I Told Ya So! Judge Uses Homosexuality Acceptance As Basis For Incest Acceptance

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “If you’re a Californian and you’re happily married today, say hello to your spouse.  It doesn’t matter if you’re husband and wife.  You’re no longer husband and wife.  You’re spouse and spouse now.  Congratulations.  Thank you Governor Moonbeam.  Again, those of you that argued, [mocking] “Marriage ought to be defined by the states,” no, marriage is defined by God, Almighty God.  It is a sacrament, Latin for sacramentum, meaning a gift.  It is a gift from God that is handed down to us.  It confers the awesome power between one man and one woman to bring new life into existence.  That’s what its purpose is, and then to raise that life as servants and lovers of our Almighty Father.  That’s what the purpose of marriage is”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Before I get back to the telephones, I have another “I told ya so” moment.  I told ya so!  I do not relish these moments but it is my duty to report them to you.  There are two “I told ya so,” two headlines for you.  “Australian judge says incest may no longer be a taboo.”  [mocking] “Mike, you and your radical Catholic buddies that are opposed to same-sex marriage, this fantasy, this sick, twisted fantasy of yours that the acceptance of homosexuality is going to lead to the acceptance of pedophilia and incest is just ridiculous.”  Maybe I’m reading this wrong then.

[reading]

“A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner,” the judge said. “If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you’d invariably have, they would say it’s unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone.”

A judge in Australia has been criticised after saying incest may no longer be a taboo and that the community may now accept consensual sex between adult siblings.

Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and “unnatural” but is now widely accepted.

[end reading]

Mike:  Folks, I do not relish this.  I don’t like saying I told ya so but I did, and I’m not the only one.  Others told ya so.  We don’t say these things because we’re hateful, mean, spiteful people; we say them because we care about the future of civilization.  We have to have families.  We have to have a transcendent moral order in order to survive and not kill each other.  Some of us think that Christianity established a pretty good order to that end.  There are those of you that reject that.  Okay, fine, but the evidence is piling up that that proverbial slippery slope, once you get on it, it is a downhill run.  I’m telling you, incest and pedophilia are on the way.  I even made the quip yesterday on the Twitter feed: I wonder if the sex bigot prisons are going to be large enough to include all of us incest bigots and all of us pedophilia bigots.  [mocking] “You and your closed-minded view of pedophilia.  You and your Catholic Christian buddies, you’re not gonna work in this town anymore, mister.”  [mocking] “Oh, come on, Mike, you’re being ridiculous.”  Really?  Wind the clock back 20 years, insert sexuality here, and say the same thing.

[reading]

Judge Garry Neilson, from the district court in the state of New South Wales, likened incest to homosexuality, which was once regarded as criminal and “unnatural” but is now widely accepted.

He said incest was now only a crime because it may lead to abnormalities in offspring but this rationale was increasingly irrelevant [Mike: Listen to this, you culture of deathists out there. You’re going to love this, you late-term abortionists. That thing about incest creating freaks of nature and mutations and abnormalities and all that, don’t worry about all that.] because of the availability of contraception and abortion.

“A jury might find nothing untoward in the advance of a brother towards his sister once she had sexually matured, had sexual relationships with other men and was now ‘available’, not having [a] sexual partner,” the judge said.

“If this was the 1950s and you had a jury of 12 men there, which is what you’d invariably have, they would say it’s unnatural for a man to be interested in another man or a man being interested in a boy. Those things have gone.”

[end reading]

Mike:  Sad.  We’re not done.  Headline: “California governor signs bill to remove ‘husband’ and ‘wife’ from state laws on family.”  This is by Kirsten Andersen at The Pulse.

[reading]

In case you weren’t clear on California Governor Jerry Brown’s position on redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, he just signed a law defining marriage as a “personal relation arising out of a civil contract between 2 persons.”

Previously, the state defined marriage as a “personal relationship arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman.”

The bill will also remove the words “husband” and “wife” from the state’s family code, to be replaced with the gender-neutral “spouse.” California’s family code is the portion of state law that defines legal marriage and outlines the responsibilities and privileges that come with it.  The new law will take effect on January 1, 2015.

[end reading]

Mike:  There is a problem with this, folks.  There is a large problem with this.  The citizens of California amended their constitution in 2008 to ban and outlaw same-sex marriage.  A judge then came along and said: You citizens think you can vote on that?  That’s a good one.  I’m striking the law down, bam.  Regardless of that, it is still part of — it has not been rescinded from, hasn’t been excised out of — it was an amendment to the California Constitution.  It still exists under California law.  Here’s a question for you.  I posed this in today’s Pile of Prep.  What happens if a trad Cath or just a Catholic pursuing sanctifying grace in the old traditional way, or in the only way there really is in abiding church law, and a man pursuing same seeks to have a marriage inside the State of California, gets a Catholic priest to arrange and then perform the ceremony and then they go through with it?  They are then pronounced what, according to California, spouse and spouse?  What if they say our religion is husband and wife, State of California, and we don’t give a rat’s furry behind what you say, and the state constitution of this state says that our union is legal, is binding, and is recognized by this state?  There’s going to be lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit over this where there need not be, yet it is going to happen.

If you’re a Californian and you’re happily married today, say hello to your spouse.  It doesn’t matter if you’re husband and wife.  You’re no longer husband and wife.  You’re spouse and spouse now.  Congratulations.  Thank you Governor Moonbeam.  Again, those of you that argued, [mocking] “Marriage ought to be defined by the states,” no, marriage is defined by God, Almighty God.  It is a sacrament, Latin for sacramentum, meaning a gift.  It is a gift from God that is handed down to us.  It confers the awesome power between one man and one woman to bring new life into existence.  That’s what its purpose is, and then to raise that life as servants and lovers of our Almighty Father.  That’s what the purpose of marriage is, procreation, children.  Look, I know, I can hear you screaming out there right now.  I can hear you dashing for your phones to tell me what a kook I am.  [mocking] “Come on, Martin Luther ended your little parade back in the 15^th century, imbecile.  Get back to bashing Obama.”  Well aware of your opinion on it.  I’m not telling you that you have to agree with me.  I’m just stating what is historically obvious and used to be nearly universally regarded as truth, or dare I say as gospel truth.  Of course, that’s not the case any longer.

Here’s a good analogy, or what I think is a good analogy.  I’ll leave it to you whether you think it’s a good analogy or not.  Some of us say that if something was unconstitutional like building roads and bridges and using federal money to do so in 1816 on James Madison’s last day in office when he vetoed the Bonus Bill because it was unconstitutional — there was no constitutional power accorded for roads, bridges, canals and what have you.  If it was unconstitutional in 1816 sans an amendment to the Constitution, then it’s unconstitutional today.  End of story, close the door, next case.  Of course, we don’t obey the Constitution today so that’s out the window.  But that doesn’t mean that Madison was incorrect.

In the same manner, if marriage was a consecrated act, a sacred act performed by a Catholic priest or member of other religious order and was recognized outside of the state as a sacrament, an oath made, a bond forged by God almighty, and that was recognized as official and transcendent back in the 1600s, 1400s, 800s, 700s, then it’s still recognized today sans God himself sending his son back down here and informing us or informing us through his vicar — we know him as the pope — that God changed his mind about that whole marriage thing.  [mocking] “Yeah, you guys can marry kangaroos if you want.  He didn’t mean any of it.  No, he didn’t mean any of it.  He was just joking.”  Sans that happening, it’s still true today.  I realize that there are going to be those that disagree with that and that’s fine.  I get that.  I feel it to be my duty.  Someone has to say these things.

End Mike Church Show Transcript