Separation Of Church And State – Gay Marriage Is A Dangerous Precedent

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Don’t throw God in there, Hillary.  You want to talk about unbelievable slippery sloped dangerous precedents, start compelling organized religions to perform those ceremonies and see where that leads you to.  Are you going to then build prisons for priests? “Yeah, he refused to perform one of those homosexual marriage ceremonies, so he violated the Be Nice to Gay People Act of 2016. We threw him in the slammer. He’ll be there the rest of his life, damn sinner.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest…

 

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  We haven’t even gotten into the other big story, or supposedly big story, which is Mrs. Clinton changing her mind about homosexuals getting married.  Of course, everyone says that’s Hillary just paving the way for 2016 and she doesn’t want to discuss this.  That is a very cynical way to think about that.

AG:  Call me a cynic.

Mike:  I didn’t say I wasn’t cynical, I’m just saying that’s a very cynical way to think about that.  Let’s play a digital media file, Mrs. Clinton saying she’s had a change of heart.

[start audio clip]

Hillary Clinton: Marriage, after all, is a fundamental building block of our society, a great joy and yes, a great responsibility. A few years ago, Bill and I celebrated as our own daughter married the love of her life. I wish every parent that same joy. To deny the opportunity to any of our daughters and sons solely on the basis of who they are and who they love is to deny them the chance to live up to their own God-given potential.

[end audio clip]

Mike:  Don’t throw God in there, Hillary.  You want to talk about unbelievable slippery sloped dangerous precedents, start compelling organized religions to perform those ceremonies and see where that leads you to.  Are you going to then build prisons for priests?  [mocking] “He’s in the priest wing.” — “Priest wing? What do you mean he’s in the priest wing?” — “Yeah, he refused to perform one of those homosexual marriage ceremonies, so he violated the Be Nice to Gay People Act of 2016. We threw him in the slammer. He’ll be there the rest of his life, damn sinner.”  Rod Dreher had written about this and about what is the ultimate end game here for those advocating the SSM.  That’s where you’re playing with fire.  We’re talking about such minority members in numbers.  The numbers are less — even if I believed the most wildly-inflated numbers of four percent of the population, that’s enough to take an entire organized religion down?  Talk about the end of days.

AG:  I was flipping yesterday between Wilkow talking about some hilarious stories of his college days being a Republican down at University of Florida and then Ron and Fez talking about it.  They were saying if you aren’t Catholic, why are you trying to impose your own moral code on the Catholic Church?  You should not be wanting to influence the Catholic Church in what they view as something like marriage.  You should be looking at them as a private institution, and therefore you shouldn’t be trying to influence them, and likewise they shouldn’t be trying to influence public policy.  Too often this idea of keeping them separate is lost on way too many people in this country.

Mike:  I think they’re correct about influencing the Catholic Church.  I joked about this one day and had given a satire on the matter.  If you’re going to force priests to perform marriages of homosexuals, can you force priests to perform baptisms of the non-believers?  [mocking] “Are you a Catholic?” — “No.” — “Are you a believer?” — “No, I’m an atheist.  As a matter of fact, I’m a Satanist, but I want you to do your little ceremony because I’ve got a neighbor down the street and I can’t keep up with the Joneses if I can’t get my little brat baptized in this church.” — “Why would you want it?” — “It doesn’t matter why I want it, I’ve got a right.  Baptize my brat.  Do it now.”  Is that next?  Can the Church then be forced to confirm at catechumens the uninitiated who have gone to no service, subscribed to no matter of liturgy, no matter of canon, no manner of the word but just want the designation of being confirmed in the Church?  You can’t deny that to me; that’s my basic right.  You may say: Mike, you’re being ridiculous.  No, I’m not, I’m describing some of the sacraments to you.  If you’re going to compel the destruction of marriage, why not do the rest of them?

By the way, government and liberals that seek this must be able to do away with this silly notion of confession, too.  [mocking] “I want to go to confession but I’m not going to tell you anything about what I did wrong.” — “Then you can’t be absolved.” — “Yes, I can.  You cannot deny me absolution because of your silly notion of what a confession is.  I am telepathing to you the things I did.  Now, bless me, Father, for I have sinned.” — “I can’t.” — “Oh, yes, you can, bucko.  This Church doesn’t have any right to stand by its stupid creed and its stupid traditions and perform these silly rights of confession the way you want to perform them.  It is my right to be absolved of sin even though I’m not absolved of sin.  You’ve got to tell me I’m absolved of sin in front of those people, or so I can go back and tell those people you did it.”  That’s what you’re talking about.  Those are proper analogies.

Of course, you talk to those that are promoting this and they’ll say, [mocking] “That’s just being ridiculous.”  Oh, yeah?  I guarantee you 20 years ago no one would ever had thought that according to the Washington Post 58 percent of you nitwits and numbskulls out there want the churches to be compelled to do this.  I don’t know how the question was phrased in the poll, but that is the result.  This is just a comparison between 2001 and 2013.  In a mere decade, a little over a decade, the numbers have flipped.  It used to be 58 percent against and 36 percent for.  Now it’s 36 against and 58 percent for.  I also believe that there is — I don’t think there’s an enlightenment going on here.  I believe this is just another one of these modern conveniences.  [mocking] “Why deny people these things?  Why would you do that?  You want everyone to be happy, don’t you?” — “I guess.” — “Well, they can’t be happy if you don’t” — that’s what Hillary is basically saying.

The unmitigated gall and audacity of people like Mrs. Clinton, to invoke God’s will when it comes to an act that he himself inspired possibly the greatest prophet ever, Moses, to basically describe and then instruct the Israelites to keep it sacred and holy and pass that tradition on.  Is that the God you’re talking about, Hillary?  Again, we serve no God.  Who’s that?  That’s just another inconvenience.  That’s just another impediment to our selfish, narcissistic pursuit of happiness.

End Mike Church Show Transcript