Tag Archive

Mr McClure founder of UPMART has previously acted as marriage celebrant for couples to marry at Common Law.

They were able to have a beautiful and memorable ceremony and they are still happily married today as far as I know.

Any person who has previously attended a Common Law Course or Step 1 Seminar is eligible for this as a free service from Upmart.  Couples who want to be married by Mr McClure consider it an honour to be married by the founder of Upmart. The fact is that if a couple are married under State law in Australia and got married after 1961 they are most likely married pursuant to the federal Marriage Act 1961,

Couples who marry under the Marriage Act are also bound by many other laws which are:

Familly Law Act 1975
Crimes Act 1914
Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Act 2000;
Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Act 2001 (No. 24, 2001)
Witness Protection Act 1994
Administrative Appeals Trubunal Act 1975
Statutory Declarations Act 1959
Consular Fees Act 1955
Marriage Amendment Act 1976;
Marriage Amendment Act 1985
Marriage Amendment Act 2002 (No. 77, 2002)

This would be true unless the couple:

• married in another country and therefor married under different rules,
• married in Australia in accordance with common law rules.

Many couples in recent times are marrying pursuant to the common law. The choice to do so has many advantages over a State marriage. Common Law Marriages is available for free from Upmart and with a nicely bound Marriage Certificate. The couples who have married at common law by Mr McClure have the extra bonus of knowing that the State does not own any children born into that marriage.

It’s no longer only Australia aborigines who choose to marry at common law. Non-aborigines also see the advantage in a common law marriage and see it as a real option as well as Aboriginal community. We can all enjoy the freedom and why shouldn’t we?  A Common Law Marriage also provides protection from many problems associated with the Marriage Act 1961.

OTHER ACTS LINKED WITH THE MARRIAGE ACT 1961
Act Number and year Date of Assent Date of commencement Application, saving or transitional provisions
Marriage Act 1961 12, 1961 6 May 1961 Ss. 1–3, 5(1) and 9, Part III (ss.
22–24), Part VIII (ss. 107–110) and s. 120: 6 May 1961
Remainder: 1 Sept 1963 (see Gazette 1963, p. 1977)
Statute Law Revision (Decimal Currency) Act 1966 93, 1966 29 Oct 1966 1 Dec 1966 —
Marriage Act 1973 35, 1973 27 May 1973 1 July 1973 (see Gazette 1973, No. 70, p. 3) Ss. 8(2) and 12(2)
Statute Law Revision Act 1973 216, 1973 19 Dec 1973 31 Dec 1973 Ss. 9(1) and 10
Marriage Amendment Act 1976 209, 1976 20 Dec 1976 Ss. 1, 2 and 30: Royal Assent
Ss. 14 and 31: 1 July 1976
Remainder: 20 June 1977
(see Gazette 1977, No. S93) Ss. 2(4), 14(2), 15(2), 23(2) and 30
Domicile (Consequential Amendments) Act 1982 2, 1982 4 Mar 1982 1 July 1982 (see
s. 2 and Gazette 1982, No. G26,
p. 2) —
Marriage Amendment Act 1985 7, 1985 29 Mar 1985 Ss. 4, 10–13 and 23: 7 Apr 1986 (see Gazette 1986, No. S153)
Remainder: 26 Apr 1985 Ss. 8(2), (3) and 25(2)
Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1988 38, 1988 3 June 1988 S. 3: Royal Assent (a) —
Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 1990 115, 1990 21 Dec 1990 S. 49: Royal Assent (b) —
Sex Discrimination Amendment Act 1991 71, 1991 25 June 1991 Part 3 (ss. 11–17): 1 Aug 1991 (c) Ss. 3 and 17
Territories Law Reform Act 1992 104, 1992 30 June 1992 S. 24: 1 July 1992 (d) —
Witness Protection Act 1994 124, 1994 18 Oct 1994 18 Apr 1995 —
Family Law Reform (Consequential Amendments) Act 1995 140, 1995 12 Dec 1995 Schedule 1 (Part 7): 11 June 1996 (see s. 2(4) and Gazette 1996, No. GN5) (e) —
Statute Law Revision Act 1996 43, 1996 25 Oct 1996 Schedule 5 (item 79): Royal Assent (f) —
Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 1999 125, 1999 13 Oct 1999 Schedule 13: Royal Assent (g) —
Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Act 2000 137, 2000 24 Nov 2000 Ss. 1–3 and Schedule 1 (items 1, 4, 6, 7, 9–11, 32): Royal Assent
Remainder: 24 May 2001 Sch. 2 (items 418, 419) [see Table A]
Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Act 2001 24, 2001 6 Apr 2001 S. 4(1), (2) and Schedule 34: (h) S. 4(1) and (2) [see Table A]
Marriage Amendment Act 2002 77, 2002 8 Oct 2002 Schedule 2 (items 1–14,
16–56): 5 Nov 2002
Schedule 2 (item 15): 8 Apr 2003
Schedule 1: 1 Sept 2003 (see Gazette 2003, No. GN31)
Remainder: Royal Assent Sch. 1 (item 27) and Sch. 2 (items 5, 10, 17) [see Table A]
(a) The Marriage Act 1961 was amended by section 3 only of the Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1988, subsection 2(1) of which provides as follows:
(1) Subject to this section, this Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.
(b) The Marriage Act 1961 was amended by section 49 only of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 1990, subsection 2(1) of which provides as follows:
(1) Subject to this section, this Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.
(c) The Marriage Act 1961 was amended by Part 3 (sections 11–17) only of the Sex Discrimination Act 1991, subsection 2(1) of which provides as follows:
(1) Part 1, sections 4, 7 and 8, Parts 3 and 4 and the Schedule commence on 1 August 1991.
(d) The Marriage Act 1961 was amended by section 24 only of the Territories Law Reform Act 1992, subsection 2(3) of which provides as follows:
(3) The remaining provisions of this Act commence on 1 July 1992.
(e) The Marriage Act 1961 was amended by Schedule 1 (Part 7) by the Family Law Reform (Consequential Amendments) Act 1995, subsection 2(4) of which provides as follows:
(4) The amendments made by Part 7 of Schedule 1 commence on the commencement of section 5 of the Family Law Reform Act 1995.
(f) The Marriage Act 1961 was amended by Schedule 5 (item 79) only of the Statute Law Revision Act 1996, subsection 2(1) of which provides as follows:
(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), this Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.
(g) The Marriage Act 1961 was amended by Schedule 13 only of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment Act 1999, subsection 2(1) of which provides as follows:
(1) Subject to this section, this Act commences on the day on which it receives the Royal Assent.
(h) The Marriage Act 1961 was amended by Schedule 34 only of the Law and Justice Legislation Amendment (Application of Criminal Code) Act 2001, subsection 2(1)(a) of which provides as follows:
(1) Subject to this section, this Act commences at the later of the following times:
(a) immediately after the commencement of item 15 of Schedule 1 to the Criminal Code Amendment (Theft, Fraud, Bribery and Related Offences) Act 2000;
Item 15 commenced on 24 May 2001

The protections are at common law and are of a Common Law Marriage and they are blatantly real. Couples who realize what they have signed when married by the State are considering a State divorce to free themselves from the binding State laws. They are then able to re-marry pursuant to Common Law.

Whilst the initiatives of Upmart are pioneering and progressive the members, are by nature generally, conservatively thinkers. couples seeking to be married under common law need to attend a seminar so that they have certain knowledge by understanding the foundation of common law before being married and also before being permitted to use the many other initiatives that Upmart has on offer.

Please leave a comment if you like this article:

The meaning of a Common Law Marriage is that the couple gets married under common law. This means they do not have an obligation to sign a contract with the State.

In a Common Law Marriage a couple can be married by whom ever they choose to marry them. Sometimes it is a family member or it could be a good friend of the family or they can be married by a Common Law Attorney or a Marriage Celebrant.  The couple can still have a memorable ceremony. In actual fact it is a more intimate occasion than having a stranger perform the ceremony.

There are many advantages of a common law marriage and one is that the marriage is not bound by Statute Law.

Having a wedding that is free from the State also means that there will be no need for a costly divorce if the marriage breaks down and they decide to split-up.

There is also no reason why they can’t have a prenuptial  agreement put in place by the couple. They can do this before they marry or anytime after that. They would need to make the agreement in front of family members or someone else of honour and to have someone witnessed the agreement and to have the agreement sealed by a handshake. This agreement may be concerning children,  property or any other arrangements that they what to agree on and to happen if they were to split up.

The married couples don’t need the State to do their thinking for them. We as individuals and members of a community have the capacity to solve our own problems without involving a third party person or entity, such as the State. This also means they do not need a lawyer to settle disputes between the two people who are separating.

Also, it is known that as from 1961 the marriage laws changed so that being married by the State means that a couples children are only recognized as being legal under State law. Parents sign away many rights to their own children by getting married by the State.

Why is a Common Law Marriage better than a State marriage?

• Because getting married is something personal between two people and should be kept that way.
• A marriage is based on customs and traditions of the family and the community and has nothing at all to do with the State.
• Another advantage of getting married under Common Law is that you are not bound by a religion.
• A Common law marriages is a legal marriage.

Malcolm McClure of UPMART talks about common law marriages during his UPMART Common Law Courses UCLC Please contact us on the UPMART website and book in for a course.

By not having a contract with the state it means that a child born from the union of a Common Law marriage that the State cannot claim an interest in the child via his or her birth certificate.

Please leave a comment on your views or an opinion you may have on a common law marriage.

Community Justice

Common Law is a human law.

There are three definitions of common law:

• That which derives its force and authority from the universal consent and immemorial practice of the community – Oxford English Dictionary.
• The unwritten law derived from the traditional law of England. – Ibid OED
• The unwritten law derived from the traditional law of England and as developed by judicial precedence, interpretation, expansion and modification: – Dietrich V R 1992 177 CLR 292

There is two ways laws are created: by the Parliament and by the people through common Law initiatives, petitions to Parliament, challenges in court, and referendum.

“Only the people can take away the common law right because the common law right is not owned by the Parliament, but by the people. The common law is therefore, self-evident” (Coco vs. The Queen, 1994. Butterworth’s Legal Dictionary, p 221)

Recently I had an opportunity to witness a fine example of common law in action in the community.

Living in the city for many years and not having a break away for a while I decided to go for a drive and spend time in the country. Left Sydney and headed north and when I reached Taree I decided to stop and have a look at the beach.

I drove to the access and parking area leading into the beach but did not drive in straight away. I couldn’t, because it was so busy with cars driving in and out. For an instant I was confused and thought this was incredibly unorganized.

Why did I think that? Because there were no arrows or “in” and “out” signs. I thought, how on earth could this happen? Taree council  must really be incompetent. I mean here it is…. and there are two driveways here. How am I supposed to know which one to use to drive in safely?

In actual fact it only took me a few seconds of observation to see how this complex system was working and without any council signs. The traffic although moving fast, was in a flow. They were all moving in one direction. One way in and one way out and operations running very smoothly.

At that moment I realized how simple the natural flow was and it was the natural thing to do. It felt good. It’s refreshing to see people using their own common sense while in control of a car. I realized that we didn’t need council signs to do our thinking for us. Not in the country anyway.

How could I have thought this parking spot in the bush was not manageable without council signs? I drove in feeling really good about my self that I had worked out the complex system without the aid of signs.

Common Law is Common Sense.

I stayed a short while enjoying the scenery before heading off. As I’m leaving I heard a loud voice calling out. I looked around to see that someone had driven their car in the wrong way. The traffic had jammed up and the cars wanting to leave could not because this car had come in the wrong way. He’s soon made aware by the community and I heard him say “there’s no signs” He was told “There’s no need for signs if you just look and use your common sense.

He was told how silly he is was for not observing the flow before entering in and disrupting the flow. I see this as a fine example of true common law in action. City dwellers can learn how to get in touch with this that they have lost. learn how to claim back human rights and much, much more by attending an UPMART Common Law Course (UCLC) . Learn the laws of the community that have been forgotten. It’s so simple but the example here demonstrates how the individual has lost their basic sense of direction in many simple everyday living activities. When this happens we then become vulnerable to abuse and to some silly statute laws that are made just to take our money. Especially for those people who live in the cities and the law was not meant for that.

Best regards,

Jill Brown.

P.S. If you like this post please  RSS