BRADRICK! Divorce Part 2

[MamaJunebug]

On 4/1/2017 at 7:47 PM, Palimpsest said:

One of VF's legal hit men.  I doubt he is worth much as an attorney though.

Don't need to be very skilled when you have the money-making-miracle machine behind you.  

http://coffeetradernews.blogspot.com/2006/10/nouveau-riche_13.html?m=1

I really don't mean to sidetrack this topic but Scottie (in addition to his real estate business) and others have found a very remunerative racket in selling Christianity. I absolutely think that had Howard Phillips been a left-wing operative, Doug would've gone straight into film and the performing arts scene and made a bundle there.

As was, to keep the paterfamilias happy and willing to help support Doug, Doug pursued a moralistic show-pony scheme. Much like the Sprouls & Grahams & Bakkers & Furticks & Driscolls & way too many others have made fortunes with jazzy [sic] versions of religion, guaranteed to bring in the bucks. 

Back on topic, Peter & Kelly both grew up taught to idolize the showmen like Doug and figured that with Peter practicing to be a good salesman and Kelly keeping her looks, they were poised to be *at least* the fresher, less-bizarre version of Paul & Jan Crouch. 

 

[Black Aliss]

On 4/6/2017 at 4:19 PM, Howl said:

I also absolutely adore drippy rainy weather -- as long as I'm not in a small house with 6 young children who can't go outside and play.   

Oh, we send them outside to play in any weather. Trust us. There is no such thing as bad weather, only inappropriate clothing. There are even outdoor-only preschools here, where the kids are literally outside all day every day.

[Jellybean]

I've been sucked into this rabbit hole, and somewhere in there I thought I saw that Scotty Brown advocated covenant marriage, rather like the Pearls, so that their children's marriages are not 'tainted by the ebil' lgbtqia people.

I need to go back and see if I can find it, see if Kelly and Peter went down that route, and if so, what that means for any divorce, but thought I would just throw it out there so I don't forget, and in case you all know the answers to those questions already

[Jellybean]

http://www.southtek.com/linesfromthevine/FindASuitor.asp?size=1024

This is the link (from @CyborgKin) that says that Peter and Kelly have a covenant marriage, but unfortunately the link within that link just goes to Scotty's main site and not a specific article. I searched the site but couldn't find anything relating to covenant marriage, and nothing earlier than about 2011.

"Scott Brown is one such example. His daughter, Kelly, was recently married in a Christ centered, covenant marriage. It was something to behold! An example to follow!!"

This site (http://proverbs14verse1.blogspot.co.uk/2006/12/marriage-covenant.html?m=1) shows the vows that Peter and Kelly used in their marriage in 2006.

According to Wikipedia, covenant marriage is not a legally distinct thing in NC. Michael Pearl discusses this on his website (https://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/holy-matrimony/) and recommends that people don't get a licence from the state to marry, but instead write a contract of 'covenant marriage' and have this signed, witnessed and notarized. I don't know if the Bradrick/Browns are linked to the Pearl family in any way, or if it's possible that Peter and Kelly might be married by contract rather than state licence. If so, would this affect the circumstances or conditions of the divorce? If it's not already completely obvious, I'm not a lawyer and am not in the US, so I'd appreciate more knowledgeable input on this. 

[hoipolloi]

2 hours ago, Jellybean said:

Michael Pearl discusses this on his website (https://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/holy-matrimony/) and recommends that people don't get a licence from the state to marry, but instead write a contract of 'covenant marriage' and have this signed, witnessed and notarized.

Interesting. He says all but one of his kids has one of those "covenant marriage" contracts:

Quote

All of my children but one were married by private contract. They did not ask the state for permission to marry. I wrote a one-page covenant for them, something like a private contract, that stated their commitment to enter into holy matrimony according to Biblical precepts, a few of which were enumerated. The contractual part of the wedding consisted of their verbal pledges of marriage and their signing the pledge in front of all present. Parents also signed the pledge, committing to the union, and then siblings and friends signed it as well. In unison, all present pronounced them man and wife by the power vested in us from God. They later took a copy of the document to the courthouse and had it notarized and filed. They have never failed to gain equal status before the law as being legally married.

So which one skipped the private contract? The one who's divorced?

[libriatrix]

2 hours ago, Jellybean said:

http://www.southtek.com/linesfromthevine/FindASuitor.asp?size=1024

This is the link (from @CyborgKin) that says that Peter and Kelly have a covenant marriage, but unfortunately the link within that link just goes to Scotty's main site and not a specific article. I searched the site but couldn't find anything relating to covenant marriage, and nothing earlier than about 2011.

"Scott Brown is one such example. His daughter, Kelly, was recently married in a Christ centered, covenant marriage. It was something to behold! An example to follow!!"

Tbh this does not sound to me like he intended to say that Peter and Kelly had a legally-defined covenant marriage with restrictions like Josh and Anna Duggar had. I think in this case it's just Christianese for "marriage".

[KnittingOwl]

On 4/5/2017 at 5:46 PM, Black Aliss said:

Isn't he in Puyallup? Sales tax is 9.4% there. (9.6% in Seattle, 10.1% in Tacoma)

King County, Pierce County, and Snohomish County sales tax went up 0.5% as of April 1. So Seattle is 10.1% and Puyallup is 9.9%, but Tacoma is still 10.1%. 

[marmalade]

16 hours ago, libriatrix said:

Tbh this does not sound to me like he intended to say that Peter and Kelly had a legally-defined covenant marriage with restrictions like Josh and Anna Duggar had. I think in this case it's just Christianese for "marriage".

Josh and Anna do not have a covenant marriage. It is not legal in Florida, where they tied the knot. They may have signed a covenant for themselves IN ADDITION to legal documents. 

No way they would have shown an illegal marriage on TV. eta: Didn't they show them going to the courthouse to get their marriage license? I think they also showed Benessa doing the same. 

Who knows if Peter and Kelly are legally bound or have a Pearl-style marriage, which I suppose Scottie can declare "divorced" whenever the covenant is broken. No laywers, legal fees, etc. 

[libriatrix]

11 minutes ago, marmalade said:

Josh and Anna do not have a covenant marriage. It is not legal in Florida, where they tied the knot. They may have signed a covenant for themselves IN ADDITION to legal documents. 

No way they would have shown an illegal marriage on TV. eta: Didn't they show them going to the courthouse to get their marriage license? I think they also showed Benessa doing the same. 

Who knows if Peter and Kelly are legally bound or have a Pearl-style marriage, which I suppose Scottie can declare "divorced" whenever the covenant is broken. No laywers, legal fees, etc. 

I guess I was thinking of Jill and Jessa. I didn't mean a Pearl-style covenant either, the kind that's not legally binding. I was thinking of the legal covenant marriage that makes it harder to divorce. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage

http://www.alternet.org/belief/covenant-marriages-how-some-christian-couples-make-it-lot-harder-divorce-each-other (mentions Jill and Derek doing this.)

 

[quiversR4hunting]

On ‎4‎/‎19‎/‎2017 at 0:15 AM, Jellybean said:

According to Wikipedia, covenant marriage is not a legally distinct thing in NC. Michael Pearl discusses this on his website (https://nogreaterjoy.org/articles/holy-matrimony/) and recommends that people don't get a licence from the state to marry, but instead write a contract of 'covenant marriage' and have this signed, witnessed and notarized. I don't know if the Bradrick/Browns are linked to the Pearl family in any way, or if it's possible that Peter and Kelly might be married by contract rather than state licence. If so, would this affect the circumstances or conditions of the divorce? If it's not already completely obvious, I'm not a lawyer and am not in the US, so I'd appreciate more knowledgeable input on this. 

So what I read is the Pearl children (all but one that got married with a legal marriage license) are just living in sin. They, in the eyes of the state, nation and census, are co-habituating, living in sin, shacking up, playing house, (use whatever old saying you want for what they are really doing in the eyes of the State).  If any of these people wanted to separate from their significant other, then in the law they would have a domestic separation (DS) case if an AOP (affidavit of parentage) was signed or a domestic paternity (DP) if no AOP exists and not a domestic with minor child (DM).* This also tells me that anyone in a covenant marriage, that is not legally recognized by the state, could date others or marry another without legal ramifications. In addition, since they are not legally married the SAHM are screwed. They won't get their husband's social security (if the man has worked for "the man") when they day. They really do want to screw the women and keep them in stuck. Disgusting.

So if Peter and Kelly were married by covenant and not a legal license, they shouldn't have a DM case. They should have a DS or DP. If they have a DM that would tell me they were legally married in the eyes of the state.

So this brings me to my dumb question. What the hell is a covenant marriage?

From other comments it appears some states (Arkansas) recognize them and others (NC) don't. I looked it up on wiki and only Arizona, Arkansas & Louisiana recognize covenant marriages. Of course Tony Perkins name comes in in the Louisiana arena of covenant marriage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_marriage  I noticed that in the 5 ways to divorce in a covenant marriage one way is not mental abuse. It mentions physically or sexually abuse but not mental. It is interesting that committing a felony is grounds from divorce but don't the Pearls teach stand by your man no matter what? So I have read wiki on covenant marriage but I don't get it. Basically people are signing up for a longer divorce proceedings if it goes down that road and the couple that marries into a covenant marriage can humble brag about how holy their marriage is over a non-covenant marriage? Is that right?  They think by just having the name "covenant" in the marriage it means they have a less likely chance of divorcing or being an asshole?

*I am not an attorney nor do I play one on FJ but I do work in child support in the US but not in the states mentioned on this thread.

13 hours ago, marmalade said:

Who knows if Peter and Kelly are legally bound or have a Pearl-style marriage, which I suppose Scottie can declare "divorced" whenever the covenant is broken. No laywers, legal fees, etc.

but we already have seen copies of the legal paperwork so they have, at minimum, a legal (in the eyes of the state) separation.

[crawfishgirl]

A good friend of mine from LA got married with a covenant marriage license.  I was surprised.  She used to be liberal, but became more conservative over the years, and her husband is conservative.  Fortunately she wasn't a naive teenager getting married.  She was in her 30's with two degrees, and had a lot of common sense.  They appear to have a strong marriage, so it seems like it's working out well for them, which is good.  She is not the submissive type.  They currently live in a different state, so I assume (though I've never researched it) that it wouldn't make a difference now.

[Quinquagenarian]

It should be fairly simple to find out if a marriage license was issued by the court in the jurisdiction where they married. You might not be able to get a copy of it or the certificate but a record of its being sought may be in the court records.

[Red Hair, Black Dress]

I just love this quote from the Alternet article that references JIll Duggar's marriage:

"Jill Duggar was married in her native Arkansas. But for a state where 84% of the population claims to believe in God with absolute certainty, it has the second highest divorce rate in the United States. "

[GenerationCedarchip]

I think there's some confusion between covenant marriage as a legal term and the way in which it's used in many Christian circles (not just the conservative ones). Legally, very few states recognize covenant marriage, but among those that do, it's a distinction that requires a couple to jump through some extra hoops before being allowed to divorce.  The intent is to cut down on the number of "no fault" divorces.

In many Christian circles, marriage is described being a covenant in theological terms.  It is not uncommon for folks to say that "x and y have entered into the covenant of marriage" or that "we celebrated x and y's covenant marriage with them", etc... Because in a marriage ceremony, we as Christians are taking what are supposed to be lifelong vows made in the presence of God, it is viewed as a covenant even if under the law the civil authorities would view it just like any other marriage enacted in that state.

Hope this helps clear up confusion!

[slickcat79]

4 hours ago, quiversR4hunting said:

So what I read is the Pearl children (all but one that got married with a legal marriage license) are just living in sin. They, in the eyes of the state, nation and census, are co-habituating, living in sin, shacking up, playing house, (use whatever old saying you want for what they are really doing in the eyes of the State).  If any of these people wanted to separate from their significant other, then in the law they would have a domestic separation (DS) case if an AOP (affidavit of parentage) was signed or a domestic paternity (DP) if no AOP exists and not a domestic with minor child (DM).* This also tells me that anyone in a covenant marriage, that is not legally recognized by the state, could date others or marry another without legal ramifications. In addition, since they are not legally married the SAHM are screwed. They won't get their husband's social security (if the man has worked for "the man") when they day. They really do want to screw the women and keep them in stuck. Disgusting.

Can't a common law marriage be legally recognized after a certain period of time (7 years comes to mind)? Or maybe that's not a thing anymore. The separation process might still work the same, but I feel like it's been used as a way for one party to have access to common assets or the other party's money for support, even without being legally married. 

In the case of fundies though, I'm sure most of them are just using the term to sound like the special snowflakes they are 

[Bethella]

11 minutes ago, slickcat79 said:

Can't a common law marriage be legally recognized after a certain period of time (7 years comes to mind)? Or maybe that's not a thing anymore. The separation process might still work the same, but I feel like it's been used as a way for one party to have access to common assets or the other party's money for support, even without being legally married. 

In the case of fundies though, I'm sure most of them are just using the term to sound like the special snowflakes they are 

Actually, only a few states recognize common law marriages, and each has specific stipulations as to what relationships are included:

• Alabama
• Colorado
• District of Columbia
• Georgia (if created before 1/1/97)
• Idaho (if created before 1/1/96)
• Iowa
• Kansas
• Montana
• New Hampshire (for inheritance purposes only)
• Ohio (if created before 10/10/91)
• Oklahoma (possibly only if created before 11/1/98. Oklahoma’s laws and court decisions may be in conflict about whether common law marriages formed in that state after 11/1/98 will be recognized.)
• Pennsylvania (if created before 1/1/05)
• Rhode Island
• South Carolina
• Texas
• Utah

[quiversR4hunting]

37 minutes ago, Bethella said:

Actually, only a few states recognize common law marriages, and each has specific stipulations as to what relationships are included:

I saw the same thing on Legal Zoom website  The article went into more detail on what makes it a common law marriage, the fact of just living together does not qualify. https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/fact-or-fiction-five-myths-about-common-law-marriage

So the Pearl children, if residing in NC, do not qualify as a common law marriage.

[hoipolloi]

2 hours ago, quiversR4hunting said:

So the Pearl children, if residing in NC, do not qualify as a common law marriage.

Nor does Rebekah Pearl Anast's "marriage" to Gabe Anast qualify since New Mexico doesn't recognize them either.

The only Pearl offspring that appears to have married with the blessing of the sodomite state is son Nathan, per his wife, Zephyr.

[RebelliousEscapee]

5 hours ago, GenerationCedarchip said:

In many Christian circles, marriage is described being a covenant in theological terms.  It is not uncommon for folks to say that "x and y have entered into the covenant of marriage" or that "we celebrated x and y's covenant marriage with them", etc... Because in a marriage ceremony, we as Christians are taking what are supposed to be lifelong vows made in the presence of God, it is viewed as a covenant even if under the law the civil authorities would view it just like any other marriage enacted in that state.

Hope this helps clear up confusion!

This. In "reformed" circles especially, the word "covenant" is thrown around to describe virtually everything. Covenant fellowship, covenant children, covenant homes, covenant churches, covenant marriages... you get the picture. 

[quiversR4hunting]

16 hours ago, RebelliousEscapee said:

This. In "reformed" circles especially, the word "covenant" is thrown around to describe virtually everything. Covenant fellowship, covenant children, covenant homes, covenant churches, covenant marriages... you get the picture. 

so it is an adjective thrown around like the word "cool" or "blessed" or "pretty" or "awesome" and after awhile the word looses it's impact.

In short, the meaning is a deep as a mud puddle.

[Jess]

I feel bad for the pearl women. If there husband does they wouldn't get social security. Hopefully they at least have wills set up so the wives get the property. 

[Jasmar]

19 hours ago, RebelliousEscapee said:

This. In "reformed" circles especially, the word "covenant" is thrown around to describe virtually everything. Covenant fellowship, covenant children, covenant homes, covenant churches, covenant marriages... you get the picture. 

It's  right up there alongside "gospel" as holy enshrined adjective.

[Howl]

3 hours ago, Jess said:

I feel bad for the pearl women. If their husband does they wouldn't get social security. Hopefully they at least have wills set up so the wives get the property. 

It took me until later, much later in life (like now) to appreciate the importance of a pension and social security.  Some of these women (I mean this in a general way, not just the fundy families we know)  will enter old age with no source of support, and I mean none, unless the blessings are willing to take them in.  Even if that were to happen, their lives would be completely constrained by lack of money.  

 

3 hours ago, quiversR4hunting said:

so it is an adjective thrown around like the word "cool" or "blessed" or "pretty" or "awesome" and after awhile the word looses it's impact.

Hmmmm, I'm thinking 

• providential
• blessing 
• season of _______ 
• precious

[quiversR4hunting]

3 minutes ago, Howl said:

It took me until later, much later in life (like now) to appreciate the importance of a pension and social security.  Some of these women (I mean this in a general way, not just the fundy families we know)  will enter old age with no source of support, and I mean none, unless the blessings are willing to take them in.  Even if that were to happen, their lives would be completely constrained by lack of money.  

I had this very thought about the Rods this morning. What Jilly doesn't seem to grasp is the fact her parents are retired because her dad worked a regular job for his career so I assume he has a pension of some sort and social security to support him and the Mrs. during their golden years.

[bea]

Hmmmm, I'm thinking 

• providential
• blessing 
• season of _______ 
• precious

 

Don't forget "Purposed to _______"

 

This term was the flag that made me turn down a babysitter's application.

 

"Honey, I don't think you'd be a good fit...."