Weeknights 5 PM CT
on AFR

Aug 2, 2024 · 49 minutes

Jeff Shafer, Director of the Hale Institute at New St. Andrews College, steps into “The Corner.”

Play episode49:16. Keeps playing while you browse.

Taller bars mean faster talk at that point in the show. Tap any line of the transcript to play from there.

The Hamilton Corner logo above Abraham Hamilton, III on the show's set

Show notes

0:00 - 15:00. 2 Corinthians 10:3-5. God’s divine power is available to destroy vain imaginations. 15:00 - 31:00. Jeff Shafer, Director of the Hale Institute at New St. Andrews College, steps into “The Corner.” 31:00 - 48:00. Marriage is a pre-political institution and is worth fighting for. To donate call : 877-616-2396

Phone lines mentioned

  • 877-616-2396

Share this episode

Transcript

7,363 words, in two-minute parts. Made by machine, so a few words may be off.

0:0049:16

  1. 0:00

    Darkness is not an affirmative force. It simply reoccupies the space vacated by the light. This is the Hamilton Quarter on American Family Radio. It should be uncomfortable for a believer to live as a hypocrite. Delivery people out of the bondage of mainstream media. And the philosophies of this world. God has called you and me to be His ambassador. Even in this dark moment. Let's not miss our moment. And now, the Hamilton Corner. Good evening, everyone. Welcome to the Hamilton Corner here on American Family Radio. My name is Abraham Hamilton. The third, I am the host of this program. We have J. Mac, the real J. Mac in studio. Again, for a change, not too scared to be in the line of clarity. But you may not know what you all don't see. It's a lot of roasting that goes on behind the scenes. and most of it is perpetuated by the silent assassin. Mr. McIntosh, y'all don't hear him that much on the air, but I'm telling you, he has lots to say. But thank you for tuning into the program. This evening at this very moment, many of you, if not most of you are making your transition from your part time jobs where you generate an income to your full time jobs where you cultivate an outcome. And as you make that move, want to encourage you to do so with intentionality. Understand in the primacy that God places on the family, refusing to allow the things that are swirling around our culture and the world nationally, international affairs to divert you from job one. And there's a lot of things happening very easy to be, it's very easy to be diverted in this time period. You know, it's, it's, it's astounding to me how the world is conveniently ignorant of the fact that Israel's taking out the Hamas leader and the Hezbollah leader followed the Iranian back terrorists launching rockets at the playground killing 12 Israeli children. We're kind of leaves that out of the calculus. It's from it shows remarkable restraint on Israel's part, frankly, that they executed these precision missions. They didn't bomb any towns. They in the tax of villains, they didn't, you know, do a widespread offensive.

  2. 2:30

    They were very precise and it shows remarkable capacity as well that they were able to get Hania, Hania, I don't know how he pronounce his name, in Tehran. But the world leaves out the part about the mangled bodies of dead children following all of things are transpired on October 12th. Nevertheless, we, I mean, October 7th, I'm sorry, not October 12th, October 7th. We nevertheless must remain focused. The primary means that God has established to cascade his remnant generationally is the family. This is actually something I'm looking forward to sharing with the Darbonne Church of Christ next week in Farmerville, Louisiana. And again, if you're in the area, you're welcome to come, but seating is limited, seating is limited. So I would encourage you to get there early. But we're going to talk about the centrality of family to God's plan for his kingdom, amongst other things. This is one of the things we're going to talk about. But as you're making your transition right now to your full-time job, understand that it is just that full-time commitment. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, one of the things Marie and I have found with interacting with our children, we found this to be true, that quantity of time gives rise to quality of time. Quantity of time gives rise to quality of time. One of the not so secret secrets of the discipleship relationship that parents and children should enjoy is that frequency of interaction creates peer expectation. You ever wonder why people just describe this as if this is an inevitable phenomenon of adolescent development. It's the Thanos of adolescent development. Oh, you know, children, they get to a certain age and they tune you out. Not necessarily. It's not an automatic that happens, what you're witnessing is the phenomena of peer formation.

  3. 4:31

    Simply put, the people who spend the most time with your children, their perspectives and opinions become the most important to your children. It's not as if all of a sudden your children are tuning you out, it's simply that they spend so much time away from you. They into it, they into it the awareness that the time that they're with you is so infrequent that it causes there to be a devaluation, so to speak, of the significance of your perspective in the reality of the everyday lives. To say it in a different way, if you live, for example, I'll use my hometown, if you live in New Orleans, you're not necessarily going to be too focused on what people's opinions of you may be in Des Moines, Iowa. Why? you don't interact with them very frequently. They may have all kinds of opinions about gumbo, about crawfish a touffé, they may have all kinds of opinions about your habits, your dietary, consumption, your lifestyle, but because you don't interact with them that frequently, you're not really moved very much about what they have to say. It doesn't mean that if you become aware of what they have to say, it might not have a certain impact, but simply because they are not involved intimately and frequently in your daily affairs, Their perspective doesn't resonate with you the same way. The perspective of someone who interacts with you on a regular basis would resonate with you. That's all that's happening, you know? Where do children learn? And I experienced this myself growing up. Where do children learn Jordan's or shoes they should have? They learn that from peer groups. They didn't, most of the time, they didn't just decide, you know what? These new balances ain't working no more. I need to get these J's. Usually it's a product of peer formation. You have kids making fun of certain kids. You have the social hierarchy establishing. They're social group has determined these are the shoes you want. And parents often puzzled, why does my child wanna have this? Why does my daughter wanna have a Stanley Cup?

  4. 6:32

    You know, I have perfectly good cups and tumblers over here that are not Stanley, but why does it have to be Stanley? That doesn't come from home guys. And what we often feel to realize is by abandoning our children, let me say it differently, by sending our children to be, here's their favorite word, socialized away from us, what we're unintentionally doing is setting our children up to develop a perception of significance and importance of the people to whom we send them to. That's why it's not that they hit children here at a certain age and they don't want to listen of their parents is just that they realized over time they spend so little time with their parents that their parents perspectives begin to be less significant to them on a daily basis. This is why we as parents while we have our children under our authority and in our rules we should strive to be their primary influence, the primary influence in their lives because our commitment is to steer them in a God with direction, to rear them in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. To the word of God we go. 2 Corinthians 10, there was no charge for that, but that was free. I was like free, I don't want that, take that back. 2 Corinthians 10, I want to remind us of something here. Because I'll say it like Michael Jordan said it once. You miss every shot you don't take. It's too often in our country, particularly in our culture now, believers absent ourselves from significant discourse. And as a result, we lose the opportunity to be salt and light on many fronts because we allow the world to intimidate us from engaging in certain conversations.

  5. 8:35

    But the word of God says this, second Corinthians chapter 10, verses 3 through 5, a very familiar passage of scripture says this for though we walk in the flesh we do not war according to the flesh for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh some translations there say they are not carnal for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses some translations say there, for the destruction of strongholds, verse 5, for we are destroying speculations, and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God. And we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ. Hamilton Corner PSA, public service announcement, if you are in Christ, for though we live in our natural bodies. For though we walk in our natural bodies, we do not wage war according to naturalism. But though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh. Spiritual warfare is a reality. It is not a warfare that is prosecuted in the flesh. And let me be clear, it's not that we don't do things naturally. The source of our potency, However, it's not of the flesh. The source of our stratagems, strategies are not fleshly originated. They do not stem from the flesh. There is spiritual wisdom that we receive that gives us marching orders that we execute. Naturally, I would argue one of them on a national level was seeing Roe vs. Wade overturned. There's no doubt that seeing Roe overturned was a feature of spiritual victory, spiritual warfare, victory, but it included a download of wisdom from God with practical strategy to implement that moved the court ultimately to see truth and wisdom.

  6. 10:56

    So when the scripture says the weapons of our warfare are not carnal and out of the flesh, it doesn't mean we don't do anything naturally. It means that we don't rely upon a strong over the flesh. It means we don't rely upon the genesis of our engagement is not the flesh. But then the word of God explains to us not only the weapons of our warfare and not carnal out of the flesh, but they are divinely powerful. The potency of our spiritual weaponry is God Himself. See, it's not that we're waging. The scripture refers to the Word of God as the sword of the Spirit. It's a sword, but it's not wielded, carnally. It's not wielded by the flesh. It's the sword that the Spirit of God wields through us as His vehicles. The weapons of our warfare are so divinely powerful that they are sufficient for the destruction of fortresses, the destruction of strongholds, much of the destruction that has taken root in our day. The scripture diagnosis is perfectly for we are destroying speculations. King James there says we are destroying imaginations, vain imaginations. That terminology, that translation is rendered from the Greek phrase Lagismos, which is a Greek phrase that lends toward the English root word logic. We are destroying Lagismos, speculations, ideologies, much of the spiritual warfare that is transpiring. When we engage in spiritual warfare, we are combating demonic ideology. Why am I focused on ideology? Because as you heard me say numerous times, the great Francis Shafer said something very similar, ideas have consequences. Bad ideas create casualties. Antichrist ideas create eternally spiritual captives.

  7. 13:07

    ETERNAL CAPTIS to say it simply, a people that is gripped by a rejection of God, a rejection of Messiah, the consequences are ETERNAL damnation. You understand what I'm saying? Ideas are the driving force or the foundational mechanism for behavior. times past in America, you didn't have adults running around talking about, I'm a furry, put me in the suit, trying to bark. You didn't have adults trying to make a case for intimate relationships between children and adults. You didn't have adults running around trying to say, oh, let love is love. Went too long ago when homosexuality was diagnosed as a social pathology, a mental disorder. What's happened? Ideology in our culture has changed, which has resulted in a change in behavior. For make no mistake about it, the scripture says, that the weapons of our warfare are divinely powerful, no matter how strong and how entrenched certain loggies miles may be, they're not more potent than our God. So I simply want to encourage you, as I'm encouraging myself to study the show ourselves approved, to understand what we believe, to understand why we believe it, to be able to reasonably articulate it to the watching and dying world because eternity hangs in the balance. And the truth of the King of Glory and salvation and Messiah is worth fighting for. You've heard a lot about saving babies on this show. That's because it's important to me personally, and let me just be frank with you. We need to save them.

  8. 15:08

    That's why we've partnered with Preborn, the nation's leader in introducing mothers with unplanned pregnancies to their babies. And once she hears that heartbeat and sees that precious life growing inside of her, she is twice as likely to choose life. Now that's a miracle. But quite honestly, if we don't save them, who will? Preborn receives no government funding so their work is completely dependent on us. Preborn has rescued over 280,000 babies, and that's not all. They provide love, support, and counseling for up to two years for free, saving lives and souls. One ultrasound is just $28 or $140 helps to rescue five babies' lives. Abortion doesn't stop, so we can't. Together, you and I can save lives. Just dial pound250 on your cell and say the keyword baby. That's 250 baby or go to preborn.com. That's preborn.com. Oh, shining light into the darkness. This is the Hamilton corner on American family radio. Welcome back to the Hamilton corner. Abraham Hamilton the third here. I am delighted to have on the program of a brother in Christ who I had the privilege to meet at a, I guess I would call it a planning session to restore truth to our society and directly confront Obergefell versus Hodges, frankly. The brother I'm talking about is none other than Jeff Shafer, who is the Director of the Hale Institute at New St. Andrews College. He graduated with honors from the Regent University School of Law. Early in his legal career he operated a general practice firm in Cincinnati with a particular emphasis on criminal defense litigation. Thereafter he practiced in a law partnership focusing on elections law and civil constitutional cases. From 2005 to 2020 He served as senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom at his Washington DC and Scottsdale, Arizona offices. Mr. Shafer has litigated public interest cases in federal and state trial and appellate courts throughout the United States, as well as developing academic and advocacy initiatives on matters of policy concern.

  9. 17:21

    Outside of the courtroom, he has addressed a wide array of audiences and academic and community venues in the U.S. and abroad on matters of legal and cultural interest. my guest is none other then jeff shafer jeff thank you for joining me here on the program yet that's great to be able to speak with you a ball much for having all the pleasures mind and i'll just say this right now uh... i wanted to have this conversation with you because your presentation was phenomenal and i i wanted to make sure that the hamilton corner corner audience got to benefit from your wisdom and i think it's it's timely in its profound and i'm i'm excited about being able to take on an issue that should have been addressed before but i'm grateful that we're dressing it now but before i get ahead of myself would you please share with the audience what the hail institute at new state andrew's college is it is a uh... relatively recent initiative of the college and uh... it's focused on matters particularly of jurisprudence uh... the hail institute comes from Well, it's named after Sir Matthew Hale, who is the 17th century jurist in England, of quite some renown and capability. And it was in the common law heritage in which he was operating. And of course, one of the things raiming to emphasize is the virtues of that system. But the general pushes to kind of think carefully about the precepts of law that are necessary and important to a well-structured and virtuous society. So we go about doing that in various and sundry ways, hosting speakers and conferences and symposia, producing various forms of writing and other presentation. We have courses that we teach within the college itself. So all oriented toward and appropriate, we might say remedial view of the law, which is suffering these days.

  10. 19:21

    That is amazing. Thank you so much for sharing that. new st. Andrews colleges is that in Moscow Moscow idol. I know it is up in the Pacific Northwest in the beautiful pollution. Wait you in the beautiful would you say beautiful. Pollute. Oh okay. Yes the rolling hills of northern idol. Yes. Yes now for those who may not be aware of what the common law tradition is would you just explain that briefly and share what that is briefly. The common law was developed in England and ended up being our birthright of sorts. Here it was transferred across the Atlantic with the colonists and it's the legal system that we inherited and of course with that transfer there were also some adjustments along the way but it is the system understood by the founders and so much of the US Constitution is based on precept and understanding resident in the common law itself which is one of reasons i think it is vital that we kind of return to restore and understand its historical dimensions so that we better understand our own constitution and legal system now what one of the great uh... detriment to my view that that that that we've we've suffered uh... and in our country is this really a severance of our constitution from the principles of the declaration of independence to where uh... we we moved away from kind of a a black stonian ethic and and what i would would positive that so will you mail would have ascribed toward uh... for more legal positivistic route do you do you see that as being a country contribute contributing factor to our detriment of josephredential stand-up currently that that's that's quite right yet it really has been a flip from the prior understanding of of the law is something given is in a sense received by us and and resident within the created order instead it becomes exclusively the mechanisms of those who are in power and so rather than honoring pre-existing truths of existence they are uh...

  11. 21:38

    merely uh... opportunities that is those who are operating the law are taking advantage of opportunities to manipulate the world in ways of their choosing which unsurprisingly results in people like i don't know mister biden presenting his desire to reform the court uh... with his latest uh... pronouncement in that regard bhi i'm not sure so sure that that was going to get off the ground uh... but it's you know a kind of posturing that's revealing his and i suppose his administration dissatisfaction with some of the development that have emerged from the Supreme Court recently. Sure. And I don't expect it to get off the ground either, but it's really them basically saying the not so quiet part out loud, which has been the desire of not only the current administration, but really people prior to this current administration when court decisions don't go the way they want them to go. Quite right. Yes. Now this brings me to the crux of the conversation I really wanted to have with you. And I was so moved by your presentation. because at the event that I described, I discussed the fact that marriage is a pre-political institution. God is the designer and ordainer of marriage, and as a result, he alone defines marriage, and it frankly doesn't matter to me what a five-four majority said in 2015 in the Burgofel vs. Hodges decision, that decision is just as abhorrent and aberrant from its genesis as the Roe vs. Wade decision was. And because it is God's institution, he alone is its definer, it's worth fighting for. And so for far too long, many Christians have basically ceded territory or simply refused to even consider, you know, Obergefell is not an unassailable decree from a monarch.

  12. 23:40

    it's something that should be confronted. Your presentation described something that is so profound, in my view, that a lot of people are assuming things, using Obergefell's adjustification, but assuming things that Obergefell did not say. Where would you like to begin your discussion, our discussion now with confronting the fact that there are lots of things that Obergefell didn't say and that our society needs to be confronted with the fact that none of that has any bearing in Supreme Court president. Oh, dear. Well, maybe as a means of getting started here, we could contextualize the discussion and the urgency in it by first discussing a bit of the background or the significance of this historically unprecedented and monstrous notion of same-sex marriage so-called. Though obviously in the brevity of our discussion today, I think the best we can do is so to speak put a toe in the pool rather than take a real swim, as there is just so much that could be and I would say should be covered in a subject like this due to the enormity that is implicated when our legal cultural authorities renounce in spite the created order that you were just speaking of, of the marital norm, the significance of male and female. In all of this, of course, affects the rule of law itself, or of authority or truth transcending the judge or legislator in the first place. So I'd like to say that what is at stake in scandalizing marriage is the, how would we put it, elimination of the publicly accepted conceptual predicates, that anchor recognition of the integrity of the family as a real given created institution with its own authority, independence, and special calling that holds and represents human meaning. When the law is hijacked to install a lie about human nature and relationality, a radical lie about the family, the whole society is subjected to disorder with all the injustices and upheavals that attend to that.

  13. 25:50

    The dynamic that's now operable is that the very idea, father, mother of child, the family is denied and as a result, imperiled in law. no social order worthy of the name would allow this sort of thing. But we've had some specifics that have arisen that might be helpful for flushing out this idea. After Obergefell's ruling on a purported right to a civil marriage licensed by same-sex couples, numerous courts as well as executive agencies and certain legislatures have extended out what they took to be the logic of the court's ruling. is what you were alluding to before, to suggest that the ruling means much more than giving civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples. It also is they insist something that silently renovated huge swaths of historic state family law standards. So for instance, lower courts have ruled, as has the Supreme Court itself, that a state must convert a child's original birth certificate from a vital record that documents the child's progenitors, his mother and father, into instead, what should we call it, a parentage status coupon, given as a benefit to a same-sex partner who is unrelated to the child. This deviance means that a birth certificate is gutted of its genealogical purpose, thus redefining the document to erase any record of the child's father or perhaps mother, replacing that erased father or mother with the name of an unrelated adult, so as to dignify her or homosexual relationship. So this is the way things have been going. Genealogy itself thereby is falling victim to the so-called equality imperative as this birth certificate is redefined and we might say redesigned itself. I mean, what is on the certificate anymore is changing. And of course, in the process, the newborn infant is converted into a statement impulated pawn to be placed with whatever adult that officials deemed to merit the government benefit of child custody.

  14. 27:54

    This same sort of thing is going on, you know, when I say this thing, I mean like child as a government benefit for distribution. It works out also in the context of same-sex divorce proceedings. When, you know, the woman who gives birth to the child that was conceived by artificial insemination or IDS during the course of the quote marriage at the time of the divorce proceedings, that mother then wants to challenge the claim to the child of her former female partner. Yet courts have consistently ruled in favor of that unrelated woman as being an automatic parent and thus with the equal legal right to custody or visitation after her divorce in relationship with this child who's actually the child that's the mother who she's departing from. So why is it that the courts are doing this because they explain under the historic state law treating husband wife marriage the husband of the birthing mother is robotably presumed to be the father of her child so post-oburgafel equality they say requires a woman who is so-called married to the birthing mother must also be presumed the father of the child except with the now androgynous twist of calling her that parent of the child you follow i do follow and and and i i've long said uh... that people who sometimes uh... i would say uh... pigeonhole themselves and saying well there's a a toxic war on uh... war on toxic masculinity or there's a war in femininity with the reality is it's a demonic war on the michael day to reduce that complementarily distinct maleness and femianist into an amalgamated indes undistinguishable human goo That is it is core and effort to put a finger in the eye of the creator of mankind Yes, yeah, that seems to me exactly right these courts are taking what is a morally and anthropologically-frated physiological reality of procreation a Profundity of procreation and converting it into an exclusively legal status of custodial function which means their existence is not, as you said before, a pre-existing truth of being, but it's only a concoction of political power, which means the family is a state invention full stop. It's not a separate jurisdiction with a divinely created order of human existence, as you were mentioning before. And what do you suppose the consequence of that principle might be when serving as a dogma of constitutional law?

  15. 30:37

    I'll tell us. Anyway, you see, this is why I want to insist that we take every available opportunity to resist the unjustified extensions of Obergefell. Yes. So to insist not just on working toward its overruling, but in the interim limiting it to the strict boundaries of the actual ruling itself rather than extending it out in the waste that I'm mentioning. so important that this is done and by and large this territory has largely been seeded you know and you have judges and certain instances who want to be known for being advocates for equality, progress, etcetera, etcetera who sometimes take the bait if you will to stretch far beyond what Obergefell says and be the progenitors of the next iteration of what they view as inevitable consequences of of the burgofell but that's just not law and nor is it true and it must be contended right yes that's right you know there are two different ways that we ought to approach this discussion one is the recognition of the cultural annihilation that's implied in the idea unprecedented historically of same-sex marriage there is no stopping no stopping the outworking of the concepts that are lodged within that deviant idea. Okay, and I want to pick up on that because we're coming to want on a break, but I'd like to pick up right there when we get to the other side of the break. Why it's important to arrest, hinder, and ultimately work toward overturning a burgofell, but we have to stop the encroachment societally from these deviant and aberrant ideas because it becomes normalized. Ideas have consequences, bad ideas create casualties, and we are literally dislodging our entire society from truth.

  16. 32:41

    And that has inevitable detrimental consequences to sit that way. And if that is not an understatement, I don't know what an understatement is. You are listening to the Hamilton Corner. My guest is Jeff Schae for Director of the Hale Institute at New St. Andrew's College. Stay with us. The stand provides a Christian perspective on current issues that are important to your family. Produced by the American Family Association, this monthly magazine is full of articles and stories about people who are making a difference in their community and around the world. Sign up today and receive a free six month subscription. Visit thestand.net or call 1-800-326-4543. Hamilton Quarter podcast and one-minute commentaries are available at aFR.net back to the Hamilton Corner on American Family Radio. Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. Abraham Hamilton, III is my name. My guest is the director of the Hale Institute at New St. Andrews College, Jeff Shafer. And before we went to the break, Jeff, you were explaining why it's important that we place the proper perspective on what should be viewed as a restrained ruling in decision from the Supreme Court in the Obergevav versus Hodge's case of 2015. Right. Yes. During the break, we were chatting that there is a real vital distinction between the cultural disaster of accepting the deviance of something called same-sex marriage on the one hand and on the other the significance of the Supreme Court ruling like Obergeviel in the context of the American constitutional system. are two very different things. And so with respect to the latter, there are a number of points that we might register about Obergefell. I mean, a long list, but let's just pick some off here. First of all, a Supreme Court ruling is not the law of the land, and please let us stop saying as much. Article 6 of the Constitution tells us what the law of the land is, which includes the Constitution itself, along with congressional statutes and treaties that are and keeping with it, but it does not identify Supreme Court decisions as the law of the land.

  17. 35:01

    And the historic understanding of court rulings in our Anglo-American common law legal tradition, which would have been well understood at the time of the drafting and the constitution, was that judicial rulings were evidence of law, not law itself. Profound to think of... Yeah, very important distinction. Yes. Justice Gorsuch wrote a magnificent concurring opinion in the recent Loper-Brite case that came down a little over a month ago that elaborated this important point. But indeed, links just like other judicial decisions are often mistaken demonstrably so, and thus are frequently overruled by the court. And this has happened hundreds of times at the Supreme Court itself. Court rulings have no binding authority over the Supreme Court except insofar as it contains a persuasive influence for the court to treat as the law of the land. And obviously, erroneous and made-up decision like Obergefell that barely pretended to be interpreting the Constitution is in effect to give the court or five justices on it, the power to amend the Constitution. Not only is that not a feature of Article III's judicial power, it's also a violation of Article V of the Constitution that establishes the mechanism for constitutional amendment. But more fundamentally or simply, in addressing Obergefell's incompetence as a vehicle to overthrow the family law systems of the several states is the limited nature of the Supreme Court's Article III judicial power to begin with. Unlike the legislative power, which is not just in the several states but in the Congress at the federal level under Article I, the Supreme Court exercises only judicial authority which under Article III engages and operates only upon the existence of a case or controversy that is filed in court, which entails that the court's authority also extends only to the parties before it, who have been made parties to that case or controversy, either as plaintiffs or drawing in defendants. This was well recognized throughout our legal history until we collectively forgot it around the second half of the 20th century, but earlier it's not so.

  18. 37:09

    You remember Abraham Lincoln's observation that the Supreme Court's reprehensible ruling in the Dred Scott case. He registered the idea that while it was binding on the parties before the court in that case, it did not extend beyond them to other officials or to the nation at large. Recall, he mentioned in his first inaugural, if the court, just by resolving a dispute between parties, thereby makes policy for the entire nation, we've kind of lost our entire constitutional system in the process. And as since we'd be upending our system into some sort of unrecognizable form, having nothing to do with the Constitutional acknowledgement of separated and distinct departments of authority, subject matter, distinction, and so on and so forth. So that's kind of a big picture that there's just in the first instance judicial rulings themselves are very limited. They do not make policy. The Supreme Court's opinions are not pieces of legislation. shouldn't be reviewed as if they were. By the way, I guess I should say, you know, in view of the fact that we've seen something of a public shift on the authority of the Supreme Court, we really do now have a Supreme Court majority that is much more sophisticated on these kinds of issues and willing to talk about them. Yes. You know, there were a number of cases that came down from the court this last term in June, which the justices showed a rather punctilious attention to the nature and limits of judicial authority. So they were emphasizing the circumscribed reach of constitutional grants of authority, of the court to issue injunctions, whether the court will rule on legal claims that don't implicate a sufficient harm to the claimant, whether the court's case law can overcome supreme authority, the constitution itself and so on and on.

  19. 39:09

    So these questions about judicial authority in the Supreme Court itself are really getting a lot more attention from certain justices in particular, but my suspicion is that there is a majority on the court now that really is sensitive to the reach of its own decisions and would be open to arguments about the limitations of cases like Obergefell. Yeah, I agree with you. And it's the judicial acknowledgement that we are a nation constitutionally that we have separate powers but not co-equal branches of government. We don't have the same role nor domestic potency in terms of determining national policy and it's a proper constitutional balance, which is necessary in order to instruct the nation as to how we as the governed who delegate to our elected representatives via our consent a proper conforming to constitutional norms. Yes, well put. You know, there's some really fascinating scholarship that's emerging on these kinds of questions. I think a prominent figure here is Jonathan Mitchell, who was the driving force, the author behind Texas, the SB8 statute. But he's written a fascinating piece in explaining that Supreme Court justices cannot strike down or invalidate any laws. It can only enjoy government officials who are made parties to the case uh... requiring they not enforce the law of the court teams on constitutional that is to say the laws themselves are not affected it's just the prerogatives of the officials who are defendants in the case in it's for that reason that we need to make clear that obergo felt that exactly nothing to wipe state marriage laws off the books and then again yes please one more time for the ball the way in the back yeah in my state of residence which is i don't like yours in the city there is no same-sex marriage recognized in law the relevant provisions of the state constitution statutes make plane that marriage is a union of man and woman and the inept vote of five justices in the uberghal case which by the way did not involve i don't know i should add did not could not do anything to i don't know marriage law it's not even clear what for self-speakable language in the case merely stated that state laws are invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage.

  20. 41:46

    But that's a ruling that has been universally ignored, as it means that husband-wife marriage laws are invalid. Though precisely those laws have been in nonstop operation in states across the nation since Obergefell is announced. But in all events, was Idaho, was Mississippi, were they parties to this case? that they present arguments as to the nature and the virtues of their family law systems, no and no. The Supreme Court's ruling only was addressed to the parties in that case and it did nothing to the laws of the states implicated. It only issued a kind of injunction against officials from enforcing laws in a particular way. That's a longer conversation, but I just wanted to flag it as one that's of moment for the discussion that we're having. Yeah. So what would you submit needs to be done in order to advance? I would say probably the two-pronged approach first, limiting the metastasizing application of or what some might view as inevitable consequences of a burgafell. What would need to be done in order to accomplish that? What we need to see is states with a measure of backbone refusing to do anything beyond, I mean, I think it would be reasonable for states to simply say we're not going to abide by the decision in the first place because we were not parties to that case. Now of course, that's going to invite litigation that will have to be fought out and so on. And obviously, Supreme Court precedent is going to have substantial influence on the outcomes that obtain in that subsequent line of litigation. So let's set aside the question of Obergefell's licensing ruling and just move over to the questions of whether states should hold on to its laws that say on our birth certificate templates there is mother and father and there's nothing else.

  21. 43:47

    There's no changes to be had there. No Supreme Court decision has addressed whether the law in Mississippi or the law in Idaho on that question is valid or invalid. the question about child custody, whether the adoption laws continue to be operational in our states rather than being overborn by same-sex partners who want to have automatic access to his or her partner's child. You follow me? All of these kinds of natural family dimensions that are just getting steamrolled in a number of contexts. I think states and attorneys general for states really need to be refusing to do anything or permit an incursion into state law in any way that is arguably an extension of a burger felt but in fact was never ruled upon in that case now i i know what we're talking about the technical legal realities uh... but what why do you surmised that the steam rolling of the basically the family structure at the state level is is taking place what why do you think that's happening i i don't know i mean i find the whole thing astonishing I mean, states typically are so jealous of their prerogatives in their historic law. So, if this were a matter of, let's say, water rights or a boundary dispute between states, something along these lines, you know perfectly well that your attorney general's office. Across the country, we'd see the same thing, this fervent resistance to any kind of additional expansion of a principle that's unlike. But for some reason, we have all just laying down flat before this kind of juggernaut as if it's irresistible. And so no resistance has been put up to it. Why that is the case? I have no idea. But what makes, we might say, aggravates that concern is there are so many bases upon which to resist. I'm certain not many people have even considered it, and it very well could be because of the political nature of it.

  22. 45:55

    What Attorney General wants to be found, sticking their neck out to oppose the cultural juggernaut that is sexual deviance and perversion. The sexual revolution is one of the most profound, perhaps the most profound sort of revolution in human history. imperative is visible all around us. Obviously, there's penalties that are, you just alluded to this, penalties that would be extended to anyone who resists its ministrations. So, yes, it would really take a sturdy state group of officials and litigators to stand up to this in the way that I'm suggesting. But it's only civilization that's at stake. So maybe we could go ahead and drum up some integrity within our ranks and do something about this. Yeah, and I just want to invite you just to expound that a little bit. It's only civilization, that's a state, and it is something that provoked a chuckle from me because of how true and obviously true it is. Would you just take a few moments and articulate why you can say with such conviction that it's only civilization that's a state? Well, you know, all of life, both explicit and implicit. I'm talking both on the cultural side of things as well as the legal side of things, is operational kind of on the basis of an understanding of what the human being is. So throughout history we have acknowledged that male and female are significant given features of human life and they're coming together in marriages, the basis of civilization, basis of the social order. This is how we have children emerging into the world. And so there's a kind of reality and significance to us as persons that's tethered to our being male, being female, being familial. And when I say, you know, the law itself is built on this, there's all kinds of presumptions that go back through the ages that in which the state differs to the reality of the family. It has not treated it as some sort of utilitarian concoction. It has instead kind of recognized it as being a truth of existence. And now we are in this revolutionary overthrow getting away with doing off with that idea. And that truth, I guess I should say. And in the process of doing so, one of the things that's happening to the law is it is reconceiving itself as being beholden to nothing outside of the wishes of those in the corridors of power.

  23. 48:41

    The law no longer is understanding itself as submitting to a pre-existing order of truth. It is instead the exercise of coercion. And that's why it's so important that those persons who like particular ways of life would get their hands on the levers of power, so as to be able to manipulate things. But this is a conception of law that's new on the scene, and I think it's ultimately very destructive." The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American Family Association or American Family Radio.

Subscribe and never miss an episode.

Pick your platform All Episodes
Latest episode Book Abe