Now I'm going to talk about men, women, and marriage.

I can't help it. From what I see, women are stupid. Let me prove it.

The media has been telling women that they're as good as men. I just can't believe it. Women bought it.

Men know the truth. Women are better than men. Men don't admit it much, but we all know it's true.

Where do you think the expression came from? Women and children first. I noticed it in the hurricanes and the flood. People always save garbage first and then come back for the jewelery and pictures. Who am I kidding?

Men grow up knowing that we're expendable. Women and children first. Arm all of the men we're off to war. There's even a taunt in a movie. You can't even protect your women.

Even a casual glance at men and women shows that we are built differently. We are built differently for a purpose. It doesn't matter if you believe God built us or we got this way by trial and error, there's no denying it. We are built differently. Why?

Put men and women in a room and it won't be long before you realize that men and women think differently too. They seem to have different drives and values. Why?

Do you remember when the King's media tried to tell us that boys and girls are exactly the same, we just make them different because we give them different toys?

There can be no doubt that men and women are built differently and for very good reasons. If you insist on arguing with me go and visit a maternity ward in a hospital.

Women can grow children. While your sitting in a maternity ward watch the women coming in and going out. Are they in any condition to fight off wolves and other predators? Not likely, they can barely move. Not only that, they have been having a lot of trouble getting around for months. Either that or they've all been lying to men. When there are no men around pregnant women just bounce off the sofa. When there are men around it takes them two minutes to get up. Could be, I've been lied to before.

Men can't grow children, We're just not built for it. Then, just what are men built for. Men are built for defense and heavy lifting. On average, men are taller, heavier, and stronger than women. Women are helpless for much of the time that they are pregnant and after delivery they have a infant in tow, for years. Someone still has to hunt and defend. How do you fight off wolves with an infant under one arm and a toddler wrapped around your ankle?

It's funny, in all of the, I can fight as well as any man, movies. The Heroine never gets up spitting teeth, with a cut lip and a swollen and blackened eye. Her makeup isn't even smugged. I can just hear the women at their wine get togethers talking about how they broke there nose in this fight. They got this scar and lost three teeth in that fight. Or, I had a mastectomy because it kept hitting the rifle stock. A version of what the Amazon women did. Or, better yet, they hit me so hard my coligin came out and my implant burst. Ha, Ha, Ha, pass the wine.

There was a woman that said a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. How right she was. I've seen what a fish does with a bicycle. The little ones hide behind the spokes from the big fish. It turns out that women use men for the same things that fish use bicycles. Defense.

Even the survival strategy for men and women are different. A woman tries to survive for the good of the children. A man is prepared to die for the good of the wife and children. The difference in the survival strategy puts women at a distinct disadvantage in a world run by survival of the fittest. When was the last time you saw two women playing chicken in cars? Or throwing knives at each other's feet. If your willing to die to win, you sure can bluff better. Are you really bluffing?

There is no doubt that, on average, a man is taller, heavier and stronger than a woman. Unless we left planet Earth, the rule has always been if I am stronger than you, than you will do as I say or I'll beat you into submission. It doesn't matter if it's a man and a woman, a king and his subjects, a master and his slave.

Our modern society has hidden the facts behind technology. Sure, now a woman can get in a pickup truck. She can go out into the country and shoot a deer. She can use a winch to pull the deer into the back of the truck and go home, or, she could just pay the man that put it in the grocery, or better yet, the restaurant.

When a man and a woman fight, the man can forget his training and hit the woman. What does the woman do? She calls other men to come and stop you. To beat you if necessary and take you away. I don't have to listen to you, I can call other men to beat you for me. The master has overseer's to stop you.

I'm not saying that it is a bad thing that a woman can call for protection if she is being beaten. No one should beat on anyone. I am just pointing out that physically, women have no power. What if a woman were being beaten and calls the police. Now, a female officer may show up. If she tells the man to quit beating that woman or I am going to take you to jail, he has no more respect for her power than he does for the woman he was beating. The only thing that protects the female officer is the implied threat that if you beat the female officer too, sooner or later enough men will come and make you wish you hadn't. Her sworn allies.

Just look at the alarm system advertisements. If someone tries to break into my house, the alarm will call a man to protect me.

Let me state one more bit of the obvious. The use of a womans body is of value to a man. Men will buy it, steal it, lie for it, fight for it and even kill for it. Even if we have no intention of making babies, we like to keep in practice. If women think they have it bad with PMS once a month, they should try being horny, continuously. All of the famous and infamous deeds of men have been sandwiched between thoughts of sex. How many men have forded a river, crossed a mountain, fought a foe, created a fortune or slain a dragon just to get laid? When men attack a city, they go to rape, pillage and plunder. Rape gets top billing. Even at that, third rated plunder will be used to buy what we didn't take. Is there any doubt that the use of a woman's body is of value to a man?

It is the history of planet Earth. If you can't defend it, you don't own it. If it has value, someone will try to take it from you. Don't believe me? Ask Dred Scott's ancestors. Remember how we got the United States from England? The Iraqi oil fields, The children from the polygamists. If you can't defend it someone will take it from you.

Why do women get married? They don't need to be married to have children, it's been done every day since there were men and women. There has never been any lack of willing donors. For that matter, there has never been any lack of insistent donors.

Women could have her children and give the child her name and pass her fortune to her children. A true matriarchal society. My house, my rules. My children, I'll bring them up as I see fit. My fortune, of course it goes to my children.

Oh yea, there is that pesky issue of provisions and defense. You only have to look at a western movie to find out what happens to a widow and her children alone on a ranch. It's been like that since men were stronger than women. The only difference in the movie is the quality of the man that stops at the ranch, this time.

There is no doubt that women get married for provisions and defense. This is why they are usually attracted to the rich and powerful, either physically or otherwise. They are looking for the security of a good provider and a good defender. Eventually they will be pregnant and caring for young. It's what they're built for. A good provider and a good defender are a must. The female slave trade has always flourished, even to this day. Why do you think Cinderella wanted to marry the prince. He has money and his own army. It's the same with the knight in shinning armor. Surely he can defend her. That armor wasn't cheap either.

Why does a man get married. I used to know why, now, I must confess, I don't know anymore. For a man marriage is a lose lose proposition. He would be better off just living with the woman whether they wanted children or not.

The new King's media has perverted the meaning of marriage just like the new king has perverted our constitution. It shouldn't be a surprise. To completely dominate a people you must destroy religion and the concept of family. Without close ties between family members, especially extended family members, it becomes easier to single out people one at a time and harass them without alarming too many people. Without God then survival of the fittest is the name of the game. You can then watch your neighbor get harassed by the master and thank Darwin it wasn't you.

The object of the new King is to keep us from banding together in too large of a group. Then when the Master's overseer decides that you need to be disciplined, what chance has one person against the Master's army? Slave owners have known this since before Moses. Even the military knows this. That's why the military stations people far from their family. The master might tell them to start shooting . You won't shoot at your fellow humans if your family might be among them.

Would Dred Scott have taken his issue to court if Sandford had only beat Dred himself. Or, did Dred decide to go to court when his wife and children were being beaten. Was he sacrificing himself to protect his wife and children? It has never been considered a wise move for a slave to irritate his master. If Dred lost, his existence with Sandford wasn't going to get better. If Sandford beat Dred and his family before, what was he going to do after Dred publicly humiliated him in court, not even to mention the cost and payment to the Esquires.

Why does a man get married? Is it because he is in love and wants to share his life with only one woman for the rest of his life? Science tell us that they don't know what love is, but they think that it is just a chemical reaction between two people, A lot like chemicals swimming out of the primordial ooze. I guess when the chemicals are used up, people fall out of Love. Like your battery looses its juice.

Why get married for that. You could do that with a partnership. Dissolving a partnership is a lot easier than dissolving a marriage. There wouldn't even be a need for name changes. With a partnership, a man could even build a harem or make and dissolve partnerships at will. There is no infidelity in partnerships. In fact, should your partner stop delivering services as promised, you could go and acquire a second source of supply. It's just good sense for survival of the fittest.

Why does a man get married? Why does a woman take the man's name when she marries him? Why was a dowry paid with the woman? Why was alimony paid to a woman? Why are the children given the man's name?

It is the simplest answer in the world as to why a man gets married. He can't have children himself. He's not built for it. He needs a surrogate mother to bear his children.

Curiously, whether God or chance built the human race, it works out well, A woman needs a protector and provider while she gestates and raises children and a man can't grow children at all and needs help watching them while he provides and protects. In fact, it has been known that some women even need to be protected from their own children. It is the history of Humans. It is the story of nature. The biggest bully makes the rules. Children figure this out at about puberty.

But still, why does a man get married? He doesn't need to be married to get a woman pregnant. It happens every day, all over the world.

Why did we even go as far as to create separate labels to describe children who's mother was married and children who's mother was not married? Is there any difference in the child? Can you look at a child or adult and tell if their parent were married or not? Of course you can't. Then, what is the difference? What difference is there in the child if the prince had just knocked up Cinderella instead of marring her? In either case, married or not, it is still the child of Cinderella and the Prince.

It's the old nature / nurture argument. How much of what makes a person a person is provided by his jeans and how much of the child is a product of his upbringing?

What if the prince had just gotten Cinderella pregnant? Cinderella would have gone back to the stepmothers and continued cleaning. Maybe the stepmother didn't want the bother and expense of a child in the house and kicked Cinderella out. What if Cinderella had to move to the less expensive part of town and was making a living selling knock off dresses of the fairy's design? In either case, the child would not have been brought up in the Prince's house, with the prince's family. The child was not nurtured by the prince and his family.

Say the prince married one of the evil step sisters and they had a child that was raised in the castle. At 16 both children are taken to a ball, The Child that grew up in the castle has perfect manners and is perfectly at home at the ball. Cinderella's child grew up in a tougher part of town. That child wasn't taught how to dance by the prince's family. Does Cinderella's child feels uncomfortable around so many well mannered people because the child isn't use to the clothes or the rules?

Would anyone be surprised at the difference in the conduct of the prince's children. No. Sure they both have the prince's jeans, but one of the children was brought up in a castle, the child of a prince and the other child was brought up in a slum the child of a seamstress. Both children have the nature part, but only one child has the full equation. Only one child has the nature and the nurture combined. Only one child is a chip off of the old block. The other child is a knock off, and incomplete imitation. One child is a legitimate copy of the prince, the other child is a illegitimate copy of the prince. Cinderella's child is more of a legitimate copy of Cinderella than of the prince. Cinderella nurtured that child by her rules, not the prince's rules.

Even if the prince went and picked up Cinderella's child on weekends, that child would still only have, at best, 2/7^th of the prince's nurturing. It is still an illegitimate copy of the prince.

This is why men get married. They don't want to just father a child, you don't need to be married for that. They want to raise a child with parental rights. You need to be married for that.

Why? It's the old story. Mother's baby. Father's maybe?

Marriage, in its purest form, is a contract where a man hires a surrogate mother to bear his child. Isn't that what women do when they can't bear children themselves? What's the difference? Most women don't need to hire a surrogate mother to bear their children. All men do.

A man hires a woman to bear his children. He has to. He can't bear his own children. Well, it's the woman's child too. This is true. The man and woman have actually agreed to join their dna in a selective breeding process. The man has chosen a woman he deems suitable and, he believes, to be able to produce above average and healthy children when his jeans are added. He has also, hopefully, chosen someone that he can trust for, as his part of the agreement, he has agreed to bring this woman into his house to bear his children and not someone else's children.

One must ask, at this point, why people have children in the first place? Face it children are a pain and the younger they are, the more trouble they are. At least until puberty. Then, it often gets worse.

People of antiquity knew why you have children. You started life young and helpless and, if you live long enough, you will die old and helpless. In a world ruled by survival of the fittest to be helpless is not a survival technique except for women seeking a defender.

When you were young and helpless you had parents to protect you, when your parents got old and helpless, you returned the favor. When you get old and helpless, you need children to return the favor to you. When I was young I tilled the field so that my children could eat. Now my son tills the field so that his father can eat. When he was young I protected my child from harm, now my son protects me from harm.

Women have always been in need of protection. It's different for men. We are born weak, we grow strong and powerful always knowing that, if we live long enough, we will be weak again. In a world of survival of the fittest the weak get attacked and die. With humans the weak get attacked and, if they're lucky, they die. If they're not so lucky they become slaves, then they die. Society hides these facts, but, facts they are. Humans haven't changed appreciably since Cain killed Able or the Egyptians enslaved the Hebrews.

If I were being divorced today, I would have primary custody of my children. I would have demanded specific performance on my contract. I contracted for a surrogate mother because I can't have children. The surrogate mother agreed and took my name and bore our children. Now, the surrogate mother wants to leave and take the children with her. This was not our agreement. We had a contract and a State is forbidden by Article 1 Section 10 to impair the obligation of that contract. If the surrogate mother wants to raise her own children, let her grow her own on her own time. I will even supply the starter culture.

If the surrogate mother doesn't want to have children of her own, but instead wants to contract as a surrogate mother again, she can, again, bear children. men can't. Either way, her having her own children, or being surrogate mother for another man, she can bear more children. Men can't.

The surrogate mother can come and visit my children any time she wants, within reason. I will also give the surrogate mother a severance package. I did promise to keep her until death. I will pay her so much a month in alimony until such time as she contracts to be a surrogate mother again.

I could make this argument as a Citizen of a State, A King of the State of Louisiana. The State of Louisiana promised to honor the contracts of Kings, their master. As a freed slave, a citizen of the United States I can not make such an argument. The cow does not own her calf. The farmer owns the cow and the calf. The bull doesn't own the calf, nor can the bull contract with the cow for the calf. The farmer owns the calf. The master, the illegitimate king of the United States owns the children. Don't believe me ask the mothers in Texas that had a whole town full of children taken away by one bogus phone call. The army surgeon sold Dred Scott and the whole Scott herd to Sandford. The surgeon could have just sold the children. Who is to tell the King how he may dispose of his property? The King of England could throw his subjects in the dungeon or cut off their heads. The illegitimate King of the United States can say who will be responsible for the care of the calf in his herd. The Ox will carry extra food to feed the master's calf.

Let's look at the system the master has inflicted upon us.

A childless couple hires a surrogate mother to have a child. Since the surrogate mother is carrying the child she comes and lives with the couple and after the child is born the surrogate mother will stay on as the au pare as long as all parties agree. Children are born and everything is going well, one day, for whatever reason, the situation becomes intolerable for the au pare or for the couple and they part ways. Should the surrogate mother get the children, the couple's house, half of the earnings of the couple for the time she was pregnant and working as au pare and a monthly allowance for the care of the children? The couple not only has to pay the surrogate mother to watch the children, they can only see the children on weekends and alternate holidays. If the couple refuses to pay the surrogate mother to raise their children they will be thrown in jail and their income garnished. Not only that, but they have to give the surrogate mother enough money so that the children are raised in a manner that the childless couple would have provided if they were raising the children.

Remember, the surrogate mother is the only one able to bear children. Yet, she gets custody of the children she was paid to have.

What does the childless couple do now? They paid one surrogate mother to bear them children and now they must support the surrogate mother in a manner that they used to be able to afford for themselves in the house they used to own.

Well, if they want to raise children there is only one thing that they can do. They try to choose better and go and hire another surrogate mother. It's the same arrangement, just a more carefully chosen surrogate mother. Seven years and two kids latter there is a disagreement with this surrogate mother too and they part company. Again, the surrogate mother gets the children, the surrogate mother gets the smaller house that the couple could afford and the childless couple has to pay this surrogate mother and the children to live in the lesser style the couple could afford and still pay the first surrogate mother.

Now the couple has 4 kids, two surrogate mothers, two houses, plus the apartment that they are living in and still no kids. Both surrogate mothers are remarried and living in what used to be the childless couples houses. Both surrogate mothers are living well on the money the receive for minding the childless couples children. In fact, the surrogate mothers are living so well, that they have more children.

Now the couple has to support 4 kids, two surrogate mothers, two houses, plus the apartment that they are living in. They have two extra husbands and their kids to deal with and still no kids to raise as their own. The best they have is children they can visit.

The childless couple is still childless. But now, they're not only childless, but they are slaves to the surrogate mothers they hired to bear their children. Work to support the surrogate mothers you hired or be labeled dead beat parents and go to jail.

To top it off, when the couple dies whatever the couple owned goes to the kids of the surrogates and their new families. These kids are beholden to the surrogates family, not the families of the childless couple who only saw them once in a while.

Now, take the woman out of the childless couple and you have the plight of men.

I have heard it said that women should get the children for the good of the children. After all, women are built to have and raise children.

I disagree with that statement. I have no doubt, and science will back me up, women are built to have children. Men are not. This is undeniable. However, even science agrees that children grow best with a male and a female parent present. It is equally hard for a child to grow up without a father as it is for a child to grow up without a mother. Neither is better or worse, it's just different.

The father contracted for the surrogate mother because he is incapable of having children of his own. The marriage contract is the certificate of intent from the factory that the factory intends to custom build you chips off the old block. The factory promises to keep the factory representative on the premises for as long as is mutually agreeable for the production and maintenance of certified chips off of your block and not someone else's block.

Now, if the father decides that the factory representative is unsuitable, of if the factory representative comes to dislike the father, it doesn't matter which, the agreement is broken by mutual agreement. Now the factory has custom built chips off of the old block which it will no longer maintain at your premises. The father has contracted with the factory to construct custom built chips off of the old block, which the factory did. The chips off of the old block are beautifully made and a credit not only to the factory but also to the custom plans supplied by the father.

However, the maintenance contract on the chips is being terminated and no new chips will be built for you by this factory. Since the in home maintenance agreement has been terminated, the factory will repossess your custom chips off the old block. You will be required to pay for the storage and care of these custom chips no matter whether you agree with the level of care and maintenance received or not. If you do not pay for the care and maintenance of the factory, and the chips you will not be able to even see your custom built chips and will be subject to arrest, garnishment of money and public humiliation.

Well, gee, if a marriage certificate is a certificate of intent, by the factory, to build you a certified chip off of your block, what is the certificate of origin. Could it be the birth certificate? I have been showing you that everything about law is ownership. The declaration of Independence gave Citizens of a State clear title to their body traceable all the way back to the factory. The declaration of Independence and your birth in a State, now your residence in a State, is your certificate of origin from the Creator. Dred Scott was trying to assert title to himself and his family. The State of Louisiana, well, more correctly, the conquerors of the State of Louisiana, have stolen all vehicles and hold the certificate of origin from the factory. Now you realize that the birth certificate is the certificate of origin on your children. Who holds the certificate of origin on your car and your children? Not you. Cattle don't own their offspring. Dred Scott didn't own his children. Sandford had the ownership papers. You just have a certified copy of the State's ownership papers for your children.

Have you ever wondered why you need a license to get married in the first place? A license is permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal. Without permission such an act would be a tort or a trespass. I showed you that you needed permission of the owner of the vehicle to use his vehicle. To use the master's vehicle without his permission would be a tort or a trespass. Is it any wonder that the master and his esquires want tort reform?

What is a marriage license? Under the common law all you have to do is declare that the two of you are married and you are. Under the common law all you have to do to divorce is declare it. Just like we declared ourselves to be kings. Where's the money in that?

The United States Supreme Court told you why you needed a marriage license. Permission to breed from the master. They told you in Dred Scott's case. Let me remind you. In 1836 Dred and Harriet married at Fort Snelling with the consent of the Surgeon who claimed to be their master and owner. You need the permission from the master to breed. One must maintain the integrity of the herd. What else do you expect as a subject of the United States. Only Citizens of a State are kings, and only if they can find a bona fide residence.

There was a time, before the overthrow of the United States, when the certificates of origin of children were written in the family bible. Before we became cattle of the conquering King and his esquires.

What a racket. Surrogate motherhood. Put in a few years and you get the children, a house, and an 18 year pension. Plus, your free to start again. If you play your cards right you could have two kids and two pensions and still find another husband.

It doesn't take a genius to follow the money and figure out who makes money in a divorce and support battle. Besides, with a house and pension on the line, will the Esquires get to practice making babies with the surrogate too?

Maybe it's a version of first night. But, instead of getting the bride first, the esquires just get the bride next, after she's had a chance to have babies and claims to your house and money. Then when she's disgruntled she'll give you herself and help you take all of the father's money and property. Besides, who can find a hymen anymore. The wife and the man's money are a better prize.

Currently there is no incentive for a woman to stay in a marriage once she has made babies. Everyone knows it in Louisiana and I pretty sure it's the same throughout the country. After all, we are ruled by the same king. Where ever he's hiding. In a divorce a woman gets the children and virtually everything else, plus a pension.

Until such time as men are guaranteed the right to raise the children that they contracted for, there is no benefit in getting married. If the surrogate mother you hired leaves you she takes the children with her. It's the same whether your married or not. If your not married you get off cheaper, you still won't have the children, you'll still have to pay maintenance fees on the children you don't have. But, at least you can keep some of your other property. Without a marriage you didn't agree to share the other property.

If you are already married with children and preparing for a divorce, demand fulfillment of the contract. Sure you'll pay the surrogate mother alimony until she can find another surrogate position. Of course the alimony will be paid on a scale based on ability to pay and time served. The father contracted for a surrogate mother and supplied the exact specifications. All parties agreed in the marriage contract. The father even gave the surrogate good faith money in the form or rings to seal the deal. There were ample witness that the surrogate was not forced into this contract. In fact, before entering into the contract the official asks if anyone knows of any reason why this contract should not be legally recognized. Anyone can stand up and say that they think the bride is being forced against her will to build this man children. Trust me, the marriage will stop until the matter is cleared up to everyone's satisfaction. The father contracted with this surrogate mother to bear his children. The father demands that he have custody over his children of surrogate mother, as was contracted.

Of course, to pull this off you will have to defend yourself. Any lawyer will sabotage you just as they did the butchers and Hans. If your not practiced the lawyers will cheat and pretend that that's what you intended. Or, just flat out cheat. They tried both with me.

The real trick is to try to force the State or the opposing attorney to prove just who's child that child is and just what is the character of all parties. You have to make the State or the opposing party prove that you are a citizen of the United States and not a Citizen of the State. You have to get the State or the opposing party to prove that you do not own that child that you created by legal surrogate mother. You created it, it's yours, unless you don't own yourself. If you don't own yourself, than you don't own what you create. If a slave builds a wagon, who owns the wagon, the slave or the master that owns the slave? Same thing. You saw it with Dred Scott. In law, property is property, it doesn't matter if it's a horse, an African, or a fallen king. Who owns title to you and your children? This is law, there is a paper trail.

If you can force the issue. If you can force them to prove that you are a citizen of the United States and not a King, a Citizen of the State in order to complete the divorce, you will never be divorced. If you can force them to prove that the master is the real owner of you and your children before they can finalize the divorce, you will never be divorced.

It's just a variation of my paperwork that I showed you. You have to go into court as a Citizen of the State. Remember, the Supreme Court told you in the Dred Scott Story that if you don't make an issue of it, they probably won't notice on appeal. It is my belief that if you are not in the Supreme Court of your State, then your really not in a State court. You are in a federal court. If you are in a federal court then the party bringing the suit will have to prove that they have a right to bring a King into that court? They will have to prove that your residence is not bona fide and that the managers of the Kings have overstepped their authority and alienated land they did not have title to. Remember, your unalienable rights have been trampled into the dirt. The managers of the Kings can not alienate your unalienable rights, they are beyond the reach of government, I had clear title before we made a government and we forbid the government from alienating our rights. Therefore you can not alienate the land because you will alienate my rights with it. You have been forbidden to do this.

You can see where this is going again. In order to prove that they can bring you into court for a divorce, they have to prove that they had no right to make you a character that they could bring into this court. Your marriage license is invalid, it was forced upon you by invaders of a foreign state who have overthrown your government and stolen your land and reduced you to slavery. Since the invaders have kept you ignorant of law this fraud was perpetrated on you. Now that you have discovered the fraud all contracts forced upon you by these invaders is invalid.

In order to bring you into court now they have to prove that the people who wrote the law and issued you permission to breed and increase their herd had no right to do any of those things. In fact, they have no right holding office in the first place and should be treated as an invading army and thieves.

If you remain in your house, as is your right, and act as a married man protecting his children your wife may leave, but if she takes the children, I would report her for kidnapping. After all, you claim that they are your children by duly contracted surrogate mother. The government claims that they own your children. The wife claims that she has a higher claim of ownership than you because she built them. Forget the fact that she freely contracted to be your surrogate mother. Until such time as ownership of the children can be legally determined no one can say what happens to the children. The wife may stay or go as she wishes. If she wishes to abandon the home and children who can stop her? However, as head of the household your say has priority and the government is bound to protect property rights. That's why we built the government in the first place.

In order for your wife to divorce you the whole fraud of our government will have to be sworn to in court. You will never get divorced. However, you still have your house and children. There can't be a property settlement until we know who owns what and whom. There is no need for child support since the child is still with the father who, when he contracted for a surrogate mother, had to expect to have to support a child he contracted to be custom built. The children stay with the father who is solely obligated to support them.

Nor can the wife take the children from the family home. At best the two of you are owners in common of the children. Property is property. If we both own a house and the land that it's on. One of the owners can't come and remove the house from the property without the permission of the other owner in common. Hence, the wife can not remove the children from the family home under the same principle of law.

You will never be divorced, but, you will still have your kids, the house and no government on your back.

If your wife leaves, sue her for divorce as a Citizen of a State suing a citizen of the United States. Do you remember what happened when the Southern States broke their contract and started their own country. You should expect nothing less from your government. A contract is a contract. You still will never get divorced but there are no shortage of lawyers that will take her money on a never ending case. Who knows, when she runs out of money, the lawyer may get lucky.

Believe me, it's good to know the rules. I sure wish I had figured them out sooner.

While I'm talking about marriage I need to mention infidelity. It's not just something people do as the master would have you believe or the right of a liberated woman.

When you hire a surrogate mother, there is a lot more going on than you might realize. You are continuing a selective breeding program that has been in action since the first holder of you family name.

Not only has it been a selective breeding program, but it is also a distribution of wealth issue too. To insure the survival of genes associated with that family name fathers have collected wealth and passed it on to their children to ease their passage and help ensure their survival and the survival of the genes associated with that family name. Any wealth passed down to the children will allow them to afford a better surrogate mother.

Let's say that you hired a surrogate mother under an exclusive contract. You got married. The surrogate mother bears you two fine children and then, a little latter, she bears a third child. At some point the father realizes that the third baby might not be his. By law the third baby is his, no matter whether it is or not. The baby could be a different color or have some other trait impossible to produce between the father and the surrogate. None of that matters. The baby is his.

Let's take a closer look at what happened. The hired surrogate mother has opened the back door and allowed someone to come in and not only force the man to expend energy raising an impostor, but that impostor is also going to compete for the resources of the true chips off of the old block and is going to inherit 1/3 of the accumulated wealth of not only the father, but of all of his fathers before him. The impostor will inherit 1/3 of the fathers wealth, 1/3 of the family heirlooms and may disgrace the blood line generations of selective breeding produced. He does bear the family name.

What happens if the impostor child should find out who his real father is. Maybe he will develop a natural tendency to bond with his biological father? Could the two of them plot to steal the other 2/3's of the father's wealth. After all, they're not really family. Maybe the surrogate is in cahoots with them too. She did get the other man's foot in the door so to speak, and help him steal the father's wealth.

Maybe that was the interloper's survival strategy. To get as many married women pregnant as he could. Surely when one of the children grows up he might use his wealth to take care of his real dad. All the benefits of children with none of the responsibility, trouble or expense. Just inject children into other people's nest.

I can hear the women now. Oh, It's alright for a man to fool around but not a woman. This is not the case. However, it must be admitted that it is the man's family tree. His heritage formed from generations of selective breeding. If he wants to start a new branch, it is his tree. The surrogate mother's interest in the man's heritage starts with her children. She is the daughter of another man's heritage. It is not her place to graft a different variety onto his tree.

If the surrogate wishes to start a new branch on her tree, then she should leave her current husband and start her own branch on her own tree. After all, she does own the grafting equipment.

However, I am not saying that a father has a right to start a new branch of his own tree. We run into the same problem as we did with the mother. If a man starts a new branch of his family tree, this will reduce the resources of the wife's children. They will be less able to care for their mother when she is old and weak. That wasn't the deal we made when I agreed to bear your children by exclusive contract. The exclusive contract works both ways.

Unless, of course, all parties agree. Then, who's to say what Kings and Queens may be allowed to do. What works for you may not work for me.