Marriage Without God Is Not Marriage

todayMarch 27, 2013 6

share close

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – This is an act that is supposed to be and was consecrated before God.  That’s why you had a witness there.  That’s why it was overseen by a priest or a rabbi or whatever religious faith.  It’s because you were vowing in front of God that you take the woman or the woman takes the man to have and hold and all these things.  This is not just a contractual obligation.  Check out today’s transcript for the rest…


Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

james-madison-gutzman-ad-signMike:  Carlo in North Carolina, how you doing?

Caller Carlo:  I’m doing good, Mike.  How are you?

Mike:  Good.

Caller Carlo:  I agree with you on the points, so maybe we don’t even need to talk.

Mike:  Why don’t we talk spring break then, talk about something happy?

Caller Carlo:  We should just do that because it’s all fluff anyway.  The bottom line is what we have is the government constantly interfering in matters where it doesn’t belong, just in general.  If you take a look at marriage, where does government get the power to have anything to say at all about marriage?

Mike:  Going back to the 18th century or so, they decided it was good business because they would then be able to sell marriage licenses, and they would then be able to tax people who were married because they were married.  It was primarily a revenue thing, power, control, revenue.

Caller Carlo:  Exactly.  There’s my point.  Once government got involved in marriage and has created certain benefits that are attributed to it and generalized — if you take a look at it under the federal tax laws, which we could debate ad nauseam, we’re looking at certain benefits that are conferred to people who are married.  What’s happening is you’ve got people in the gay community, couples, and they’re looking at this and saying: Hey, they have this; why shouldn’t we?  I guess the argument becomes if the general government is going to confer certain privileges and immunities on one group of people, shouldn’t they have to provide that kind of blanket privilege and immunity to all citizens?

Spirit_of_76_audio_caseMike:  I think that’s probably the argument that Ted Olson and Rob Reiner are making.  Then you’re seeking tax status?

Caller Carlo:  I don’t know what the answer is.

Mike:  No, I’m saying that argument says you’re seeking tax status.  You want another box on the 1040 Form to fill out.  Really?  You want to change the world so you can change your tax status?  Come on, you know and I know that that is a fatuous argument.  You know the driving force behind this is to take a stick and stick it in the hornet’s nest that are people of religiosity.  That’s what this is.  It is to say: Your days are numbered, pal.  You will go back to being a martyr.  It won’t be long before you Christian weirdos will be stringing you up by your you-know-what’s.  You will abandon your faith.  You will abandon your God.  You will abandon your religion.  You will do what we tell you to do.

Caller Carlo:  I don’t know about that.

Mike:  It’s almost like that clip that I played with Burgess Meredith in it from The Twilight Zone.  [mocking] “The State has proven there is no God!”

Caller Carlo:  I’ll be honest with you —

Mike:  Then the State becomes God.

Get your [r]epublican coffee mug & travel mug at Mike's Founders Tradin' Post
If you REALLY want to anger “Richard from Troy VA” Buy this set of Coffee mugs from Mike’s Store!
Caller Carlo:  I think we’re dealing with that anyway.  I’m not saying I agree with it, but that’s what we’re dealing with with secularization.  I also think, though, that there are contractual issues.  If you take a look at marriage — I’m on my second one and it was a lot better than the first one.  If you take a look at marriage and you look at what it takes to — I’m perfectly aware of how the Bible and the Church deals with marriage.  If you take a look at marriage and what it requires legally, from basically a law standpoint, to dissolve a marriage, it’s really become a contract.  The question is, should government be making these distinctions and decisions?  I think that’s where the problem really comes in.  The other point I wanted to make, just on Prop 8 in California, the progressives love democracy when they’re getting their way.

Mike:  True.

Caller Carlo:  It appears to me that they don’t like it so much when it goes against their interests.

Mike:  Nobody likes democracy when you lose.  Look at all the people that threw hissy fits after Obama was reelected.  I think you may not even realize it, Carlo.  You said something that was very profound.  You said that people today, it seems like they’re trying to make marriage into nothing more than a contractual alliance.  That is also in contravention of and in defiance of the traditional role and the meaning and purpose of a marriage.  This is an act that is supposed to be and was consecrated before God.  That’s why you had a witness there.  That’s why it was overseen by a priest or a rabbi or whatever religious faith.  It’s because you were vowing in front of God that you take the woman or the woman takes the man to have and hold and all these things.  This is not just a contractual obligation.

fabfour-shirtCertainly if someone is going to call, [mocking] “You don’t know what you’re talking about.  What about dowries?  What about the way they used to be done?  What about having to bribe the guy down the street to marry your daughter?”  I realize all that, but even after that fact there were vows.  The vows were of a religious and a transcendental nature.  They were not to be cast asunder by man.  Then it was not just for the convenience of having a contract and having an alliance for tax filing purposes that you had a marriage.  You had a union of a man and a woman who would then make a family.

This is what else amazes me about this.  If you don’t have families and you don’t have families outside the definition of how they are classified by the Internal Revenue Service, if you don’t have families and people that are showing up at soccer games, if you don’t have men and women, mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters that are showing up in support of things that go on in your schools, churches, rec centers, all those things that make up life in communities, this is where the family comes in.  The community is an extension of your family.  If you say the family is nothing more than a contractual obligation, you can foresee in the near future children saying, [mocking] “I ought to have the right to sue for a divorce.  I am not a product, a child of God born out of this union of this man and woman.  I am nothing more than a biological occurrence that demands that you honor my rights in this state and you let me divorce this wench.  I don’t want her to be my mother anymore.  You let me divorce this ogre.  I don’t want him to be my father anymore.”  Of course, the State is already a long way into doing this one, aren’t they?

Caller Carlo:  It’s already happened in some circumstances.

Mike:  There was a movie made about it several years back.  Give the secularist, atheist lunatics a little time, the anti-intellectual crowd, and they will get around to this one, too.  Basically where we’re going with all this, Carlo, is there can be no societal standard.  There is nothing other than what man says there is.  There is no act of God.  There is no child of God.  There is no union of man and woman made under God because the State says and the people that want this say there is no God.  We are basically playing out the fantasy of German philosophers from the early part of the 20th century.  Who was it that said there is no God?  Was that Kant?

Caller Carlo:  I couldn’t tell you.

Mike:  I believe it was Kant.  That’s where all this is going.  This is societal upheaval.

End Mike Church Show Transcript



Print Friendly, PDF & Email
author avatar

Written by: AbbyMcGinnis

Rate it

Post comments (0)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x