Marriage Defenders

With Justice for ALL (quote from the pledge of allegience U.S.A.)

This is an informational website offering support not legal advise

S. L. G. Pro Se

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON

S. L. G.
Plaintiff,
v.
M. C. G.
Defendant

COMPLAINT


Plaintiff S. L. G. alleges:

1. That M. C. G. has under the color of law violated Title 42, Chapter 21, and Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act by filing case #97-3-02501-8 in Spokane County Superior Court, Washington State. Section 1981 states that "all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts" (Section 1981 (a) "The term "make and enforce contracts" includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship."(Section 1981, (b) This right is protected against impairment even under the color of law. (Section 1981 (c).

2. That under the color of law M. C. G. is attempting to deprive S. G. of her rights secured by the Federal Constitution, subjecting himself to a cause of action under Title 42 Chapter 21 Section 1983. Which states "Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress".

JURISDICTION AND VENUE


3. This Court has jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1331, 1343. 1441, 1443, 1661 and 42 U.S.C. 1983.

4. Venue is proper in this District. S. L. G. resides in this district and the original case was heard in this district.

PARTIES


5. Plaintiff S. L. G. who resides at

6. Defendant M. C. G. who resides at

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS


7. The right to contract for all lawful purposes is protected by the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.


8. The US Supreme Court in Maynard v. Hill, 125 US 190 (1888) said that marriage was not a contract protected by the US Constitution against impairment but was more a status such as "father and son" which could not be altered or varied by the consent of the parties but was for life.

It needs to be noted that at the time of Maynard v. Hill women were not allowed by law to enter into any contracts in their own right, write wills, attend most universities, practice many professions, or vote. So Maynard v. Hill correctly stated that marriage could not at that time be a contract, however, it did not say that it could never be a contract protected by the US Constitution.

9. The US Supreme Court in Williams v. Fears, 179 U.S. 270, 45 L. Ed.186, 21 S. Ct. 128 said " And so as to the right to contract. The liberty, of which the deprivation without due process of law is forbidden, "means not only the right of the citizen to be free from the mere physical restraint of his person, as by incarceration, but the term is deemed to embrace the right of the citizen to be free in the enjoyment of all his faculties; to be free to use them in all lawful ways; to live and work where he will; to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling; to pursue any livelihood or avocation, and for that purpose to enter into all contracts which may be proper, necessary and essential to his carrying out to a successful conclusion the purposes above mentioned;" However, women were not allowed in this country to enter into contracts in their own right until the states reacted to the "Women's Movement" of the 1970s and said that women had the same rights as men to enter into contracts. And that women were also protected by the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

10. In Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390, the Court held that the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment includes the right "to acquire useful knowledge, to marry, establish a home and bring up children". And based on Williams v. Fears the right to contract to carry out to a successful conclusion the purpose of the marriage.

11. Title 42, Chapter 21, Section 1981 of the Civil Rights Act states that "all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States shall have the same right in every State and Territory to make and enforce contracts" (Section 1981 (a) "The term "make and enforce contracts" includes the making, performance, modification, and termination of contracts, and the enjoyment of all benefits, privileges, terms, and conditions of the contractual relationship."(Section 1981, (b) This right is protected against impairment even under the color of law. (Section 1981 (c).

12. C. and S. G. were both legally capable of entering into a contract. They were given the choice by the State of Washington to enter into a civil or religious union. They knowingly and willingly entered into a religious covenant marriage, stating before witnesses what they were required to do, and the way the contract/covenant could be modified or terminated. The termination of that contract is protected by the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.

13. If C. G. wants to seek a divorce from S. G. he has to come into the court as the lesser guilty party and he must prove that S. G. committed an offense consistent with the terms in their contract that would allow C. G. to terminate the contract with her. To do otherwise deprives S. G. of her 1st Amendment rights and her 14th Amendment rights.

14. Title 42 Chapter 21B also says that C. G. must be able to prove a compelling reason for the state to violate S. G. religious freedom
rights. His simple statement that the marriage was irretrievably broken
fails to address the fact that as long as he continues to live he has the chance to repent of his sins and to make good on his vows to S. G. and to God.

15. The institution of marriage has been called the foundation of all
civilized societies since the beginning of recorded history. By no
stretch of the imagination could anyone read the opinion of Justice
Fields in Maynard v. Hill and think that he intended his words to mean that marriage was so unimportant to society that it could be terminated at the will of one without cause. In fact he believed just the opposite that it was so important to society that it could NOT be terminated even if both parties agreed to terminate it.

16. The United States Congress was so concerned that marriage was becoming just the states permission to live together that it passed the Defense of Marriage Act. In that they stated '"The definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington state case from the 1974, Singer v. Hara, which included in the 1990 edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More then a century ago, the U.S. Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one women in the holy estate of matrimony" Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45, (1885)". The 's entered into a Holy Estate of Matrimony which should be protected by the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution.

VIOLATIONS ALLEGED

17. Defendant under the color of law is attempting to unilaterally terminate the Holy Estate of Matrimony with S. G. in violation of her 1st Amendment rights and Title 42 Chapter 21B of the Religious Restoration Act.

18. Defendant under the color of law is attempting to unilaterally
terminate the contract that he had with S. G. in violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Title 42 of the Civil rights act.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

19. S. L. G. prays that her contract/covenant marriage be upheld as valid until such time that M. C. G. proves in a court of law that he is entitled to divorce her based on biblical grounds according to their contract.
20. S. L. G. prays that the court recognize and acknowledge that she and C. G. had a right under the 14th Amendment to enter into a binding marriage contract protected by Article 1, Section 10, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution which no state has a right to impair without proving a compelling state interest in seeing this particular marriage contract terminated and justifying the violation of the 's Constitutional rights.

21. S. G. prays that this Court will grant such other and further relief as it may deem just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,


____________________________
S. L. G. Pro Se
January 2, 2002

 

ShalomRefuge.com or ShalomRefuge.com is not responsible for any opinions expressed on this site.

E-mail Web Master - MarriageDefenders@comcast.net

Return to Main Site Index Biblical Aspects