture is doomed. Thank you Joshua Daniels.


MA said (May 15, 2011):

Good article. Someone years ago put it in perspective for me thus: a state-licensed marriage (as opposed to a common-law marriage) creates a 3-way partnership between you, your wife and the government. When that partnership is dissolved (either through death of the husband or wife, or divorce) the assets of the "partnership" are "distributed", as they would be in any business. That's what the estate tax really is: Uncle Sam getting his "cut" as one of the partners in this unholy triad. Thus women serve (wittingly or unwittingly) as the agents of totalitarianism. The state is able to pierce this most fundamental relationship in humanity and seize whatever legacy a man has built through his entire life. I completely understand why men of Joshua's generation would run from the very idea of marriage in the modern sense.


Victoria said (May 15, 2011):

Two enlightening facts that I've discovered recently which might interest many of your readers are that, 1) marriage licenses were not introduced until after the U.S. Civil War and were originally intended to allow mixed race couples to marry; and, 2) even today, a marriage need only be written down in a family bible to be recognized as 'legal' by courts.

Going to government authorities for 'permission' to marry means that the marriage is no longer between a man and a woman but also, the lawyers and judges who stand between them, ready to ensure the 'fair' distribution of material considerations (including children), not least for themselves. Writing the marriage down in a Bible means that nothing but God stands between the partners. Now, just ask yourself, who is more likely to be capable of judging wisely - human beings with our limitations and prejudices or an almighty God with the power to see and know all and with the equal interests of both parties at heart? As in most areas of life, we need to get governments out of our lives but this will only happen once people repudiate the 'goodies' given by such 'authorities' and, once more, take responsibility for their own lives and for those they love.


Jennifer said (May 15, 2011):

Yes, as a woman, I agree that the US and many European State-Licensed Marriage Agreements are a bad deal for men and women. State-Licensed Marriage Agreements are a three party limited liability where the State makes all the rules and the signers agree to any changes known or unknown. This contract strips the breadwinner -usually the man/husband -from his right and power to truly give because the State as the third wheel in their marriage, ruthlessly grabs any and all prosperity of the breadwinner and bestows it at the feet of the lesser income spouse (usually the woman). This State power grab with the force of "laws" and police says to the woman--this is your right --take it and don't think twice about it. The interceding of the State dupes and undermines women's ability to be appreciative of their man. It strips women of their gratefulness and opportunity to honor her man/husband/hero. The State-License Marriage Agreement puts a truncate on a women's heart and turns it until it atrophies and falls off! Thus, the State-Licensed Marriage contract fosters distrust between spouses and is anti-God or anti-natural law.


But it is not women's fault that it is this way. Women alone did not create the State-Licensed Marriage laws.


Also, it is very difficult for women to understand the trick of the State-Marriage License Contract as women tend to feel and not think concepts through philosophically or logically. And women are shamed and misled by "caring" but equally duped people. And our society as a whole is tricked by the wholesale pillaging by the State of Holy Matrimony. For example, As I was coming to understand this I went to my Pastor (male) to discuss this. My Pastor was horrified that I was considering creating /writing my own Marriage Agreement based on Biblical law -- like they used to do for thousands of years before the State got their greedy hands on the sacred marriage rite. My Pastor chided me, "You must get married with a State License! God will know if you don't get the State License--It will not be a true Marriage in the eyes of God! You will be a sinner and if you do this - You will not be welcome in our church!"


The Marriage Ceremony (rite) is supposed to cover a husband and wife's union with the Grace of God but the State usurps that and instead covers a couple's marriage with a subtle insidious deception masquerading as Love.


I learned (from a very wise man) that the solution to the problem is to write your own Marriage Contract based on Biblical law. One should not throw the baby (a sacred marriage rite) out with the bath water (corrupt Nation/States)-- but instead create a Marriage Contract that holds both parties accountable to God's laws. This would be a strict Liability Contract allowing the breadwinner to truly give and the receiver to have an open heart of appreciation. Contract law in the US is very strong and will hold up in the US Court System.
Therefore, a couple can have a Marriage Ceremony and tradition with the security of a Fair Agreement that holds up God's law and enables God's Grace to truly protect a Marriage union.


If you are interested in receiving a Biblical State-Free Marriage Agreement email me at, [email protected]


Abdullatif said (May 15, 2011):


First my little presentation, I'm a product of this New World imposed to us by force, be it economical or by war.

Me a living in a European country, North African origin (Arabic), 30, born and raised in a Muslim community with heavy traditional aspects such as holiness of marriage, respect for elders and so on, pretty much the same values shared with traditional Christians.

By force of entertainment industry, fashion, public education, we become some sort of dephased in our very private life...

The traditional values we cherish so much and which are the best guide through life and our parents most valuable heritage, has become our burden but also our strength in these dark ages.

I share the same view as Joshua and I thank him for this reminder.

I also want to bring him this message that we, Muslim men, share a lot of his griefs and concerns.

Islam society and culture is also fighting against this monster (in fact, we are NOW at the front of this war against immorality).

The resistance of our old cultures has until now taken heavy hits but sadly we are witnessing every the result of the collapse of traditional values everyday...


CP said (May 15, 2011):

Apparently these miserable conditions are everywhere. It only took about 5-6 minutes to view the video GOODBYE DADDY on David Icke's website to convince me. I've heard it said that feminism has made the male redundant. If you ask me it's the female that has made herself redundant. The Bible teaches that "the woman was made for the man, not the man for the woman". There's nothin' out there anymore! They have their nerve asking where have all the good men gone.
--

CP-

There are still many good women. We must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

We must remember that they have been deceived. Good men need to undeceive them.

h


David said (May 15, 2011):

I think your article is spot on. I will never marry unless I have the good fortune of meeting an exceptional woman of character and spirituality who endorses and expresses compassion, truth and justice. It used to be in part that marriage was about the transfer of property to the next generation but it appears that today's woman operates from an "I win, you lose" philosophy.

I would like to add that a woman's beauty is low on my priority list at my still young age of forty-three. I would prefer a woman who is smart, kind, truthful and persues justice before looking at beauty.


Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at