Culture Shocks with Barry Lynn - Polygamy in the Media

Advance orders for this Taped Interview are
Available ONLY for TruthBearer.org MEMBERS.

Culture Shocks with Barry Lynn Radio
Interview: March 27, 2006
Broadcast: April 11, 2006
5:00 pm Eastern Time (U.S.)
Syndicated, Culture Shocks with Barry Lynn

On March 27, 2006, Mark Henkel, the Founder of TruthBearer.org, gave a taped interview for syndicated radio program, Culture Shocks with Barry Lynn. The host is a renowned liberal commentator and head of the Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

After first obtaining a list of numerous other well-known conservatives who had previously appeared on the show, Mark Henkel was glad to offer his insights on the show. (Obtaining that list was important to ensure that his appearance would not be maligned as if he was somehow advocating any form of liberalism.)

The host, Barry Lynn, was very professional and polite on the show, asking very good questions. From Bible arguments, to genuinely helping abandoned single moms in the modern cultural tragedy of of marriage-phobic "playas" and "baby daddies," to case law analysis, Mark Henkel was able to provide many good insights and answers in a very intellectual discussion.

He are is just a sample of some of Mark Henkel's quotes:

...We're not saying that, one, we're following the homosexuals, and [two], going for the same agenda. We're actually saying, "We've got the solution to end the marriage debate altogether." And that is, the true - and it's a win-win, both for true limited conservatives as well as for homosexual-behavior-choosing-individuals. The key is, you get government out of it altogether, because according to the Constitution, the Tenth Amendment states that, if it's not in the Constitution, the federal government has zero authority to be involved. Ergo, the word "marriage" is not in the Constitution, and it is wholly unconstitutional for the government to be involved in marriage whatsoever.

...We're saying that government has no authority either way and the only function of government at all in marriage is as a public repository at the municipal level, of public records of the contractual arrangements that consenting adults make.

...Well, you are correct that [polyandry] it's not Biblical and would be a definition of adultery from a Biblical religious position. The limited government position of the Constitution, of having the government completely out of it, then basically it is a First Amendment issue of freedom of religion, freedom of expression, freedom of association [assembly] even. Also, who consenting adults choose to create their own contractual arrangements is really none of goverment's business either way. So, whether I choose to oppose [polyandry] as an issue of sin is not a matter of using government for it. Any government that is allowed to be used for liberal social engineering for, say, Christian agenda, can just as liberally be authorized later to turn around and oppress Christians.

...Your reference is to the original Reynolds case of 1878, which actually is an issue of "liberal activist judges" concocting a nationwide precedent on the basis of a law that's only on Territorial. If you read the Reynolds case and the law to which they were affirming, it was only that, at that time, Utah was a Territory and the government was allowed [in the U.S. Constitution] to make that law only in an issue of Article 4, Section 3, Paragraph 2 of, if it's not a State, then the Federal government has jurisdiction to manage the non-State Territory. And you read the the language and it's very clear that that's all the anti-polygamy law was.

...The recent [U.S. Supreme Court] Decision that just happened on February 21st [2006], with an 8-0 Decision, was Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao Do Vegetal, and that re-established the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 standard that says government now has two burdens it has to prove. That, government has the burden now of showing that permitting a religious exception to a total prohibition would undermine - what they also have to prove - a compelling governmental objective. So, the two standards right there are: One, now with banning all polygamy, that Decision says that the government has to establish a compelling interest for banning all polygamy. And then, two, the government itself has the burden to proving that it can't have a quote, "regime of exemptions." And such an exemption that could apply would be the Christian model of Christian Polygamy.

...Moreover, the Reynolds decision, with one State that repeals its bigamy law, then all you have is a federal umbrella against polygamy at that point in that particular State. And that will fail - absolutely, unequivocally will fail - Reynolds will fail under that standard because the Reynolds case only is based on a Territorial law and the Tenth Amendment prohibits the Federal government from being involved in marriage.

The interview very positively turned out to be a very articulate and intellectual discussion of the issues indeed, for which the TruthBearer.org organization was both very surprisingly pleased and very grateful to both the show and its host.

Advance orders for the audiocassette recording of this interview are currently available only for TruthBearer.org MEMBERS. This Interview is Available on TAPE for MEMBERS