PURPOSE OF THE TruthBearer.org ORGANIZATION?

RANDY HALL: Ok. Now, uh, what's the, again, is the purpose of your organization?

MARK HENKEL: Well, we are conservative Christian evangelicals for the most part, "Continuing the Reformation."
...
MARK HENKEL: That, uh, we are Christians from many different denominations. It's a cross-denominational issue. Uh, with, uh, basically, this is the non-newbie Christians that have seriously studied the Bible, with great dedication and commitment to the Spirit of God, that have come to the realization that the Reformation has NOT been - uh, certainly - been concluded - and that doctrines that were invented by the Catholic institution that the Protestantism of "sola scriptura" battle cry has yet to correct. And that you will not find a single basis of anti-polygamy doctrine in the Bible under any circumstance whatsoever. And it is an issue of, first and foremost - being Christians - about the truth. The Truth because it is the truth. Uh, that's, that's the first case.

RANDY HALL: Uh-huh.

MARK HENKEL: And also, that, ah, we are now in an "era of the dumbed down males" with "marriage-phobic baby daddies" that is a consequence of the enforced "one man, one woman" that is "marriage Marxism." That more or less has uh - instead of having an incentive for men to grow up and be real men, and take real responsibility and real nurturing of families in caring, compassionate Christ-like way - as Christians are to be of course - that, uh, "one man, one woman" is a marriage socialism that has prevented that. Instead of a laissez faire free market principle of creating an incentive for excellence, that, uh, men would grow up and be capable. Whether they're capable - whether they would have more than one wife or not - is ultimately irrelevant. It's a growth to maturity. It's a, it's a capability, of being capable of drawing that and, and, attracting it and holding it together, and being a true man that gives to uh, to the family and to the children. And it is by no means a libertine, liberal, or lascivious kind of concept whatsoever. It is totally about family and, uh, and about truly calling men to grow up.

"NEW LIBERALS" (THE SUPPOSED-TO-BE CONSERVATIVES)

MARK HENKEL: ... And, as we observe that so many supposed-to-be conservatives have really embraced what we call "New Liberalism." I guess you might consider it, like the term for Republicans acting Democrat, or "RINOs" - "Republican In Name Only." And ultimately, instead of the true conservatism we waited and waited and waited through the '90s to get through that horrid presidency that was definitely a very liberal period, to finally get to a conservative situation with Republicans in the President, and the Senate, the Congress, and of course, now, even in the Supreme Court. And yet we still see so much "New Liberalism" of basically conservatives abandoning their conservatism for worshipping the false god of big socialist government.

WHERE DID "ONE MAN, ONE WOMAN" COME FROM?

RANDY HALL: Mm. Ok. Um. At what point did, maybe you can kind of clarify that for me, at what point did we go to the, they talk about "one man, one woman" being in the Bible, kind of.
...
MARK HENKEL: It came from the Catholic institution. You will not find it in the Bible. And again, that's where, again, we come back as "Continuing the Reformation."

RANDY HALL: Aa-aaah!

MARK HENKEL: See, this is not coming from a liberal attempt to re-interpret, like the "biological impossibility of same sex marriage" that is trying to playing word-games with the Bible and saying things it doesn't say. But it clearly is very clear about the "biological impossibility of same sex marriage" and the sin of that. The problem is, you do not fight the sin of homosexual behavior with the sin of idolatry - because both [unrepented] sides go to hell.

RANDY HALL: Mm.

MARK HENKEL: Ultimately. Revelation 21:8 makes it clear that all idolators shall also have their part in the "lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." And, if you really study the Bible, and I'm not saying you personally, but in general, any Christian that does, there is – it is the repeated history of God's people, that God constantly is warning them that their leaders have "gone the way of Jeroboam son of Nebat." "Jeroboam son of Nebat." And that's the story of the division of Israel - after Solomon's death - between Jeroboam and Rehoboam. And, ultimately, what it was, is, the leaders lead God's people into committing idolatry away from the true God. And that is what we're seeing now with calling for the false god of big socialist government to be the "savior" of God's defined doctrines - such as marriage, that God alone defined, not the big false god of socialist government to define it. And, depending on that false god, leading people, and leading God's people away from the true God Who defined it. It's God's doctrine. He created marriage. It's not something that the false god of big socialist government has any authority in defining it - either Biblically or Constitutionally, which I can address, as well, as we discuss this further. So, it ["one man, one woman"] came from the Catholic institution in its acquiescence of the Roman false god theologies - when they had multiple gods and all that, of the Romans.

RANDY HALL: Right.

MARK HENKEL: And all that. And that's where they had the "serial polygamy" concepts - it was actually a pagan concept. And they were having all their different false gods. It was ok to have one [wife] after the other and they were having all the licentiousness and all that. And, as the Catholic institution acquired power and basically, Christianity went from being the persecuted religion of Jesus Christ and became a political power of the Catholic institution [instead], it completely reversed, and ultimately new doctrines started being invented. And among them was the "one man, one woman" concept. You will not find it in the Bible. And I can go, I can cite verses. I can deal with the whole "Adam and Eve." In fact, actually, I think the "Adam and Eve" story is a perfect example of how conservatives act like "New Liberals" when it comes to the "Adam and Eve" story.

RANDY HALL: Uh, well, now, just give me a kind of a quick thing as to why, then, the Catholic church introduced the "one man, one woman" thing. Um, what was the reason for making that change?

MARK HENKEL: Well, it came out of the asceticism, with the invention of, uh, monks and uh you know, priests not being married - which of course that's not a Biblical issue either. There are recommendations if your capable [of celibacy], but the idea of creating doctrines - that it's somehow holier to, uh, to not be married - is just one of those inventions that they, they created. It was a political acquiescence to the pagan population, ultimately. [See: The History and Philosophy of Marriage, Chapter 6 - Monogamy After the Introduction of Christianity regarding asceticism and marriage doctrine.]

RANDY HALL: Aa-oh.

MARK HENKEL: And then, really, understand, we really have to understand is that, the birth of America - and this is why this is true Constitutionalist Conservatism - the birth of America, what brought, what brought the settlers to the "New World? In the 1600s and so forth, what brought them was fleeing the tyranny of governments controlled by the Catholic institution. Now, I am not trying to be anti-Catholic religion. Let Catholics be Catholic, and that's fine. That's not where I am going with this.

RANDY HALL: Yeah.

MARK HENKEL: But my point being, is that, this is why the whole issue arose with Jack Kennedy as President [at the start of the 1960s], about him being a Catholic and all that. When you go to the original founding of our country, it was to be free from government controlled by the Catholic institution, and using its power over the government to enforce its manmade doctrines. And that believers wanted to be free to believe the truth because it is the truth. And that was what gave birth to the Reformation. And that's what Protestantism was because it was "protesting" the manmade doctrines of the Catholic institution. And people fled to the New America to be free from the governments being controlled by the Catholic institution that had gained so much power. Now, I have no problem with various different, y'know, religions existing, and certainly the whole - as a Constitutionalist, I completely embrace the First Amendment right of religious expression, and so forth, for the Catholics and all that. What I am simply saying is that, for it to have the power over government is another issue altogether.

RANDY HALL: Yeah.

MARK HENKEL: And to use its [the Catholic institution's], its doctrines - and to use government to enforce its doctrines - is completely un-American. And basically the point I'm saying - is that the creation of invented doctrines.

INVENTING RE-DEFINITIONS
   FROM ORIGINALLY INTENDED MEANINGS

MARK HENKEL: Here's an example. And I'll use a, I'll use a, uh, a situation that's currently going on. Right now [as reported in a March 03, 2006, CNS News report and a March 06, 2006, CNS News commentary], liberals have gone absolutely spastic over a ridiculous idea that supposedly they "caught" President Bush "lying" about saying that they [President Bush's administration] never, uh, were never warned that, uh, the levies in New Orleans, "NawLins," [Louisiana, during the tragic storm and flooding of Hurricane Katrina in 2005] were uh, were going to be breached. And when he said it, all he had been forewarned was that they would be topped. He had not said that they would be breached. When he said the word after the catastrophe - the difference between topping and breaching is: topping is destruction and damage; breach is catastrophe. And certainly, when President Bush said that, he was correctly knowing what he meant when he said it. And he said that they were, that they had never been forewarned that it could be breached. And that's a correct statement. But liberals try to re-define what he actually said as if breached somehow means topped, and that's not what he meant. This is exactly what happens with, for example, the Adam and Eve story.

RANDY HALL: Uh-huh.

THREE REASONS WHY "ADAM AND EVE"
   CANNOT JUSTIFY MARRIAGE AMENDMENT

MARK HENKEL: Words mean things. For example, the Adam and Eve story is a speculation to suggest that "Adam and Eve" is God's "original plan for marriage" because, if that's what you believe, then we should all be walking around naked too - which, of course, we shouldn't. But beyond that, you also realize that both Cain and Seth had wives. And we don't know who the mother of those wives were - whether it was Eve, or whether it could have been other wives. We don't know and it's speculation. I'm not going to lay a doctrinal claim that it was other wives; I'm simply saying that we have to admit that it's speculation to "know" what it is. That's all I'm saying.

RANDY HALL: Right.

MARK HENKEL: Two. If you're going to use the paradigm that we need the false god of big socialist government for a big, Marxist marriage amendment, and you're using Adam and Eve as your reason, well - interestingly enough, if you read the story of Adam and Eve: [sub-point one,] they never had a Wedding. And [sub-point] two, you don't see any example of the false god of big socialist government ever being used. In fact, you won't find any person in the Bible whatsoever - pagans, Christians, God's people, whatever - you will not find anyone ever married "by government" in the Bible. It is a new modern invention that is not a Biblical idea. So, if you really say, "I believe that Adam and Eve is the standard we have to use for marriage," well then, you know what? Get government out of that idea. Stop the abomination of abominating God's doctrine of marriage with the false god of big socialist government. If you're going to rely upon that, you cannot rely upon it - because government was never involved. And then, finally: Three. This is really the kicker. Just like President Bush knew what he meant when said that he had not been forewarned that the levies would be breached, the Adam and Eve story cannot be mis-interpreted by liberals reading it. It is not the readers of that story who know what it meant - it is the writer of that story. Who wrote that story? Christians will rightly concur and agree that it was Moses. Moses wrote the Adam and Eve story. Moses is the mortal author of that story. Moses is the mortal author of the Exodus 20:14, which is, "Thou shalt not commit adultery;" or, Exodus 21:10 that says if he has, if he take another wife, her food, her duty, her marriage, her duty of marriage shall he not diminish; and also wrote Deuteronomy 21:15 that, if a man have two wives; and wrote Genesis 2:24 that the two shall be one flesh. All of those doctrines and all of those passages, the very story of Adam and Eve itself was written by Moses. And the Bible is very clear: Moses had two wives. [Pause for emphasis.] So, it's the writer of the story who knows what he meant when he wrote it. Just like President Bush knew what he meant when he said that he not been informed that the levies would breach, Moses - who had two wives - knew what those doctrines meant. And he did not create any form of an anti-polygamy doctrine. It is pure speculation - and liberal re-definition and re-interpretation - that tries to suggest it means anything but. [See: www.BiblicalPolygamy.com - Remember Moses wrote it ©.]

1878 REYNOLDS CASE TO BLAME
   FOR "SAME SEX MARRIAGE"

MARK HENKEL: Well, obviously, right now, whether uh - the way we see it, "New Liberals" are supposed-to-be conservatives, are directly to blame for why the "biological impossibility of same sex marriage" is going to come to pass. It's, it's - anti-polygamy is the real "slippery slope" that led to the "biological impossibility of same sex marriage."

RANDY HALL: Oh.

MARK HENKEL: And here's why. Often the court case that will be cited is, of the anti-polygamy, is the Reynolds case of 1878.

RANDY HALL: Right.

MARK HENKEL: Now, if you actually read that, it will actually - if you're a true, you know, a true constitutionalist conservative, we understand the Tenth Amendment position; that, if it's not in the federal Constitution, the federal government has no authority to be involved in any doctrine. Standard conservatism, right?

RANDY HALL: Right.

MARK HENKEL: Ok. Well, in that [Reynolds] case, the law - that was being broken by the Mormon polygamist in that situation - was and reads as follows: "Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, [spoken slowly for emphasis:] - in - a - territory - or other place over which the United States have [emphasis:] - exclusive jurisdiction - is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years." Now, the key element of that is "territory." The Utah Territory, at that time, was not a State. If this was a law trying to impact upon States that did not have a bigamy law, this would have been unconstitutional on the basis of the Tenth Amendment. Because: the federal government had no authority. So, this case was purely a non-State territorial law where, over which the federal government had managerial jurisdiction [U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 3, Paragraph 2]. That's basically what it amounts to - if it's not a State, then it defaults to the federal government's management. And so, this was only "Constitutional" - Tenth Amendment-wise - because it was based on a Territory, not based on a State. But those "liberal activist judges" of 1878 concocted a nationwide precedent over all the States on a law that was only based on a non-State Territory. So, [overall] it was purely unconstitutional on the basis of the Tenth Amendment [as applied to any States.] And, the point is, by doing that, it created a precedent that involved the false god of big socialist government, because you will not find marriage anywhere in the Constitution. And, because we agree on the Tenth Amendment, if it's not in the Constitution, the federal govermment has no authority, well, it's not in the Constitution, the federal government has no authority to be involved in marriage. And yet, with this unconstitutional anti-polygamy law, it exclusively - and the precedent of Reynolds in 1878 - concocted a liberal mentality that established that government could be involved in marriage. Marriage is defined by God. It is not defined by the false god of big socialist government. If we're real conservatives, and we truly call ourselves originalists, and we truly believe in the Constitution, we understand government has no business in what God defined. Government has no business in re-defining it. And, in fact, just as conservatives rightly come against homosexuals for trying to invent an idea called, what I say, "the biological impossibility of same sex marriage," - they're trying to re-define marriage - it is so correct. Government - courts should never be re-defining marriage. But yet, 1878, the liberal court, the liberal judges, those activist, liberal activist judges of 1878 did just that. And conservatives relying upon the anti-polygamy 1878 [Reynolds] Decision are relying upon those liberal activist judges who established a precedent that has no Constitutional basis.

RANDY HALL: Mm.

MARK HENKEL: And so, that's the point - is that govermment has no business, and really, in the end, the "New Liberals," after they lose the battle [against homosexuals] - because ultimately, as I said, because if you allow government to liberally re-define marriage to exclude polygamy, you have just as said, just as equally said, government has the liberal authority to re-define it to include "the biological impossibility of same sex marriage." So, that's why anti-polygamy is the real "slippery slope" that led to government marriage and "the biological impossibliity of same sex marriage" being legalized.

MARRIAGE TOO IMPORTANT FOR GOVERNMENT,
   SO APPLY LIMITED GOVERNMENT AND PSALMS 1:1

MARK HENKEL: ...In the end, as that happens ["same sex marriage" finds a way to become legalized], it is our hope that the "New Liberals" will re-discover their conservatism. Realize: we've been saying the right answer all along. And that is, get government out of marriage altogether. Stop abominating it. You wouldn't have a Federal Gospel Amendment. You wouldn't have a Federal Baptism Amendment. Marriage is that important, you shouldn't have a Federal Marriage Amendment. God's doctrine should not be abominated. Get government out of it and then - the homosexual behavior choosing individuals have no footing whatsoever. And then you're simply back to Psalms 1:1 of not standing in the way of sinners - and then they're just imagining what they want to imagine. And it's another issue altogether.

2006 SUPREME COURT EMPOWERS
   CHRISTIAN POLYGAMY TO OVERTURN POLYGAMY BANS

MARK HENKEL: Ok. And, I can give you the rundown of the three Supreme Court cases that really have - that have recently happened - that have totally affected us. They are Romer v. Evans of ‘96, Lawrence v.Texas of 2003, and now Gonzales v. O Centra Espirita of 2006. And I, I can, I can tell you, I can run you through the impact. Ultimately, this latest Decision, that was unanimous with the Roberts Court, re-established the compelling interest test. As Chief Justice Roberts himself said, that now he's, he's created two issues, now, that government must bear the burden of showing that a, that permitting a religious exception to a ban, to the prohibition, would undermine a compelling governmental objective. It basically re-established for religiously-neutral laws that, for example, the anti-polygamy laws are supposed to be religiously neutral.

RANDY HALL: Ah.

MARK HENKEL: Two things are in place now [because of Gonzales v. O Centra Espirita]. Government has to - government is the one that has to demonstrate it has a compelling governmental objective to oppose polygamy, for example. Ok. It has to do so. And then secondly, it also bears the burden of also having to prove that a religious exception - even, even if government is capable of establishing that there are governmental reasons for banning polygamy, beyond that, it has to also have, it bears the burden of having to prove that it can't, that it uh, that permitting a religious exception would undermine those [governmental reasons for banning all polygamy].

RANDY HALL: Mm.

MARK HENKEL: And, and the fact is, is that now with the brand new movement of Christian Polygamy, which we haven't really begun [to discuss here] just yet, unless you've understood that we're separate from Mormonism.

RANDY HALL: Aah.

MARK HENKEL: Christian Polygamy brings a completely new paradigm that re-defines the model of what people think polygamy means. It is not a "patriarchal" in terms of the, you know, chest-pounder and dictatorial. It is not, it has nothing to do with any of the Mormon theology, uh, or, or the Muslim basis whatsoever. It is a pure beneficent model that can actually be a positive value to the cultural, culture overall - especially as we are now in the "era of dumbed down males" and "baby daddies."

DE-CRIMINALIZATON, NOT LEGALIZATION

MARK HENKEL: ...We're not after legalization. We're after de-criminalization.

RANDY HALL: Ok.

MARK HENKEL: Ok. And it is so vital that you understand the difference. It is not a semantic point. Legalization goes through the process of trying to define "This is allowed, this is allowed, this is allowed." De-criminalization, as we said before: get government out of it altogether.

RANDY HALL: Ah.

MARK HENKEL: Get government out of it altogether. So, if you want to stop "the biological impossibility of same sex marriage," be a true conservative of limited government Constitutional basis of original basis of, that government's role is not liberal social engineering. But government's role is only for the protection of Individual rights. And therefore, government does not belong in the definitions of God's doctrine of marriage. Get government out of it altogether and what do the homosexual behavior choosing individuals have then? Nothing. Nothing. That's the true conservative position: limited government. But instead, our fellow conservatives have gone, you know, many of our fellow conservatives have gone the "New Liberal" approach and are trying to use liberalism to fight liberalism. They're using big government - a big government solution of the Federal Marriage Amendment. In fact, they knew that it was so big government that they even re-named, called the "Marriage Protection Amendment." Which was - and they even admitted that that's why they were re-naming it: because it sounded like big government. Because you know what? It is! It's big government. If you're a conservative, you don't turn - as a solution - to the false god of big socialist government. If you're a Christian, you worship God, the Savior Lord Jesus Christ. It's not a worship of the false god of big socialist government. Government is not your savior. The false god of socialist government is not the savior of marriage. So, you really want to protect marriage? Get government out of abominating it altogether. It has no process in the definition thereof. And homosexuals have no ground.

INDIVIDUALS' RIGHT TO MARRIAGE
   PRE-DATES INVENTION OF GOVERNMENT

MARK HENKEL: The only basis, the only function for government regarding marriage would be - on the municipal level - of being a repository for the contractual arrangements that consenting adults make.

RANDY HALL: Ok.

MARK HENKEL: So that it's a public record. A repository of the public records of the contractual arrangements that consenting adults make. That's it. That's not - you know, it's not in terms of defining what's marriage, whose marriage. Whatever the contractual - we can set up - you know, anybody can set up corporations. Anyone can set up partnerships. It's just the same thing. You know, so whatever, you know, people want to imagine in their, you know, their silly imaginations, government has no business defining it for them - is what I'm saying. So, again, be a true limited government conservative. Stop involving government in trying to define it. Understand, marriage is so important, it is so precious, that you know what? It pre-dates government. It comes before government.

RANDY HALL: Ok.

MARK HENKEL: Ok, so here, you've got a concept of government - which is an invention of mankind - comes along after marriage has long existed, and then tries to tell - I mean, again, if we're supposed to believe in rights, it's about Individual Rights, people have the right to marry whether a government exists or not, and will marry whether a government exists or not, and did marry whether a government existed or not. Government is not the definition of marriage, and the minute you think that someone is only married because government said so, guess what you've just done? You just called every single married person in the Bible a fornicator because not one of them was married in the Bible by the false god of big socialist government. Government was never involved. It is a brand new concept. Marriage is not defined by government according to the Bible. I realize that we [Christian Polygamists] are always quite a big smiling surprise to our fellow conservatives when they first find out [about us], because they anticipate that we're going to be some kind of lascivious liberals. But it's quite the other way around. [Big laughter.]

TruthBearer.org - MISSION:
   CONTINUING THE REFORMATION

MARK HENKEL: Ok. Well, probably, I guess the way to say, separate [our organization's] Mission from [our] Agenda. Um, because, first - as all Christians are - Christians are Christians first.

RANDY HALL: Right.

MARK HENKEL: This is what we are as Christians. And, it is our love for our fellow Christians that we walk in the Truth; that, if we're going to say "We're not Catholic." If we are going to say that we are "Sola Scriptura" Christians. Or, if we are going to say that we believe the truth because it's the truth. Then, by the Lord Jesus Christ, we've got to believe it's the Truth, regardless of what we want to believe about it. We can't be like the homosexual behavior choosing individuals who try to make the Bible say what they want it to say. We have to believe It because It says what It says. Words mean things. Breach does not mean topping - the same exact concept. Words mean things; and, because of that, we have to believe the Truth because It's the truth. And so, that is why we are "Continuing the Reformation." Are you familiar with what that means, in terms of Martin Luther and all that?

RANDY HALL: Oh sure.

MARK HENKEL: You are. Ok, well that's what we're doing. We are following exactly in the same footpath of "Sola Scriptura," Reformation, that we have got to believe doctrine based on the Bible - not on what the Catholic institution invented. Now, again, I am not trying to create any anti-Catholic, you know, bigotry or anything of that nature. I'm simply saying, we have to understand the history, understand where we got these things. Government controlled by the Catholic institution of its doctrines is not an American idea and, and it, certainly, "one man, one woman" is not Biblical. So, we're sharing this with our fellow Christians, to believe it's truth because it's Truth. But also, because the real model of marriage for Christians is not the fleshly Adam, but it's the spiritual Second Adam, which is Jesus Christ. And, He described Himself a polygamist coming to marry His Five Churches, in Matthew 25, of the Five Wise Virgins. Mind you, don't quote me as saying that's a literal marriage. It's a metaphor. It's a parable. But the fact is, it's a polygamous marriage and Jesus would never have described Himself that way if it was a sin.

RANDY HALL: Mm-hm.

MARK HENKEL: And, the marriage model is Ephesians 5:22-25. That husbands are supposed to be as loving and caring as Christ Himself to His Churches. And wives are to be as the Churches. That's the model for Christians. And so, what we're talking about is calling men to grow up, to be so loving, and so profound.

MARITAL LAISSEZ FAIRE ECONOMICS
   INSTEAD OF MARITAL SOCIALISM

MARK HENKEL: ...It's like laissez faire economics. Just because you've got the freedom, you know, to, to make 500 million dollars - doesn't mean everybody's going to.
...
MARK HENKEL: It's laissez faire marriage economics.

RANDY HALL: [Chuckles with understanding.] Ok!

MARK HENKEL: Seriously, and that's why we say the marriage amendment, "one man, one woman" is marital socialism. Can you imagine a concept that says that, uh, "one customer per one business?" "One for each so that each can have one." That sounds like Karl Marx, doesn't it?

RANDY HALL: Mm. Ok.

MARK HENKEL: Well, that's what you're saying for - "one woman each for each man, so that each may have one." So what you've done is you've "dumbed down" men. Instead of having them grow up, now we have "marriage-phobic baby daddies."

RANDY HALL: Mm.

MARK HENKEL: So, [regarding Christian Polygamists] we're talking about men who value marriage and really care about it.

HOW BIBLE-BASED CHRISTIANS COME TO THIS
   NEW MODERN MOVEMENT, "CHRISTIAN POLYGAMY"

MARK HENKEL: And it basically started in 1994. And it's because of the internet that made it possible for the movement to grow as much as it has. Because what happens is, individual serious, Bible-student Christians, in their own Churches, will read the Bible and come to the realization that, "Hey! Why do all these great holy men of God have more than one wife? Israel, the Twelve Tribes of Israel were born of four wives. Moses had two wives. Abraham had three wives. What's up with this?" And then you study, and you realize the original word for adultery is "na`aph" in Exodus 20 verse 14. The Hebrew definition, according to Strong's [Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible] is a "woman who breaks wedlock." So, if a man marries another wife, and she was never another man's wife, well, she's not committing - she's not breaking wedlock with anyone, so, therefore, she's not committing adultery. That's how the holy men of God had more than one wife. They were not committing adultery because they were not marrying other men's wives. The one situation where David did that, and took another man's wife, that's what God came down [on David] for. And even in that very verse of 2nd Samuel 12:8, God Himself said, "I gave you all the wives you have, and if you had wanted more, I'd have given you more. But you killed this man, this man for his one, for his one woman. This man had one wife and you went and killed him, you could have had much -" God Himself said He would have given David more wives - which is an amazing expression of understanding that God Himself is not against polygamy.

RANDY HALL: Mm.

MARK HENKEL: God wouldn't have said that. He certainly wouldn't have done that if polygamy was a sin. The same, he wouldn't have described Himself as a polygamist in Jeremiah 3, or in Ezekiel 23, or Jesus Christ doing the same in Matthew 25. So, all of this is bringing this to our fellow Christians. But also, we have - what's, happens is, Christians see all these things, do these serious studies, come to this realization, and say, "Something's wrong! There's such a spirit of confusion out there. This [anti-polygamy view] is so clearly untrue!" And, because of the commitment and love for our brothers and sisters in Christ, and realizing that many of our brothers and sisters in Christ are being fed "mother's milk" instead of being strong enough to handle the "meat" of God's Word. You know, it's - we study it deeper. And we find each other, and ultimately, that's what brings people to our organization [TruthBearer.org]. We provide that support to the pastors who are not yet able to bring this to their Churches - because they're really in a tough bind. I mean, if they do it, from above their denominational hierarchy holds them to a covenant to preach a certain doctrine, and they could be fired. Or, the congregation, from below, could, you know, could leave. So, it's definitely a serious pressure. So we [TruthBearer.org organization] provide a support network. And we're bringing this to other people, as each Church and each, uh, individuals are ready and able to be as public as they can be in going forward. But we're providing that unified growing network of that. Now that's the Mission.

TruthBearer.org - AGENDA:
   REMOVING "FIRST FLOOR" OF
     ANTI-POLYGAMY'S "HOUSE OF CARDS"

MARK HENKEL: ...And, the consequence [of our Mission] is our Agenda will be certainly achieved. Think of anti-polygamy thinking as a house of cards. Are you familiar with the idea of a house of cards, one floor on the other, upon the other?

RANDY HALL: Mm-hm.

MARK HENKEL: Ok. Each floor of this house of cards is a political constituency. The very first floor are our fellow conservative Bible-believing Christians. We're not talking about liberal libertines and all that. As we continue to persuade our fellow conservative Christians that this is extremely Scriptural, that - and that it is extremely about pro-loving women and, and calling men to grow, we effectively kick out the first floor of the house of cards. What happens when you remove the first floor of a house of cards?

RANDY HALL: Mm.

MARK HENKEL: It all comes crashing down. For example, uh, liberals are easily persuaded because of their "tolerance" doctrine. In other words, we're not talking about trying to, you know, use different arguments. We're simply saying that conservatives believe in conservatism; well, then we're showing them this is the true conservative solution. For Christians, this is the true Christian solution. Liberals believe in "tolerance" - their "tolerance" doctrine automatically requires them to accept consenting-adult polygamy. So, whether they accept this or not, it doesn't matter to us, because ultimately, their doctrine requires them to. Do you understand what I mean?

RANDY HALL: Uh-huh.

MARK HENKEL: All right. The feminists have to accept consenting-adult polygamy because, if a woman wants to choose this - and, and a woman could choose this and does, do choose this - then the feminist position has to accept consenting-adult woman's choice of polygamy. So the feminist "floor" comes crashing down. Cultural conservatives - who want to see, you know, women get off welfare and this whole "baby's daddy" and "dumbed down males" trap, you know, want to see that come to an end - can understand that, certainly, helping abandoned single moms. Because that's actually what ends up typically, most of our practicing polygamous families - that's what ends up happening - is a wonderfully positive helping of an abandoned single mom situation - and actually helps that become a thriving situation. So, this helps them get off welfare or not be in that trap - that "hamster in a wheel" trap that abandoned single moms are often in to work just to pay for the low-paid strangers of daycare to raise their children.

RANDY HALL: Ok.

MARK HENKEL: So, this provides that solution. And that, that, that constituency "floor" comes crashing down. And just about everybody else is pretty much laissez faire about what consenting adults choose to do. And so, really, that's how we're building the constituent support - from our Agenda, not, not addressing Court issues and other matters [in this particular answer]. So that's our Agenda. Our Mission is as Christians and our Agenda is as kicking out that first floor of the house of cards of anti-polygamy thinking.

BUILDING POLITICAL SUPPORT TO GIVE
   POLITICIANS "COVER" TO DE-CRIMINALIZE POLYGAMY

MARK HENKEL: We are looking for de-criminalization. But part of that process is, of course, that, in order for politicians to be able to do so, we know liberals and "New Liberals" and even conservatives alike, that politicians need to have some constituent "cover" to do something like that. [Big laughter.]

RANDY HALL: Ok.

MARK HENKEL: So, we have to build constituent support. [Big laughter.]

SANTORUM JUST  REPEATED  SCALIA

MARK HENKEL: But yes, he [Senator Rick Sentorum on April 7, 2003] had said that, uh, he uh, - to his chagrin - he had basically said that, uh, that a "right to privacy" for freely consenting adults [as coming from the Lawrence v. Texas decision], that the "right to privacy" argument...

RANDY HALL: Ok

MARK HENKEL: ... would, uh, mean that it, uh, would allow it for polygamy, incest, and a whole bunch of horribles. But polygamy is not on the same line as those all those other parade of horribles. And actually, all he was doing was repeating what Justice Scalia was already saying.

RANDY HALL: Aaaah.

MARK HENKEL: So - I mean - and Scalia already saw the writing on the wall back in '96 when he made a polygamy reference in the Romer v. Evans case. Ok.

RANDY HALL: Ooooh.

IN ROMER V. EVANS (1996), SCALIA NOTED
   POLYGAMISTS' CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS

MARK HENKEL: Because at the end of Lawrence v. Texas, in his Dissent, Scalia wrote, "State laws against bigamy, same sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices." Bowers was the case they were overturning from '86.

RANDY HALL: Right.

MARK HENKEL: "Every single one of these laws is called into question by today's decison. The Court makes no effort to cabin the scope of its decision to exclude them from" its binding, from "its holding."

RANDY HALL: Ok.

MARK HENKEL: Yes, so, Scalia himself had said that about the Lawrence v. Texas case. And also in the Romer v. Evans case, are you familiar with what that case was?

RANDY HALL: Yes.

MARK HENKEL: That case was about the homosexuals in Colorado and Amendment 2.

RANDY HALL: Right.

MARK HENKEL: And its [state] Constitution and that. And in his Dissent to that, Scalia wrote, "Polygamists, and those who have a polygamous 'orientation,'" quote-unquote, which, by the way, polygamists don't, we don't see it from an "orientation" standpoint. That’s a liberal idea. [Laughter.]

RANDY HALL: Ok.

MARK HENKEL: But he wrote it. "Polygamists, and those who have a polygamous 'orientation,' have been 'singled out' by these provisions for much more severe treatment than merely denial of favored status... The Court's Disposition today" (in Romer, '96) "suggests that these provisions are unconstitutional; and that polygamy must be permitted in these States... ---unless, of course, polygamists for some reason have fewer constitutional rights than homosexuals."

RANDY HALL: Aaaah.

THE THREE COURT DECISIONS
   "RE-GUARANTEEING" POLYGAMY RIGHTS

MARK HENKEL: And, basically, what you have is, Romer v. Evans established that laws that have an "impermissible targeting" of polygamists are unconstitutional according to Romer v. Evans. Lawrence v. Texas established that the "right to privacy" of consenting adult polygamists can not be violated. And now with the recent February case, February 21st [2006], of Gonzales v. O Centra Espirita, government has to bear the burden of showing that permitting a religious exception to anti-polygamy ban, uh, to a polygamy ban, would undermine government's compelling interests - that it also has to prove - for the ban. So govermment has a double objec- a double thing it has to prove. It has to prove that there is justification for the ban, that government has an interest in the ban. And not only - and then once it's done that, say for example, the reason why the anti-polygamy laws took place was because of some Mormon Polygamy. And too often, just like the topping versus breaching problem [that words mean things]...

RANDY HALL: Aaah

MARK HENKEL: ..People forget that a noun, a neutral noun, is not modified by an absent adjective - meaning that, a noun - the word, polygamy is neutral by itself. But too often people automatically interpret polygamy with its adjective, Mormon if its Mormon Polygamy. And the [original 1800s] Mormon theology created a "forced obligation" that, you know, supposedly there's this idea of, you know, souls up in heaven, and women have an obligation to have as many babies as possible [to bring those souls into Mormon families], and that, the men are supposedly going to get into the "third heaven" if they get - certain priests - and that's why, basically it [Mormon 1800s theology] created a forced no-choice obligation for women to become polygamous wives. So that is the paradigm behind which anti-polygamy laws were created - it was anti-Mormon polygamy [in its 1800s theology]. [See: www.ChristianPolygamy.INFO - "Polygamy does not equal Mormon Polygamy" about how and why 1800s Mormonism failed to persuade the masses about polygamy.] So now you bring a religious exception of Christian Polygamy, which is a fully beneficial consenting-adult model. Even if government can attempt to create a compelling governmental interest in opposing the "enslavement of women" by certain polygamous paradigms and presuppositions for polygamy, they would absolutely fail and have no ability to provide any proof that permitting the exception of the beneficent benevolent Christian Polygamy religious exemption to a polygamy ban [could not be allowed without undermining government's purported overall compelling interest in banning all polygamy].

1878 REYNOLDS DECISION IS AN EMBARRASSMENT
   FOR CONSERVATIVES TO RELY UPON

MARK HENKEL: So, it's clear. The Supreme Court has made it very clear, that by the Christian Polygamy model, it, uh, it can be overturned. And last of all, because - you really gotta read the Reynolds case [of 1878]. When you read it, it really blows your mind. Talk about uh, uh liberal activist judges on a Court, and talk about a kangaroo court. Where jurors - in the Court, in the original case - jurors that were, uh, were, were, being selected, those who had already "formed an opinion" were allowed to go through, even though they were opposed by, uh, the defendant. And those who were, were asked whether they had, uh, you know, "committed" polygamy or, or, were, were "in" that, uh, basically didn't want to admit, you know, whether they were or not, so they didn't want to give it. They were automatically denied. So, talk about a one-sided stacking the deck.... And when you read that it's purely based on a Territorial non-State law, that this law has no bite nationwide - and yet for the Supreme Court to have concocted a nationwide precedent for government's involvement in marriage on a purely management Territorial law is, is a liberal activism, for sure. I mean, when you read it, you realize, this [Reynolds decision] is an embarrassment for conservatives to be relying on. It really is.