New Jersey A Party To Marriage Contract

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock." --Thomas Jefferson

The State of New Jersey claims it is a third party to the marriage contract in all marriages. Yet, the State never discloses this to the other two parties to the contract. It never discloses what its specific performance is in order for the State's position in the contract to be valid. It never discloses what its consideration to those parties in order for the State's position in the contract to be valid.

The State of New Jersey claims it is a third party to a marriage contract but never performs its end of the bargain. This is "constructive fraud". The two parties to the marriage contract, husband and wife, have been defrauded by the State of New Jersey acting as a fraudulent third party who is under no obligation to abide by the terms of the marriage contract.

If the State of New Jersey were to abide by the terms of the marriage contract then they would have to pay for a married couple's home mortgage, new car loans, trips around the world, million dollar bank accounts. Otherwise, the State of New Jersey has no business being involved in marriages.

Marriage is a fundamental, God-given right that cannot be licensed by the State in order to allow the State to become an uninvited third party. Licenses are imposed by the regulatory police powers of the State in order to do something that is illegal or unlawful. Since when did marriage, a God-given, fundamental right, become illegal or unlawful. In New Jersey, marriage licenses were once required because of interracial marriages and blood testing. Since interfering with interracial marriages is a racially motivated bias/hate crime and since 1998 blood tests are no longer necessary, why are marriage licenses required at all?

In Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U.S. 374, 98 S.Ct. 673 (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court held that marriage is fundamental right that requires strict judicial scrutiny if the State wants to interfere with marriage. The High Court held that substantial interferences with that right will therefore not be sustained merely because they are rational. In Zablocki, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Wisconsin statute that prohibited a party from marrying if they owed child support. In Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1, 12, 87 S.Ct. 1817 (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court further upheld the fundamental right to marry when it held that the State could not prohibit marriages on the basis of race.

Yet, New Jersey violates those U.S. Supreme Court holdings and violates the fundamental, God-given right to marriage by stating it is a third party to every marriage. Not only is this unconstitutional but it violates Freedom of Religion as it interferes with marrying parties' rights to worship their religions. This is a direct religious persecution attack by the State on religions.

There is a long line of New Jersey cases implicating the State in criminal acts of violating constitutional rights. These cases show that the state is a party to a marriage and to divorces. This is a violation of the fundamental right to marry without state interference. The state has no real compelling interest to interfere with marriages because to do so only supports the legal industry's profit motive.

The State is a party at interest to the marriage contract or status together with the husband and wife". Duerner v. Duerner, 142 N.J. Eq. 259 (E. & A. 1948). "The law does not encourage divorce actions and regards such actions as imposing special responsibilities upon the court and attorneys as officers of the court because, in every divorce action, State is in fact, if not in name, third party having substantial interest, and public is represented by 'court's conscience'. In re Backes, 16 N.J. 430, 433-34 (1954). See also, Schlemm v. Schlemm, 31 N.J. 557, 585 (1960).

"The State is a third party to every matrimonial action to sever or void the bonds of matrimony...It has long been well settled and now stands unchallenged that marriage is a social relationship subject in all respects to the state's police power". Manion v. Manion, 143 N.J. Super. 499, 502 (Ch.Div. 1976), citing Rothman v. Rothman, 65 N.J. 219, 228 (1974).


"It has been well said that in the granting of divorces the state, as well as the parties, is interested, and that the public is represented by what is called 'the conscience of the court'...." The State is a third party to every divorce proceeding and has exclusive control of the matrimonial status of those domiciled within its borders. McLean v. Grabowski, 92 N.J. Super. 545, 547-48 (Ch.Div. 1966).

"Other contracts may be modified, restricted, or enlarged, or entirely released, upon the consent of the parties. Not so with marriage. The relation once formed, the law steps in and holds the parties to various obligations and liabilities. It is an institution in the maintenance of which, in its purity, the public is deeply interested, for it is the foundation of the family and of society, without which there would be neither civilization nor progress". McLean v. Grabowski, at 547.

These words sound great but in reality they are hollow words. However, after the New Jersey Divorce Reform Act of 1976, in which no-fault divorce came into being, the State of New Jersey showed its true hand by not being interested in marriages. Under the new law the State allowed one party to request a divorce--a total sundering of the institution of marriage.

When did the State of New Jersey become a party to a marriage? When did it inform the parties to a marriage that it was a third party to the marriage? When did it inform the parties of what specific performance it would perform? When did it inform the parties of its consideration to those parties?

The courts nowadays are talking out of both sides of their mouth about this issue. This is for the beneficial profit motive of attorneys. At the recent Michaels Attorney Ethics hearings in 1994-1995, and the recent Divorce Reform legislation hearings around the same time, testimony by dozens of attorneys reflected one thing: They were only interested in how they were going to get paid for representing their clients in divorce matters. One of the ways they suggested was to put a lien on a client's property.

The state is no longer interested in maintaining marriages. Divorce is a huge industry making many lawyers wealthy and feeding the bureaucracies associated with divorce, i.e., mental health bureaucracy, child support enforcement bureaucracy, domestic violence administration bureaucracy, etc. Lawyer created legislation has given lawyers a multitude of avenues to create as many divorces as possible. Divorce in New Jersey averages between $70,000- $100,000 per couple. Since the Divorce Reform Act was instituted, divorces jumped from under 5,000 to over 70,000. Lawyers have found a financial windfall in divorce litigation. This is redistribution of wealth from the suffering of others into lawyers' pockets.

As can be clearly seen in Massar v. Massar, 279 N.J. Super. 89, 94-95 (App.Div. 1995), 652 A.2d 219, the State gives "lip service" that it "does not promote divorce and as always has strong public interest in promoting marriage". Massar vs. Massar at page 94 holds that "the State has adopted a public policy through statute that citizens of state shall have liberal grounds to disengage themselves from marriages...."

What the State granteth by licensure, the State can taketh away! The time has passed already and all of us must contact our state legislators and demand that they remove all statutory reference to marriage licenses except in cases of homosexual marriages or where two mentally defective adults are involved. The state has no right to tell who and when to marry except in these two circumstances.

DO YOU THINK THERE IS A VIOLATION OF CHURCH AND STATE HERE?????????????????

WOMEN RULE: MORE ON THE SUBJECT:

* Nothing I Didn't Already Know: Women Rule The World...

MARRIAGE STRIKE: ALIMONY LAWS DESTROYING THE VERY FABRIC AND BUILDING BLOCK OF OUR SOCIETY AND NATION

* Can't Find a Husband? Today's Men Are Afraid of Marriage and Having Kids.
* Good Women And Blank Ammunition

EXAMPLES OF A JUDICIAL SYSTEM AND JUDGES GONE AWRY:

* Judge Accused of Misconduct, Recommended for Censure

EGREGIOUS EXAMPLES OF OUR “INJUSTICE” SYSTEM

* Disbarred Massachusetts Attorney Barbara C. Johnson

LEGAL INFORMATION AND RESEARCH CORNER:
* Florida Lawyer: Internet Resources On Florida Law.

Be sure to visit these sites: www.abolish-alimony.org/ and www.alimonycentral.org