LGBTQ Highlights Magazine

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “Did you know that almost every, I think it was every state, maybe every state save one or two, had laws on their books against sodomy?  This wasn’t something that was happenstance.  Anywhere you would have went, you would have found, on the law books, there would have been rules or laws against sodomy.”  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Do you know that in 1968, before the Loving case went to trial, Lawrence v. Texas went to trial, and the Supreme Court basically said: You can’t have moral laws in your state against sodomy.  Did you know that almost every, I think it was every state, maybe every state save one or two, had laws on their books against sodomy?  This wasn’t something that was happenstance.  Anywhere you would have went, you would have found, on the law books, there would have been rules or laws against sodomy.  In some states, there still are laws on the books that are termed as “crimes against nature.”  What happened to all those sodomy laws?

They’ve all, almost all of them, have been ripped from the books.  Why?  Why?  So that public displays and public approbation, because it’s been made legal now – does that mean that the city that God destroyed in the Old Testament called Sodom and Gomorrah, or the two cities, does that mean that the sin that was so admonished and so offended Almighty God himself that he sent meteor showers or an asteroid down to blow the city to kingdom come and destroy all the filthy sinners therein, does that mean that because it’s been made legal where the laws against it in the states have been taken off the books, that it is now moral?  How many people would go so far as to demand acceptance for – can you see the t-shirt?  “I practice sodomy often.”  You shouldn’t wear that shirt in public.  You’re offending me.  “Yeah, well, you’re just a bigot.”  So because it’s been made legal, does that make it moral?

I only bring this up because few other people do.  Just because something has been made legal, A, doesn’t make it right, and, B, most certainly doesn’t make it moral.  It makes it permissible by those in society now, especially leaders in society, that are no longer moral men and women.  As prefaced – you have to understand, if you don’t get this part of it, you won’t get the rest of it.  “Highlights children’s magazine gets schooled on LGBTQ families.”  This is from LGBTQNation.com.

[reading]

It is now legal for same-sex couples to marry and to adopt in all 50 states, yet LGBTQ families [Mike: By the way, two-thirds of this, if not three-quarters of this, was done by judicial fiat. It has not been made legal by acts of the people of those states. It’s been made legal by federal judiciary appointees, either the Supreme Court or federal or judiciary wannabes under them.] are all too often still missing from the entertainment and media landscape.

[end reading]

[private FP-Monthly|FP-Yearly|FP-Yearly-WLK|FP-Yearly-So76]

Mike:  Listen to the verbiage here.  Again, what was Highlights doing?  What were the people and the staff members of Highlights doing?  Practicing some freedom of expression, I might say.  Harming no one.  Not seeking a controversy with anyone?  Thinking that they were publishing things that were being helpful to youngsters and to parents who assist them in raising their children, to keep them occupied while at the dentist office and doctor office.  Were they really seeking to harm anyone?  No, they were not.  [mocking] “Well, they’ve learned the hard way.  If you don’t include us, you’re not going to be able to continue.  These people have basically threatened this children’s magazine.  Either you will comply or we will make you comply.

[reading]

Children’s magazine Highlights has now learned the hard way that people are beginning to pay more attention to this type of erasure . . .

[end reading]

Mike:  It can’t be an erasure if it didn’t exist in the first place.  If it wasn’t published somewhere in a Highlights magazine and then they decided they weren’t going to publish it anymore or they retracted it, then it cannot have been erased.  You may say this kind of exclusion.  Just wait till the pedophiles get ahold of this.  [mocking] “You can’t exclude pedophiles.  We’re loving families, too.”

[reading]

. . . are beginning to pay more attention to this type of erasure and will not roll over when weak responses are offered to questions of a lack of true inclusion.

[end reading]

Mike:  These people have the unmitigated gall and audacity to even use the term “true” in their complaint.  What are they talking about?  They’re talking about a letter that was written by the editors of Highlights magazine, [mocking] “You know, man, we weren’t trying to offend anyone.  We just were kinda hanging out, publishing our magazine, and, you know, all is well.”

[reading]

Parents Kristina Wertz and Kara Desiderio contacted Highlights‘ customer service department in September to express concern that their one year old daughter did not see her family represented in her favorite magazine, according to a statement from Family Equality Council.

[end reading]

Mike:  I have a question.  Can a one-year-old actually have a “favorite magazine,” or is it the favorite magazine that a parent may wish to display to the child?  It’s the kid.  The child has made the magazine its favorite, and you insist that the magazine must change because the child is not getting enough favoritism from certain sexual aberrant behavior.  Were you attacking the parent, or is this aimed at the child?  The obvious answer is this is aimed at the child.  Little Johnny or Little Susie was not seeing her parents, mortally sinful, lesbian family relationship, portrayed in the pages of the magazine.  And we can’t have that because then the child may grow up to ask questions like: How come those people are a man and woman and you guys are like man and man?  [mocking] “Well, because those people are obviously wrong; they’re bigots.”

In order to answer the question, a truth must be denied.  To answer the question and to continue to live in the relationship, you have to deny the truth.  That is, that the natural order requires you, little girl, to be born.  I, or one of you two, is going to have to volunteer to say I had to have relations with a member of the opposite sex.  I only used them for that, though.  They’re useless and worthless for any other purpose.  No good can become of this.  You cannot get a good out of what is an intrinsically evil act.  This is.  It would be no different, and I say this as someone that has had to confess this sin and work every single day to try and make amendments for the behavior.  It would be no different for those who are unmarried, who are in states of fornicating bliss, who are shacking up and raising children, no different.  Although, there is at least the cooperation between the opposite sex to make the child.  There may be one less act of sin going on, but fornication as well as sodomy is immoral.

You’ve got to understand the gambit here.  That’s why this all goes according to a very specific and predetermined formula.  You only talk about the legal aspects of it.  You can’t talk about the moral aspects of it.  When you talk about just the legal and not the moral aspects of it, then you have removed the moral component from being a part of any discussion or of any decision-making process.  You’re setting yourself up for moral failure from the get-go.  What happens when you commit an error?  What does an error produce?  Does it produce goodness?  No, it produces an error.  It produces erroneous thought.  Is an error going to produce goodness?  No, it’s going to produce more errors.  That’s the tragedy of this.  Does the child get a vote in all this?  Does the kid, who is now a pawn in a licentious, not pleasing to Almighty God relationship, do they get a vote in this?  No, they don’t.  Who speaks for the child?  The lesbians here purport to be speaking for their daughter.  Does your daughter not have the right to be at least partially raised by what God intended, a male and a female?  Who’s going to play the male part?  You mean the fake that’s all testosteroned up, who’s pretending and defying the natural order that she was born a female and not a male?

You see where this goes.  No one wants to talk about this.  No one wants to talk about it in the terms in which it must be talked about.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be forced down your throats.  We’re all going to have a Highlights magazine moment here very soon if you haven’t already had one.  You’re going to be forced to comply.  There are no deals to be made.  These people do not take prisoners.  They offer no quarter, meaning if you don’t surrender, you are then, to use battle terminology, you’re then killed on the battlefield.  To use this terminology, you are removed from society so that you may not contaminate the tender, fertile minds of anyone else who may be tempted to think or encouraged to think naturally.  You can just keep this in the natural order.  We don’t even have to go with theology on this.

[reading]

Parents Kristina Wertz and Kara Desiderio contacted Highlights‘ customer service department in September to express concern that their one year old daughter did not see her family represented in her favorite magazine, according to a statement from Family Equality Council.

[end reading]

[/private]

Mike:  They automatically proceed to escalate the attack.  Let’s get it under the umbrella of one of our groups that sound menacing and threatening.  [mocking] “Mr. Church, this is a Family equality Council.  That sounds wonderful!”  Sure it does, until you understand that they’re not about equality.  If they’re about equality, where the equality that has opposite parenting, male/female, female/male?  Isn’t that being equal?  Are you holding out no equality for the male?  Does the father not have a role in the rearing, or a mother, depending on who we’re talking about, or what “family,” where’s the equality in that?

[reading]

The couple received no response until they expressed their concerns on the publication’s Facebook page.

“My partner emailed you about the lack representation of LGBT families in Hello magazine [Mike: Ladies and gentlemen, if you don’t know, Hello magazine is made for birth, if they escape Hillary’s abortion machine, to two years old. Zero to two years old. Understand this. This is what’s coming. No one escapes this. It doesn’t matter how old they are. They must comply.] last month and we have not received a response,” Wertz wrote. “Our one year old daughter loves Highlights! She carries her magazines all over the house [Mike: How many one-year-olds carry a sack of magazines around?] and we read them countless times a day.

[end reading]

Have you tried the all new Veritas Radio Network yet?  You can listen to the Mike Church Show LIVE weekdays 8-11 CST.   The show is easier to access than ever before.  But Veritas Radio isn’t JUST Mike Church, try the exclusive shows by Brother Andre: ReConquest, David Simpson’s True Money, The Mark Kreslins Show, My Story of America with Michael T George, Reverse Deception with Gregory Carpenter and The Constitution Hour with Kevin Gutzman.  Help us continue our search for TRUTH by signing up for a Founders Pass Membership today!

Mike:  Again, we have to take it on the lesbian couple’s word that this is actually occurring, though they and their gaystapo buddies, who are now demanding that Highlights magazine either acquiesce and totally surrender or else be put out of business.  They will put them out of business.  They will make their lives so miserable that they will either, A, acquiesce, or, B, they will not be able to continue because, depending on what state they live in, some tyrannical human rights council or commission will ultimately come in and force Highlights’ hand.  So much for the free press, right?

It has to be taken on the word of the lesbians that they’re doing this in the house, but it won’t be taken on the word of the Highlights editors: We mean no harm by this.  We’re just going with the natural order of things, husband / wife, mother / father.  That’s all.  We didn’t come into your house.  Isn’t it amazing, though?  I have a suggestion.  Why doesn’t the Family Equality Council publish an LGBTQ version of Highlights magazine?  Publish your own damn magazine.  Why don’t you put your money into it?  Why don’t you hire the editors?  I can’t wait for it to hit the stands, because then I can pick it up and go: Hey, my little junior read your magazine and he didn’t see any moms and dads in there.  We didn’t see any representation from heterosexual families in there.  But it won’t work that way, will it?  No, it won’t.

End Mike Church Show Transcript