Time To Revolt – No More Compromise On Homosexual Marriage

 

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Prior to the Obergefell decision, the pertinent legal question in my mind would be: Had the State of Kentucky acted affirmatively in either establishing or denying a set of qualifications for said marriage licenses?  The answer to the question is: Yes, they had.  They had, in other words, what lawyers that go to Harvard and Yale like to call stare decisis.  Check out today’s transcript for the rest….

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

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike:  Next up on the Sirius XM Patriot Channel, hello, Terry.  How are you doing?

Caller Terry:  Good morning.  I’m doing well.  Thanks for asking.  And thank you for taking my call.  Listen, I have a different perspective on this Kim issue.  I happen to be a black, gay, conservative libertarian.  We do exist.

Mike:  That’s a lot of descriptors in there.  Black, gay, conservative, libertarian.  Is there anything else you left out?

Caller Terry:  I have to say that because this is where my opinion is coming from.  It’s coming from my very sincere, deeply-held beliefs.  I do not fault her for holding to her convictions.  I do understand the religious argument.  But at the end of the day, she is a public servant.  If she cannot fulfill the duties she was elected for, then she needs to take a stroll down Washout Lane.  That’s just the only recourse that she has. [/private]

Mike:  Let’s unpack that for a moment.  Let’s say I agree with you, but I only agree with you inasmuch as the law that she was elected to enforce as an elected official of Rowan County should be Rowan County law.  Has Rowan County voted —

Caller Terry:  And I agree with you.  I totally agree.

Mike:  So there’s no argument.

Caller Terry:  I totally agree.  That’s my second point.  I do disagree with the decision that the Supreme Court made as far as legalizing gay marriage across the country because it’s in direct violation of the 10^th Amendment.  Her state is not contesting that decision.  If she lived in Alabama, it would be different because her state would be standing behind her because they’re actually contesting that decision.  But since Kentucky has not lodged a complaint against what happened in the Supreme Court, I don’t think she has any leg to stand on.  She has to quit or do your damn job.  That’s the way I feel about it.

Mike:  Prior to the Obergefell decision, the pertinent legal question in my mind would be: Had the State of Kentucky acted affirmatively in either establishing or denying a set of qualifications for said marriage licenses?  The answer to the question is: Yes, they had.  They had, in other words, what lawyers that go to Harvard and Yale like to call stare decisis.  They did have a history of — they have a law on their books that says it’s one man and one woman.  They never asked Anthony Kennedy or anyone on the Supreme Court or any federal judge for a permission slip to do that.  It was on the books when Kentucky joined the union back in 1794.  I’m not sure exactly as to when marriage laws went on their books.

When Kentucky ratified the Constitution, they ratified the Constitution with the full knowledge that the execution of municipal laws was left into the hands, the capable hands, of the people of the sovereign states that ratified the Constitution.  Remember, you cannot assign to your agent a power, a sovereign power for them to act upon unless you have the sovereign power.  If you don’t have the power, then you can’t enumerate it in a deal or a compact, to explain as simply as I can, in something, a vehicle like a constitution and thereby allow the federal entity to then act on your behalf.  You have to have the power to begin with.  It’s safe to say that when Kentucky and other states ratified the Constitution, they had the power.  They intended to keep that power.  They never intended to surrender it.  Recently when that power was threatened, what did nearly all of those states, either by legislative action or ballot initiative — people reinforced and reiterated where that authority — now, as far as law, legal power, where that power should rest.  The answer comes back to Kentucky and every one of those other states.  It rests in, as you said, under the 10^th Amendment, handed to the state.

I disagree with you.  Anthony Kennedy is not a legislator.  There is no constitutional issue there.  The 14^th Amendment doesn’t say anything about who can marry whom or where you can go and get married or what the qualifications are or any other municipal statute other than if there were statutes that were to be denied or that were available to one, privileges and immunity statutes available to one group of people, they need to be available to all groups of people.  That’s not to say that you can pass statutes or that it’s advisable or that you can force states to then adopt statutes that they haven’t adopted.  This is the problem, Terry.  Those states did not adopt those statutes.  They were not on their books.  They’re still not on their books.

Caller Terry:  I agree.

Mike:  If you’re going to quote the 10^th Amendment to me, you need to abide the 10^th Amendment.  I will tell you that I think this has all been brought about by the misbegotten notion that this particular communal, traditional, and I would say existential institution, which is marriage, that it has fallen into the hands, that it is under the purview of law and legal authorities.  We all know the principal reason for that is so that it can be taxed and if you can tax something, you can try and control it.  The whole thing is just a disaster.  It’s an unmitigated, constitutional disaster.  I’m still waiting for the first state — maybe it will be Alabama or some other state — to go: We’re out.  Come in here and try and make us all do this and we’ll just tell you bye.  Ms. Davis is not — I don’t believe Ms. Davis is in error then.  As I said yesterday, she’s going to be white martyred.  She’s already being white martyred by the likes of Ryan Anderson and Rod Dreher.  There is no win when you agree with Beelzebub.  That is not a win-win.  Error does not have a right.  It has no rights.  There is no deal to be made here.  We don’t make deals with murderers, wait, unless they work for Planned Parenthood.

I appreciate your argument and it’s very detailed.  Going down the path of playing, of waging this battle, this particular battle on the battlefield of different layers and levels of law is going to produce what it already has, what it has produced currently, which is confusion and the opportunity for perversions to occur, and for there to be an edict, not a law because it’s not a law.  Kennedy cannot make law.  He doesn’t make law.  He’s claiming the 14^th Amendment.  The 14^th Amendment doesn’t say anything about this.  The SCOTUS basically made its own law.  It made its own policy preference and now it’s trying to force feed it and enforce it.  They don’t have the authority. [/private]

The American sheeple ought to revolt and say no.  Yes, I said it.  We ought to revolt and we ought to say no.  I’m going to tell you why we ought to revolt and say no.  Either we’re going to acknowledge that there are things that are what we could call law.  They may not necessarily be written down in the annals of the State of Kentucky.  They may not be written down in the annals and legal journals of the State of Louisiana or the State of Alabama.  That does not mean that they are not law.

Again, we’re back at square one, obedience to the unenforceable.  If I were to say, just as a comparison, that there is — if I were to say that I want to have my little darling tyke or tykette baptized, and I want my tyke or tykette baptized in the Holy Roman Catholic Church, as an example.  I’ll just use it.  Let’s just say for the sake of this argument here that all I want is a piece of paper that says the kid was baptized.  That’s all I want, the baptismal diploma.  Using the exact same argument that the homosexuals are using here, with the sacramental institution of marriage, I should be able to get the Supreme Court to order Catholic priests, Lutheran ministers, or anyone else who administers a sacramental rite of baptism whereby the parents and the godparents — I’m not breaking any news here — reject Satan, his pomps, his works, and his circumstances and pledge to do all that they can for the child as well.  And then the child is . . .

End Mike Church Show Transcript