Either You Have Traditions or You Start New Ones

Podcast: Play in new window | Download | Embed

Subscribe: Email | RSS

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Audio and Transcript – This Clip of The Day was originally aired and published on May 15,2012 and is part of the Founders Pass Flashback Collection.

If you want to get married and you want to call it a traditional marriage, then go to a traditional church and get married.  Find a parson that will do the deed, bow obeisance to that canon from that church and be done with it.  If you don’t, then go find yourself a legal contract to enter into which the state really has no alternative but to authorize in some form.  You can call it marriage by the justice of the peace or whatever you will.  Then it would fall to the state to determine are we going to limit this to just two people, regardless of whether they’re man, woman or beast? Check out today’s audio clip and transcript for more…

FOLKS, a message from Mike – The Audio Clip of The Day files, Project 76 feature presentations, Church Doctrine audio & video clips and everything else on this site are supported by YOU. We have over 70, of my personally designed, written, produced and directed products for sale in the Founders Tradin’ Post, 24/7,  here. You can also support our efforts with a Founders Pass membership granting total access to years of My work for just .17 cents per day. Not convinced? Take the tour! Thanks for 18 years of mike church.com! – Mike

HERE’S YOUR FREE AUDIO PREVIEW OF THIS CLIP OF THE DAY – TO HEAR THE ENTIRE EPISODE JOIN FOUNDERS PASS NOW! FOR HUNDREDS MORE CLIPS, VISIT THE CLIP OF THE DAY ARCHIVE HERE

[private |FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76|Founding Brother|Founding Father|FP-Lifetime]

[/private]

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  This seems to be a misperception out there.  Let me straighten this out once and for all.  On last Thursday’s and Friday’s brilliant three-hour episodes of this show, I did not advocate that the state legislature, the State of North Carolina, or any state, that that state ought to be in the business of issuing marriage licenses or determining who it is that’s going to get them.  You say, [mocking] “What about all the benefits?  What about all the legal?”  They have created this tentacle, this three-trillion-headed hydra of deceit and — I’ve run out of adjectives to describe — this web of legalisms that are all attached to tax policy and to benefit policy and more tax policy and this and that and the other all brought forth by the same government, the same legislature.  It seems to me that they’ve done enough damage already and they should have never waded into the fray to start with.

Like I said, if you want to get married and you want to call it a traditional marriage, then go to a traditional church and get married.  Find a parson that will do the deed, bow obeisance to that canon from that church and be done with it.  If you don’t, then go find yourself a legal contract to enter into which the state really has no alternative but to authorize in some form.  You can call it marriage by the justice of the peace or whatever you will.  Then it would fall to the state to determine are we going to limit this to just two people, regardless of whether they’re man, woman or beast?  Can we have three people?  Can we have polyamory, group marriage?

When it becomes a contractual obligation, then that’s what it is.  It is no more a representation of the will of God, or a sacrament if you’re a Catholic, or a vestige of a sacrament for many of the churches that came from Catholicism, than any of the other sacraments that you choose not to participate in.  It is just a legal agreement.  It would be unnecessary had the states not concocted this vast and menacing web of rules, conditions and policies that we all have to deal with just to navigate one day’s existence.

It is really not a surprise that as the state grows larger, so do businesses.  So does the expansion of what is considered a familial unit.  I don’t mean that in the Christian sense of the word; I mean it in the legal sense of the term.  I don’t know what alternative a state has.  [mocking] “We’re just not going to issue any marriages.  You’ve got to go to a church.”  Fine, then don’t tax me.  If you’re not going to issue any licenses and you’re not going to say that this is a marriage authorized by the state or by the general government, then fine.  You can’t tax me because I’m married.  You can’t tax me any differently because I’m single.

Do you see what I’m saying, Andrew?  I’m just saying that the state has created this, and now, as a result of what they’ve created, the next logical step is we have to legalize this and make this legal and all that.  The prudent course of action, to me, would be to dismantle what the state has created.  Leave the institution, the marriage as it were, to the religions.  Who knows?  Maybe there are Unitarian churches out there that adopt some new form of religiosity where they say it is from our canon we don’t hold any difference between men and men and women and women.  That does not mean that the people that want to preserve it are any more “bigoted” or any more mean-spirited or anything than the people that are arguing to have the tradition’s doors beaten down with some sort of a battering ram because this is all the new rage and all the cool kids with the pumped up kicks are doing it.

End Mike Church Show Transcript