Why Defend the Sacrament of Marriage?
Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – “It seems to us moderns that nothing is steadfastly beautiful. Everything is fleeting, when in fact, if we look at and analyze things, we should always want to have things that are steadfastly beautiful, to inform us of what it is that is truly ugly, despicable, evil.” Check out today’s transcript for the rest…
Begin Mike Church Show Transcript
Mike: We have the judge in Texas telling Texans: Uh, you don’t make laws in Texas; the federal government makes laws in Texas. You knuckle-dragging Neanderthals think you can define marriage? Well, you can’t. Guess what? Only your federal, magisterial overlords can define marriage. While all this is going on, yesterday I talked about how Eric Holder, the Attorney General of the United States, has basically told every attorney general in the U.S. to commit sedition, and if they want to, to tell their legislatures and the people in the states who may have elected those legislatures, or by ballot initiative begun the process, or legally instituted the process of defining what a marriage means. Holder has said: Look, if you live in one of those states and you’re the AG, you don’t have to pay any attention to those people. You have my permission to just ignore them. The chief law enforcement officer of the alleged federal government, the national democracy of the galactic empire has then instructed his inferiors to get their orders not from the sovereign people that elected them but instead from the demigod that sits on the banks of the Potomac River.
Now, some people may say: Mike, you always talk about secession and nullification and blah, blah. What are you going to do now, tough guy, that a state governor intervened in Arizona and you and your right-wing, radical, wacko buddies didn’t get your way? What are you gonna do now, tough guy? What does that going to lead to? I would say, number one, as Patrick Henry said after he was defeated by little Jimmy Madison and the federalists in the ratifying convention in 1788, they have won. They have used the rules available to them and they have triumphed in this regard.
That does not mean that they have triumphed in all regards. Henry and Mason and Colonel Grayson and James Monroe and others immediately set to work to foil the plans of the federalists and to, at the very least, catch them before they could begin to centralize and consolidate government to catch them and force them to propose a bill of rights, amendments. This is how the Bill of Rights came about. Had it not been for the efforts of Mr. Henry, we would not have a Bill of Rights, certainly not in the form that we have it today.
It is a story that no one ever bothers to tell. It is always presented as though it was all the handiwork of James Madison and it wasn’t. As a matter of fact, you could probably say that Madison was probably the guy that was the least interested in it of all the Virginians, because he kept telling Henry and Mason and Jefferson and Washington: Look, if you pass a bill of rights — and I guess, 200 years later, Madison has kind of been proven correct. If you pass a bill of rights and you attach it to this constitution, what’s going to happen is you’re going to have these lunatics that are going to come along in the future and they’re going to say: Since you put that right into the affirmative and protected this one but you didn’t protect that one, well then, why don’t we put this one in there. The list will become expansive and exhaustive and it will never end and you won’t have law. Law will be impossible to understand because you can’t count on it. It is not reliable because it is constantly changing and being altered by your nonstop pursuit of rights. Madison, in that regard, was correct. We do have a teleocratic society today.
One of the guys that was heckling me last night — I assume it was a guy — on the Twitter feed, [mocking] “So how does it feel to be an oppressor?” Sir, I am as far from being an oppressor as one could possibly be. I have no desire to oppress you. Obviously you do not know the definition of the term “oppression.” Now, if you can find someone that survived communism in Latvia or communism in Cuba, go ask them if me refusing to sell you a wedding cake is oppression. That’s not oppression. It’s called freedom on this continent, or used to be called freedom. In this conversation, and in several conversations, as the emotion — that’s all this is, the emotion of [mocking] “This is fair and it’s not fair for you and your religious fanatical buddies to have a stranglehold on these things,” to which I respond and the only response that is available, or the only response that is legitimate: I did not, nor did any of my “religious fanatical buddies,” we did not together, in concert conceive of the word or term sacramentum. Sacred gift is what it means. We did not conceive of and did not invent the seven sacramentums that Christ Jesus handed down to St. Peter and to the early church. I didn’t invent them. They did not come from my pen. They did not come from my brain. I didn’t conceive of them. I take no credit in their creation. If I’m going to be devout and if I’m going to, as the Romans would say, be semper fidelis, always faithful, to those seven sacraments, then I’m going to have to defend them. That is not oppressive.
Now, this requires, though, a form of republicanism or monarchism that allows free individuals or allows the individual to be free enough to move from one place or state to another. What if you don’t want to live under the aegis or the umbrella of sacramental law, of dogma of the church, of canon as it is preached? You are free to do so. There should be no chain, no prison, no requirement that you must. This is the whole point about religious liberty and why it, especially in republican governments, should be enviably observed. That is that it doesn’t make its way into the politics. That’s why marriage should never have been something that states did. It should have remained sacramental, sacred, a sacred gift. You want to do it? You go find yourself a church and a willing bride or groom and go through the process the church proscribes and they’ll marry you, with the priest acting as a stand-in for the Lord. That’s what he’s doing.
There’s no requirement that you have to do that, but in a society that is organized and whose family or traditional family is built upon the consecration of that act, it just went without saying that this is the way it should happen, and it did, without incident, for thousands of years until Americans came along, until progressive Americans — let’s call them what they are — atheist or agnostic Americans came along and decided that the word of God had been triumphed by the discovery of science. There’s a problem with that, though. None of the miracles that I am aware of that our Lord and Savior performed, none of the miracles that I am aware of that the Blessed Mother is said to have performed have been rewritten, have been revoked. None of them have been discovered to have happened in any manner in which they are not described as the saints and the scholars have passed them down from generation to generation.
But your science has certainly been found wanting, hasn’t it? Your science has certainly, your God of science has certainly been found to be inadequate to the task over and over and over and over again, which is fine because I believe the proper view of science is a continual process of discovery. It is not truth. God is truth. Science is discovery. Faith, as Aquinas teaches us, can be categorized and can be thought of as a science. The god of science continues to foil, doesn’t he? There are some scientific principles, are they really scientific principles or are they principles of the physical world that seem to be very well-rooted and are very well-established, like the principles of gravity. We don’t have any arguments or disagreements over that. But other discoveries of science or what we call science are constantly changing.
One of the things that should be attractive to those that seek stability is to not hitch your wagon and not hitch your life to something that is constantly changing, but rather to moor it, to anchor it in something that is firm, in something that is transcendent, in something that stands the test of time. That something, for eons, millennia, has been faith, the church, various denominations of the church. Judeo-Christianity is what it’s called. It’s what Western civ is based on. Yes, I know that the Greeks and Romans were not Judeo-Christians. You can save your texts. You can save your email. I’m well aware. We’re not going to go through a history of paganism right now, but we could.
The point is that civilizations and the reason why a traditional civilization can become traditional and can stand the test of time is because it has traditions and customs that it honors and reveres. It is not always seeking “what next?”
Sometimes instead of saying “What’s next?” we should say “Wow, how good!” or “My, how appropriate!” or “My, how lovely” or “My, how beautiful!” It seems to us moderns that nothing is
steadfastly beautiful. Everything is fleeting, when in fact, if we look at and analyze things, we should always want to have things that are steadfastly beautiful, to inform us of what it is that is truly ugly, despicable, evil.
No, I do not believe that homosexuals seeking union are evil. Some of you are going to make that implication. That’s not the point of the preceding. The point of the preceding is that what is being cast asunder was and remains beautiful, that is that sacrament that we call marriage. A healthy and decent respect for it, I believe, serves all peaceful people. It doesn’t disserve, it serves. It is worthy of conservation and it is worthy of our reverence. If you don’t see it that way, then you don’t see the world through the prism of you as the inferior being. Congratulations on that and good luck.
End Mike Church Show Transcript