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

Transcribed with OpenAI Whisper (base.en). Timestamps are approximate. Lightly cleaned for readability; quotations from on-air callers may include filler words. Use the audio player above for the authoritative recording.

1. 0:00Darkness is not an affirmative force.
2. 0:03It simply reoccupies the space vacated by the light.
3. 0:06This is the Hamilton Quarter on American Family Radio.
4. 0:10It should be uncomfortable for a believer to live as a hypocrite.
5. 0:15Delivery people out of the bondage of mainstream media.
6. 0:18And the philosophies of this world.
7. 0:20God has called you and me to be His ambassador.
8. 0:24Even in this dark moment.
9. 0:26Let's not miss our moment.
10. 0:28And now, the Hamilton Corner.
11. 0:31Good evening, everyone.
12. 0:34Welcome to the Hamilton Corner here on American Family Radio.
13. 0:37My name is Abraham Hamilton.
14. 0:38The third, I am the host of this program.
15. 0:42We have J. Mac, the real J. Mac in studio.
16. 0:46Again, for a change, not too scared to be in the line of clarity.
17. 0:53But you may not know what you all don't see.
18. 0:55It's a lot of roasting that goes on behind the scenes.
19. 0:59and most of it is perpetuated by the silent assassin.
20. 1:04Mr. McIntosh, y'all don't hear him that much on the air,
21. 1:07but I'm telling you, he has lots to say.
22. 1:14But thank you for tuning into the program.
23. 1:16This evening at this very moment, many of you,
24. 1:19if not most of you are making your transition
25. 1:22from your part time jobs where you generate an income
26. 1:24to your full time jobs where you cultivate an outcome.
27. 1:27And as you make that move,
28. 1:29want to encourage you to do so with intentionality.
29. 1:32Understand in the primacy that God places on the family, refusing to allow the things that
30. 1:36are swirling around our culture and the world nationally, international affairs to divert
31. 1:42you from job one.
32. 1:44And there's a lot of things happening very easy to be, it's very easy to be diverted in
33. 1:49this time period.
34. 1:51You know, it's, it's, it's astounding to me how the world is conveniently ignorant of the
35. 1:56fact that Israel's taking out the Hamas leader and the Hezbollah leader followed the Iranian
36. 2:08back terrorists launching rockets at the playground killing 12 Israeli children. We're kind of
37. 2:15leaves that out of the calculus. It's from it shows remarkable restraint on Israel's part,
38. 2:20frankly, that they executed these precision missions. They didn't bomb any towns. They
39. 2:25in the tax of villains, they didn't, you know, do a widespread offensive.
40. 2:30They were very precise and it shows remarkable capacity as well that they were able to get
41. 2:35Hania, Hania, I don't know how he pronounce his name, in Tehran.
42. 2:41But the world leaves out the part about the mangled bodies of dead children following all
43. 2:47of things are transpired on October 12th.
44. 2:49Nevertheless, we, I mean, October 7th, I'm sorry, not October 12th, October 7th.
45. 2:55We nevertheless must remain focused.
46. 3:01The primary means that God has established to cascade his remnant generationally is the
47. 3:07family.
48. 3:08This is actually something I'm looking forward to sharing with the Darbonne Church of Christ
49. 3:14next week in Farmerville, Louisiana.
50. 3:16And again, if you're in the area, you're welcome to come, but seating is limited, seating is
51. 3:21limited.
52. 3:22So I would encourage you to get there early.
53. 3:24But we're going to talk about the centrality of family to God's plan for his kingdom, amongst
54. 3:29other things.
55. 3:30This is one of the things we're going to talk about.
56. 3:32But as you're making your transition right now to your full-time job, understand that
57. 3:39it is just that full-time commitment.
58. 3:43I've said it before, and I'll say it again, one of the things Marie and I have found with
59. 3:48interacting with our children, we found this to be true, that quantity of time gives rise
60. 3:53to quality of time. Quantity of time gives rise to quality of time. One of the not so secret secrets
61. 4:02of the discipleship relationship that parents and children should enjoy is that frequency
62. 4:08of interaction creates peer expectation. You ever wonder why people just describe this as if this
63. 4:14is an inevitable phenomenon of adolescent development. It's the Thanos of adolescent development.
64. 4:20Oh, you know, children, they get to a certain age and they tune you out.
65. 4:23Not necessarily.
66. 4:24It's not an automatic that happens, what you're witnessing is the phenomena of peer formation.
67. 4:31Simply put, the people who spend the most time with your children, their perspectives and
68. 4:36opinions become the most important to your children.
69. 4:39It's not as if all of a sudden your children are tuning you out, it's simply that they spend
70. 4:43so much time away from you.
71. 4:46They into it, they into it the awareness that the time that they're with you is so infrequent
72. 4:52that it causes there to be a devaluation, so to speak, of the significance of your perspective
73. 4:58in the reality of the everyday lives.
74. 5:00To say it in a different way, if you live, for example, I'll use my hometown, if you live
75. 5:05in New Orleans, you're not necessarily going to be too focused on what people's opinions
76. 5:11of you may be in Des Moines, Iowa.
77. 5:14Why?
78. 5:15you don't interact with them very frequently.
79. 5:17They may have all kinds of opinions about gumbo,
80. 5:20about crawfish a touffé,
81. 5:22they may have all kinds of opinions about your habits,
82. 5:24your dietary, consumption, your lifestyle,
83. 5:27but because you don't interact with them that frequently,
84. 5:30you're not really moved very much
85. 5:32about what they have to say.
86. 5:34It doesn't mean that if you become aware
87. 5:36of what they have to say,
88. 5:36it might not have a certain impact,
89. 5:38but simply because they are not involved intimately
90. 5:43and frequently in your daily affairs,
91. 5:45Their perspective doesn't resonate with you the same way.
92. 5:49The perspective of someone who interacts with you
93. 5:52on a regular basis would resonate with you.
94. 5:55That's all that's happening, you know?
95. 5:59Where do children learn?
96. 6:01And I experienced this myself growing up.
97. 6:03Where do children learn Jordan's or shoes they should have?
98. 6:05They learn that from peer groups.
99. 6:08They didn't, most of the time,
100. 6:09they didn't just decide, you know what?
101. 6:11These new balances ain't working no more.
102. 6:13I need to get these J's.
103. 6:15Usually it's a product of peer formation.
104. 6:18You have kids making fun of certain kids.
105. 6:20You have the social hierarchy establishing.
106. 6:22They're social group has determined
107. 6:23these are the shoes you want.
108. 6:25And parents often puzzled,
109. 6:26why does my child wanna have this?
110. 6:29Why does my daughter wanna have a Stanley Cup?
111. 6:32You know, I have perfectly good cups
112. 6:34and tumblers over here that are not Stanley,
113. 6:36but why does it have to be Stanley?
114. 6:37That doesn't come from home guys.
115. 6:41And what we often feel to realize
116. 6:43is by abandoning our children, let me say it differently,
117. 6:49by sending our children to be, here's their favorite word,
118. 6:53socialized away from us, what we're unintentionally doing
119. 6:59is setting our children up to develop a perception
120. 7:03of significance and importance of the people
121. 7:08to whom we send them to.
122. 7:10That's why it's not that they hit children here
123. 7:12at a certain age and they don't want to listen
124. 7:14of their parents is just that they realized over time they spend so little time with their
125. 7:18parents that their parents perspectives begin to be less significant to them on a daily basis.
126. 7:29This is why we as parents while we have our children under our authority and in our rules
127. 7:33we should strive to be their primary influence, the primary influence in their lives because
128. 7:42our commitment is to steer them in a God with direction, to rear them in the nurture and admonition
129. 7:47of the Lord. To the word of God we go. 2 Corinthians 10, there was no charge for that, but that was
130. 7:53free. I was like free, I don't want that, take that back. 2 Corinthians 10, I want to remind us of
131. 8:01something here. Because I'll say it like Michael Jordan said it once. You miss every shot you don't
132. 8:08take. It's too often in our country, particularly in our culture now, believers absent ourselves
133. 8:21from significant discourse. And as a result, we lose the opportunity to be salt and light
134. 8:31on many fronts because we allow the world to intimidate us from engaging in certain conversations.
135. 8:35But the word of God says this, second Corinthians chapter 10, verses 3 through 5, a very familiar
136. 8:40passage of scripture says this for though we walk in the flesh we do not war
137. 8:46according to the flesh for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh some
138. 8:52translations there say they are not carnal for the weapons of our warfare are not
139. 8:59of the flesh but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses some
140. 9:08translations say there, for the destruction of strongholds, verse 5, for we are destroying
141. 9:18speculations, and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God. And we are
142. 9:24taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.
143. 9:32Hamilton Corner PSA, public service announcement, if you are in Christ, for though we live in
144. 9:38our natural bodies. For though we walk in our natural bodies, we do not wage war according
145. 9:45to naturalism. But though we walk in the flesh, we do not wage war according to the flesh.
146. 9:54Spiritual warfare is a reality. It is not a warfare that is prosecuted in the flesh. And
147. 10:02let me be clear, it's not that we don't do things naturally. The source of our potency,
148. 10:08However, it's not of the flesh.
149. 10:10The source of our stratagems, strategies are not fleshly originated.
150. 10:18They do not stem from the flesh.
151. 10:20There is spiritual wisdom that we receive that gives us marching orders that we execute.
152. 10:27Naturally, I would argue one of them on a national level was seeing Roe vs. Wade overturned.
153. 10:35There's no doubt that seeing Roe overturned was a feature of spiritual victory, spiritual warfare,
154. 10:42victory, but it included a download of wisdom from God with practical strategy to implement
155. 10:49that moved the court ultimately to see truth and wisdom.
156. 10:56So when the scripture says the weapons of our warfare are not carnal and out of the flesh,
157. 11:01it doesn't mean we don't do anything naturally.
158. 11:03It means that we don't rely upon a strong over the flesh.
159. 11:06It means we don't rely upon the genesis of our engagement is not the flesh.
160. 11:13But then the word of God explains to us not only the weapons of our warfare and not carnal
161. 11:17out of the flesh, but they are divinely powerful. The potency of our spiritual weaponry is God
162. 11:26Himself. See, it's not that we're waging. The scripture refers to the Word of God as the sword of the
163. 11:33Spirit. It's a sword, but it's not wielded, carnally. It's not wielded by the flesh. It's the sword
164. 11:41that the Spirit of God wields through us as His vehicles. The weapons of our warfare are so
165. 11:50divinely powerful that they are sufficient for the destruction of fortresses, the destruction
166. 11:58of strongholds, much of the destruction that has taken root in our day. The scripture diagnosis is
167. 12:06perfectly for we are destroying speculations. King James there says we are destroying imaginations,
168. 12:13vain imaginations. That terminology, that translation is rendered from the Greek phrase
169. 12:21Lagismos, which is a Greek phrase that lends toward the English root word logic. We are destroying
170. 12:32Lagismos, speculations, ideologies, much of the spiritual warfare that is transpiring.
171. 12:40When we engage in spiritual warfare, we are combating demonic ideology.
172. 12:46Why am I focused on ideology? Because as you heard me say numerous times,
173. 12:49the great Francis Shafer said something very similar, ideas have consequences.
174. 12:58Bad ideas create casualties. Antichrist ideas create eternally spiritual captives.
175. 13:07ETERNAL CAPTIS to say it simply, a people that is gripped by a rejection of God, a rejection
176. 13:19of Messiah, the consequences are ETERNAL damnation.
177. 13:25You understand what I'm saying?
178. 13:30Ideas are the driving force or the foundational mechanism for behavior.
179. 13:40times past in America, you didn't have adults running around talking about, I'm a furry,
180. 13:44put me in the suit, trying to bark.
181. 13:46You didn't have adults trying to make a case for intimate relationships between children
182. 13:51and adults.
183. 13:53You didn't have adults running around trying to say, oh, let love is love.
184. 13:59Went too long ago when homosexuality was diagnosed as a social pathology, a mental disorder.
185. 14:07What's happened?
186. 14:08Ideology in our culture has changed,
187. 14:10which has resulted in a change in behavior.
188. 14:15For make no mistake about it, the scripture says,
189. 14:18that the weapons of our warfare are divinely powerful,
190. 14:22no matter how strong and how entrenched certain
191. 14:26loggies miles may be,
192. 14:31they're not more potent than our God.
193. 14:34So I simply want to encourage you,
194. 14:37as I'm encouraging myself to study the show ourselves approved,
195. 14:40to understand what we believe,
196. 14:42to understand why we believe it, to be able to reasonably articulate it to the watching
197. 14:46and dying world because eternity hangs in the balance.
198. 14:51And the truth of the King of Glory and salvation and Messiah is worth fighting for.
199. 15:00You've heard a lot about saving babies on this show.
200. 15:03That's because it's important to me personally, and let me just be frank with you.
201. 15:06We need to save them.
202. 15:08That's why we've partnered with Preborn, the nation's leader in introducing mothers
203. 15:12with unplanned pregnancies to their babies.
204. 15:15And once she hears that heartbeat and sees that precious life growing inside of her,
205. 15:19she is twice as likely to choose life.
206. 15:22Now that's a miracle.
207. 15:23But quite honestly, if we don't save them, who will?
208. 15:27Preborn receives no government funding so their work is completely dependent on us.
209. 15:32Preborn has rescued over 280,000 babies, and that's not all.
210. 15:36They provide love, support, and counseling for up to two years for free, saving lives
211. 15:42and souls.
212. 15:43One ultrasound is just $28 or $140 helps to rescue five babies' lives.
213. 15:49Abortion doesn't stop, so we can't.
214. 15:52Together, you and I can save lives.
215. 15:55Just dial pound250 on your cell and say the keyword baby.
216. 15:59That's 250 baby or go to preborn.com.
217. 16:03That's preborn.com.
218. 16:04Oh, shining light into the darkness.
219. 16:12This is the Hamilton corner on American family radio.
220. 16:16Welcome back to the Hamilton corner.
221. 16:18Abraham Hamilton the third here.
222. 16:19I am delighted to have on the program of a brother in Christ who I had the privilege
223. 16:24to meet at a, I guess I would call it a planning session to restore truth to our
224. 16:31society and directly confront Obergefell versus Hodges, frankly.
225. 16:35The brother I'm talking about is none other than Jeff Shafer,
226. 16:40who is the Director of the Hale Institute at New St. Andrews College.
227. 16:44He graduated with honors from the Regent University School of Law.
228. 16:47Early in his legal career he operated a general practice firm in Cincinnati with a
229. 16:51particular emphasis on criminal defense litigation.
230. 16:54Thereafter he practiced in a law partnership focusing on elections law
231. 16:58and civil constitutional cases. From 2005 to 2020
232. 17:02He served as senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom at his Washington DC and
233. 17:06Scottsdale, Arizona offices.
234. 17:08Mr. Shafer has litigated public interest cases in federal and state trial and appellate courts
235. 17:13throughout the United States, as well as developing academic and advocacy initiatives on matters
236. 17:19of policy concern.
237. 17:21Outside of the courtroom, he has addressed a wide array of audiences and academic and community
238. 17:25venues in the U.S. and abroad on matters of legal and cultural interest.
239. 17:30my guest is none other
240. 17:31then jeff shafer jeff thank you for joining me here on the program
241. 17:36yet that's great to be able to speak with you a ball much for having all the
242. 17:39pleasures mind and i'll just say this right now
243. 17:42uh... i wanted to have this conversation with you because your presentation
244. 17:46was phenomenal
245. 17:48and i i wanted to make sure that the hamilton corner corner audience
246. 17:52got to benefit from your wisdom
247. 17:54and i think it's it's timely in its profound
248. 17:56and i'm i'm excited about being able to take on an issue
249. 18:00that should have been addressed before but i'm grateful that we're dressing it
250. 18:03now but before i get ahead of myself
251. 18:05would you please share with the audience
252. 18:07what the hail institute at new state andrew's college is
253. 18:13it is a uh... relatively recent initiative of the college and uh... it's
254. 18:19focused on matters particularly of jurisprudence
255. 18:22uh... the hail institute comes from
256. 18:26Well, it's named after Sir Matthew Hale, who is the 17th century jurist in England,
257. 18:31of quite some renown and capability.
258. 18:35And it was in the common law heritage in which he was operating.
259. 18:40And of course, one of the things raiming to emphasize is the virtues of that system.
260. 18:44But the general pushes to kind of think carefully about the precepts of law that are necessary
261. 18:50and important to a well-structured and virtuous society.
262. 18:54So we go about doing that in various and sundry ways, hosting speakers and conferences and
263. 19:00symposia, producing various forms of writing and other presentation.
264. 19:07We have courses that we teach within the college itself.
265. 19:10So all oriented toward and appropriate, we might say remedial view of the law, which is
266. 19:15suffering these days.
267. 19:21That is amazing.
268. 19:22Thank you so much for sharing that.
269. 19:24new st. Andrews colleges is that in Moscow Moscow idol.
270. 19:28I know it is up in the Pacific Northwest in the beautiful
271. 19:33pollution.
272. 19:34Wait you in the beautiful would you say beautiful.
273. 19:38Pollute.
274. 19:39Oh okay.
275. 19:40Yes the rolling hills of northern idol.
276. 19:43Yes.
277. 19:44Yes now for those who may not be aware of what the common law
278. 19:48tradition is would you just explain that briefly and share
279. 19:51what that is briefly.
280. 19:53The common law was developed in England and ended up being our birthright of sorts.
281. 19:59Here it was transferred across the Atlantic with the colonists and it's the legal system
282. 20:04that we inherited and of course with that transfer there were also some adjustments along the
283. 20:10way but it is the system understood by the founders and so much of the US Constitution
284. 20:16is based on precept and understanding resident in the common law itself which is one of
285. 20:21reasons i think it is vital that we kind of return to restore and understand its
286. 20:26historical dimensions so that we better understand our own constitution and legal
287. 20:30system
288. 20:32now what one of the great uh... detriment to my view that that that that we've
289. 20:36we've suffered
290. 20:37uh... and in our country is this
291. 20:40really a severance of our constitution from the principles of the declaration of
292. 20:44independence
293. 20:45to where
294. 20:47uh... we we moved away from kind of a a black stonian
295. 20:51ethic and and what i would
296. 20:54would
297. 20:54positive that
298. 20:57so will you mail
299. 20:58would have
300. 20:59ascribed toward
301. 21:01uh... for more legal positivistic route do you do you see that as being a
302. 21:05country contribute contributing factor
303. 21:08to our detriment of josephredential stand-up currently
304. 21:12that that's that's quite right yet it really has been a
305. 21:16flip
306. 21:16from the prior understanding of
307. 21:19of the law is something given
308. 21:21is in a sense
309. 21:23received by us and and resident within the created order
310. 21:27instead it becomes exclusively the mechanisms of those who are in power
311. 21:32and so rather than honoring pre-existing truths of existence
312. 21:37they are uh...
313. 21:38merely uh... opportunities that is those who are operating the law are taking
314. 21:43advantage of opportunities to manipulate the world
315. 21:46in ways of their choosing
316. 21:49which unsurprisingly results in people like i don't know
317. 21:53mister biden presenting his desire to reform
318. 21:57the court
319. 21:59uh... with his latest uh...
320. 22:02pronouncement in that regard
321. 22:06bhi i'm not sure so sure that that was going to get off the ground
322. 22:10uh...
323. 22:11but it's
324. 22:11you know a kind of posturing that's revealing his
325. 22:15and i suppose his administration dissatisfaction with some of the
326. 22:18development that have emerged from the Supreme Court recently.
327. 22:21Sure.
328. 22:22And I don't expect it to get off the ground either, but it's really
329. 22:25them basically saying the not so quiet part out loud, which has
330. 22:29been the desire of not only the current administration, but really
331. 22:32people prior to this current administration when court
332. 22:36decisions don't go the way they want them to go.
333. 22:40Quite right.
334. 22:40Yes.
335. 22:41Now this brings me to the crux of the conversation I really wanted
336. 22:45to have with you.
337. 22:46And I was so moved by your presentation.
338. 22:47because at the event that I described, I discussed the fact that marriage is a pre-political institution.
339. 22:56God is the designer and ordainer of marriage, and as a result, he alone defines marriage,
340. 23:04and it frankly doesn't matter to me what a five-four majority said in 2015 in the Burgofel vs. Hodges decision,
341. 23:12that decision is just as abhorrent and aberrant from its genesis as the Roe vs. Wade decision was.
342. 23:21And because it is God's institution, he alone is its definer, it's worth fighting for.
343. 23:29And so for far too long, many Christians have basically ceded territory or simply refused to even consider,
344. 23:36you know, Obergefell is not an unassailable decree from a monarch.
345. 23:40it's something that should be confronted.
346. 23:42Your presentation described something that is so profound,
347. 23:46in my view, that a lot of people are assuming things,
348. 23:52using Obergefell's adjustification,
349. 23:54but assuming things that Obergefell did not say.
350. 23:59Where would you like to begin your discussion,
351. 24:02our discussion now with confronting the fact
352. 24:05that there are lots of things that Obergefell didn't say
353. 24:07and that our society needs to be confronted with the fact
354. 24:10that none of that has any bearing in Supreme Court president.
355. 24:13Oh, dear.
356. 24:14Well, maybe as a means of getting started here, we could contextualize the discussion and
357. 24:20the urgency in it by first discussing a bit of the background or the significance of this
358. 24:25historically unprecedented and monstrous notion of same-sex marriage so-called.
359. 24:31Though obviously in the brevity of our discussion today, I think the best we can do is so to
360. 24:35speak put a toe in the pool rather than take a real swim, as there is just so much that
361. 24:41could be and I would say should be covered in a subject like this due to the enormity
362. 24:46that is implicated when our legal cultural authorities renounce in spite the created order
363. 24:53that you were just speaking of, of the marital norm, the significance of male and female.
364. 24:58In all of this, of course, affects the rule of law itself, or of authority or truth transcending
365. 25:03the judge or legislator in the first place.
366. 25:06So I'd like to say that what is at stake in scandalizing marriage is the, how would we
367. 25:13put it, elimination of the publicly accepted conceptual predicates, that anchor recognition
368. 25:19of the integrity of the family as a real given created institution with its own authority,
369. 25:25independence, and special calling that holds and represents human meaning.
370. 25:31When the law is hijacked to install a lie about human nature and relationality, a radical
371. 25:40lie about the family, the whole society is subjected to disorder with all the injustices
372. 25:47and upheavals that attend to that.
373. 25:50The dynamic that's now operable is that the very idea, father, mother of child, the family
374. 25:56is denied and as a result, imperiled in law.
375. 26:00no social order worthy of the name would allow this sort of thing.
376. 26:05But we've had some specifics that have arisen that might be helpful for flushing out this
377. 26:09idea.
378. 26:11After Obergefell's ruling on a purported right to a civil marriage licensed by same-sex couples,
379. 26:18numerous courts as well as executive agencies and certain legislatures have extended out what
380. 26:24they took to be the logic of the court's ruling.
381. 26:28is what you were alluding to before, to suggest that the ruling means much more than giving
382. 26:34civil marriage licenses to same-sex couples.
383. 26:36It also is they insist something that silently renovated huge swaths of historic state family
384. 26:42law standards.
385. 26:44So for instance, lower courts have ruled, as has the Supreme Court itself, that a state
386. 26:50must convert a child's original birth certificate from a vital record that documents the child's
387. 26:56progenitors, his mother and father, into instead, what should we call it, a parentage status
388. 27:03coupon, given as a benefit to a same-sex partner who is unrelated to the child.
389. 27:09This deviance means that a birth certificate is gutted of its genealogical purpose, thus
390. 27:14redefining the document to erase any record of the child's father or perhaps mother, replacing
391. 27:20that erased father or mother with the name of an unrelated adult, so as to dignify her
392. 27:25or homosexual relationship.
393. 27:27So this is the way things have been going.
394. 27:29Genealogy itself thereby is falling victim
395. 27:32to the so-called equality imperative
396. 27:35as this birth certificate is redefined
397. 27:37and we might say redesigned itself.
398. 27:41I mean, what is on the certificate anymore is changing.
399. 27:44And of course, in the process,
400. 27:45the newborn infant is converted into a statement
401. 27:47impulated pawn to be placed with whatever adult
402. 27:51that officials deemed to merit the government benefit
403. 27:53of child custody.
404. 27:54This same sort of thing is going on, you know, when I say this thing, I mean like child as a
405. 28:00government benefit for distribution. It works out also in the context of same-sex divorce proceedings.
406. 28:07When, you know, the woman who gives birth to the child that was conceived by artificial
407. 28:12insemination or IDS during the course of the quote marriage at the time of the divorce proceedings,
408. 28:19that mother then wants to challenge the claim to the child of her former female
409. 28:24partner. Yet courts have consistently ruled in favor of that unrelated woman
410. 28:30as being an automatic parent and thus with the equal legal right to custody or
411. 28:35visitation after her divorce in relationship with this child who's
412. 28:40actually the child that's the mother who she's departing from. So why is it that
413. 28:45the courts are doing this because they explain under the historic state law
414. 28:51treating husband wife marriage the husband of the birthing mother is
415. 28:55robotably presumed to be the father of her child
416. 28:59so post-oburgafel equality they say requires a woman who is so-called married
417. 29:06to the birthing mother must also be presumed the father of the child
418. 29:11except with the now androgynous twist of calling her that parent
419. 29:15of the child you follow i do follow and and and i i've long said
420. 29:19uh... that people who sometimes
421. 29:22uh...
422. 29:23i would say uh...
423. 29:26pigeonhole themselves and saying well there's a a toxic war on
424. 29:29uh... war on toxic masculinity or there's a war in femininity with the reality is
425. 29:33it's a demonic war on the michael day
426. 29:35to reduce
427. 29:36that complementarily distinct maleness and femianist into an amalgamated indes
428. 29:42undistinguishable human goo
429. 29:45That is it is core and effort to put a finger in the eye of the creator of mankind
430. 29:53Yes, yeah, that seems to me exactly right these courts are taking what is a morally and
431. 30:00anthropologically-frated
432. 30:02physiological reality of procreation a
433. 30:05Profundity of procreation and converting it into an exclusively legal status of custodial function
434. 30:12which means their existence is not, as you said before, a pre-existing truth of being,
435. 30:18but it's only a concoction of political power, which means the family is a state invention
436. 30:24full stop. It's not a separate jurisdiction with a divinely created order of human existence,
437. 30:29as you were mentioning before. And what do you suppose the consequence of that principle might
438. 30:34be when serving as a dogma of constitutional law?
439. 30:37I'll tell us.
440. 30:40Anyway, you see, this is why I want to insist that we take every available opportunity to
441. 30:45resist the unjustified extensions of Obergefell.
442. 30:49Yes.
443. 30:50So to insist not just on working toward its overruling, but in the interim limiting it to
444. 30:57the strict boundaries of the actual ruling itself rather than extending it out in the
445. 31:01waste that I'm mentioning.
446. 31:04so important that this is done and by and large this territory has largely been
447. 31:10seeded you know and you have judges and certain instances who want to be known
448. 31:15for being advocates for equality, progress, etcetera, etcetera who sometimes take the
449. 31:23bait if you will to stretch far beyond what Obergefell says and be the
450. 31:29progenitors of the next iteration of what they view as inevitable consequences of
451. 31:33of the burgofell but that's just not law
452. 31:37and nor is it true
453. 31:39and it must be contended
454. 31:40right
455. 31:42yes that's right you know there are two different ways that we ought to approach
456. 31:45this discussion
457. 31:46one is
458. 31:47the recognition of the cultural annihilation that's implied in the idea
459. 31:54unprecedented historically of same-sex marriage
460. 31:58there is no stopping
461. 32:01no stopping the outworking of the concepts that are lodged within that deviant idea.
462. 32:07Okay, and I want to pick up on that because we're coming to want on a break,
463. 32:11but I'd like to pick up right there when we get to the other side of the break.
464. 32:15Why it's important to arrest, hinder, and ultimately work toward overturning a burgofell,
465. 32:23but we have to stop the encroachment
466. 32:26societally from these deviant and aberrant ideas
467. 32:31because it becomes normalized.
468. 32:33Ideas have consequences, bad ideas create casualties,
469. 32:37and we are literally dislodging our entire society from truth.
470. 32:41And that has inevitable detrimental consequences
471. 32:46to sit that way.
472. 32:47And if that is not an understatement,
473. 32:48I don't know what an understatement is.
474. 32:50You are listening to the Hamilton Corner.
475. 32:51My guest is Jeff Schae for Director of the Hale Institute at New St. Andrew's College.
476. 32:56Stay with us.
477. 33:04The stand provides a Christian perspective on current issues that are important to your
478. 33:08family.
479. 33:09Produced by the American Family Association, this monthly magazine is full of articles and
480. 33:13stories about people who are making a difference in their community and around the world.
481. 33:18Sign up today and receive a free six month subscription.
482. 33:21Visit thestand.net or call 1-800-326-4543.
483. 33:33Hamilton Quarter podcast and one-minute commentaries are available at aFR.net
484. 33:38back to the Hamilton Corner on American Family Radio.
485. 33:42Welcome back to the Hamilton Corner. Abraham Hamilton III is my name. My guest
486. 33:47is the director of the Hale Institute at New St. Andrews College, Jeff Shafer. And
487. 33:50before we went to the break, Jeff, you were explaining why it's important that we
488. 33:56place the proper perspective on what should be viewed as a restrained ruling in decision
489. 34:05from the Supreme Court in the Obergevav versus Hodge's case of 2015.
490. 34:09Right.
491. 34:10Yes.
492. 34:11During the break, we were chatting that there is a real vital distinction between the cultural
493. 34:15disaster of accepting the deviance of something called same-sex marriage on the one hand and
494. 34:20on the other the significance of the Supreme Court ruling like Obergeviel in the context
495. 34:25of the American constitutional system.
496. 34:27are two very different things. And so with respect to the latter, there are a number of points
497. 34:32that we might register about Obergefell. I mean, a long list, but let's just pick some off
498. 34:39here. First of all, a Supreme Court ruling is not the law of the land, and please let us
499. 34:46stop saying as much. Article 6 of the Constitution tells us what the law of the land is, which
500. 34:51includes the Constitution itself, along with congressional statutes and treaties that are
501. 34:55and keeping with it, but it does not identify Supreme Court decisions as the law of the
502. 35:00land.
503. 35:01And the historic understanding of court rulings in our Anglo-American common law legal tradition,
504. 35:05which would have been well understood at the time of the drafting and the constitution,
505. 35:09was that judicial rulings were evidence of law, not law itself.
506. 35:14Profound to think of...
507. 35:16Yeah, very important distinction.
508. 35:18Yes.
509. 35:19Justice Gorsuch wrote a magnificent concurring opinion in the recent Loper-Brite case that
510. 35:23came down a little over a month ago that elaborated this important point.
511. 35:27But indeed, links just like other judicial decisions are often mistaken demonstrably so,
512. 35:33and thus are frequently overruled by the court.
513. 35:36And this has happened hundreds of times at the Supreme Court itself.
514. 35:39Court rulings have no binding authority over the Supreme Court except insofar as it contains
515. 35:44a persuasive influence for the court to treat as the law of the land.
516. 35:50And obviously, erroneous and made-up decision like Obergefell that barely pretended to be
517. 35:55interpreting the Constitution is in effect to give the court or five justices on it, the
518. 36:00power to amend the Constitution.
519. 36:03Not only is that not a feature of Article III's judicial power, it's also a violation of Article
520. 36:08V of the Constitution that establishes the mechanism for constitutional amendment.
521. 36:15But more fundamentally or simply, in addressing Obergefell's incompetence as a vehicle to
522. 36:20overthrow the family law systems of the several states is the limited nature of the Supreme
523. 36:26Court's Article III judicial power to begin with.
524. 36:30Unlike the legislative power, which is not just in the several states but in the Congress
525. 36:35at the federal level under Article I, the Supreme Court exercises only judicial authority
526. 36:40which under Article III engages and operates only upon the existence of a case or controversy
527. 36:47that is filed in court, which entails that the court's authority also extends only to the
528. 36:53parties before it, who have been made parties to that case or controversy, either as plaintiffs
529. 36:58or drawing in defendants.
530. 37:00This was well recognized throughout our legal history until we collectively forgot it around
531. 37:05the second half of the 20th century, but earlier it's not so.
532. 37:09You remember Abraham Lincoln's observation that the Supreme Court's reprehensible ruling
533. 37:16in the Dred Scott case.
534. 37:17He registered the idea that while it was binding on the parties before the court in that case,
535. 37:22it did not extend beyond them to other officials or to the nation at large.
536. 37:27Recall, he mentioned in his first inaugural, if the court, just by resolving a dispute between
537. 37:34parties, thereby makes policy for the entire nation, we've kind of lost our entire constitutional
538. 37:42system in the process.
539. 37:45And as since we'd be upending our system into some sort of unrecognizable form, having
540. 37:50nothing to do with the Constitutional acknowledgement of separated and distinct departments of authority,
541. 37:55subject matter, distinction, and so on and so forth.
542. 37:58So that's kind of a big picture that there's just in the first instance judicial rulings
543. 38:06themselves are very limited.
544. 38:08They do not make policy.
545. 38:09The Supreme Court's opinions are not pieces of legislation.
546. 38:13shouldn't be reviewed as if they were.
547. 38:18By the way, I guess I should say, you know, in view of the fact that we've seen something
548. 38:23of a public shift on the authority of the Supreme Court, we really do now have a Supreme Court
549. 38:30majority that is much more sophisticated on these kinds of issues and willing to talk
550. 38:35about them.
551. 38:36Yes.
552. 38:37You know, there were a number of cases that came down from the court this last term in June,
553. 38:42which the justices showed a rather punctilious attention to the nature and limits of judicial
554. 38:47authority.
555. 38:48So they were emphasizing the circumscribed reach of constitutional grants of authority,
556. 38:56of the court to issue injunctions, whether the court will rule on legal claims that don't
557. 39:02implicate a sufficient harm to the claimant, whether the court's case law can overcome
558. 39:06supreme authority, the constitution itself and so on and on.
559. 39:09So these questions about judicial authority in the Supreme Court itself are really getting
560. 39:13a lot more attention from certain justices in particular, but my suspicion is that there
561. 39:19is a majority on the court now that really is sensitive to the reach of its own decisions
562. 39:26and would be open to arguments about the limitations of cases like Obergefell.
563. 39:30Yeah, I agree with you.
564. 39:32And it's the judicial acknowledgement that we are a nation constitutionally that we have
565. 39:37separate powers but not co-equal branches of government.
566. 39:41We don't have the same role nor domestic potency
567. 39:45in terms of determining national policy
568. 39:49and it's a proper constitutional balance,
569. 39:52which is necessary in order to instruct the nation
570. 39:55as to how we as the governed
571. 39:58who delegate to our elected representatives
572. 40:01via our consent a proper conforming to constitutional norms.
573. 40:06Yes, well put. You know, there's some really fascinating scholarship that's emerging on
574. 40:15these kinds of questions. I think a prominent figure here is Jonathan Mitchell, who was the
575. 40:23driving force, the author behind Texas, the SB8 statute. But he's written a fascinating
576. 40:29piece in explaining that Supreme Court justices cannot strike down or invalidate any laws. It
577. 40:37can only enjoy government officials who are made parties to the case
578. 40:42uh... requiring they not enforce the law of the court teams on constitutional
579. 40:46that is to say the laws themselves are not affected it's just the prerogatives
580. 40:50of the officials who are defendants in the case in it's for that reason that we
581. 40:54need to make clear that obergo felt that exactly nothing
582. 40:58to wipe state marriage laws off the books
583. 41:01and then again yes please one more time for the ball the way in the back
584. 41:07yeah in my state of residence which is i don't like yours in the city
585. 41:11there is no same-sex marriage recognized in law
586. 41:15the relevant provisions of the state constitution statutes
587. 41:18make plane that marriage is a union of man and woman
588. 41:22and the inept vote of five justices in the uberghal case
589. 41:25which by the way did not involve i don't know i should add
590. 41:29did not could not do anything to i don't know marriage law
591. 41:33it's not even clear what
592. 41:35for self-speakable language in the case merely stated that state laws are invalid to the extent
593. 41:42they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage.
594. 41:46But that's a ruling that has been universally ignored, as it means that husband-wife marriage
595. 41:51laws are invalid.
596. 41:52Though precisely those laws have been in nonstop operation in states across the nation since
597. 41:57Obergefell is announced.
598. 42:00But in all events, was Idaho, was Mississippi, were they parties to this case?
599. 42:03that they present arguments as to the nature and the virtues of their family law systems,
600. 42:09no and no.
601. 42:12The Supreme Court's ruling only was addressed to the parties in that case and it did nothing
602. 42:17to the laws of the states implicated.
603. 42:20It only issued a kind of injunction against officials from enforcing laws in a particular
604. 42:27way.
605. 42:28That's a longer conversation, but I just wanted to flag it as one that's of moment
606. 42:33for the discussion that we're having.
607. 42:35Yeah.
608. 42:36So what would you submit needs to be done in order to advance?
609. 42:43I would say probably the two-pronged approach first,
610. 42:47limiting the metastasizing application
611. 42:51of or what some might view as inevitable consequences
612. 42:55of a burgafell.
613. 42:56What would need to be done in order to accomplish that?
614. 42:59What we need to see is states with a measure of backbone
615. 43:03refusing to do anything beyond,
616. 43:07I mean, I think it would be reasonable for states
617. 43:10to simply say we're not going to abide
618. 43:12by the decision in the first place
619. 43:13because we were not parties to that case.
620. 43:15Now of course, that's going to invite litigation
621. 43:18that will have to be fought out and so on.
622. 43:20And obviously, Supreme Court precedent
623. 43:22is going to have substantial influence
624. 43:25on the outcomes that obtain in that subsequent line
625. 43:29of litigation.
626. 43:30So let's set aside the question of Obergefell's
627. 43:33licensing ruling and just move over to the questions of whether states should hold on
628. 43:40to its laws that say on our birth certificate templates there is mother and father and there's
629. 43:46nothing else.
630. 43:47There's no changes to be had there.
631. 43:50No Supreme Court decision has addressed whether the law in Mississippi or the law in Idaho
632. 43:56on that question is valid or invalid.
633. 43:58the question about child custody, whether the adoption laws continue to be operational in
634. 44:05our states rather than being overborn by same-sex partners who want to have automatic access
635. 44:10to his or her partner's child.
636. 44:13You follow me?
637. 44:14All of these kinds of natural family dimensions that are just getting steamrolled in a number
638. 44:20of contexts.
639. 44:22I think states and attorneys general for states really need to be refusing to do anything or
640. 44:28permit an incursion into state law in any way
641. 44:31that is arguably an extension of a burger felt but in fact was never ruled
642. 44:36upon in that case
643. 44:38now i i know what we're talking about the technical legal realities uh... but
644. 44:43what why do you surmised that the steam rolling
645. 44:46of the basically the family structure at the state level is is taking place
646. 44:49what why do you think that's happening
647. 44:52i i don't know i mean i find the whole thing astonishing
648. 44:56I mean, states typically are so jealous of their prerogatives in their historic law.
649. 45:01So, if this were a matter of, let's say, water rights or a boundary dispute between states,
650. 45:07something along these lines, you know perfectly well that your attorney general's office.
651. 45:12Across the country, we'd see the same thing, this fervent resistance to any kind of additional
652. 45:17expansion of a principle that's unlike.
653. 45:21But for some reason, we have all just laying down flat before this kind of juggernaut as
654. 45:28if it's irresistible.
655. 45:30And so no resistance has been put up to it.
656. 45:32Why that is the case?
657. 45:33I have no idea.
658. 45:35But what makes, we might say, aggravates that concern is there are so many bases upon which
659. 45:42to resist.
660. 45:45I'm certain not many people have even considered it, and it very well could be because of the
661. 45:53political nature of it.
662. 45:55What Attorney General wants to be found, sticking their neck out to oppose the cultural juggernaut
663. 46:01that is sexual deviance and perversion.
664. 46:06The sexual revolution is one of the most profound, perhaps the most profound sort of revolution
665. 46:12in human history.
666. 46:15imperative is visible all around us. Obviously, there's penalties that are, you just alluded
667. 46:21to this, penalties that would be extended to anyone who resists its ministrations. So,
668. 46:27yes, it would really take a sturdy state group of officials and litigators to stand up to
669. 46:37this in the way that I'm suggesting. But it's only civilization that's at stake. So maybe
670. 46:42we could go ahead and drum up some integrity within our ranks and do something about this.
671. 46:47Yeah, and I just want to invite you just to expound that a little bit. It's only civilization,
672. 46:52that's a state, and it is something that provoked a chuckle from me because of how true and obviously
673. 46:59true it is. Would you just take a few moments and articulate why you can say with such conviction
674. 47:05that it's only civilization that's a state? Well, you know, all of life, both explicit and
675. 47:12implicit. I'm talking both on the cultural side of things as well as the legal side of things,
676. 47:18is operational kind of on the basis of an understanding of what the human being is.
677. 47:27So throughout history we have acknowledged that male and female are significant given
678. 47:34features of human life and they're coming together in marriages, the basis of civilization,
679. 47:39basis of the social order. This is how we have children emerging into the world. And so there's a
680. 47:45kind of reality and significance to us as persons that's tethered to our being male, being female,
681. 47:53being familial. And when I say, you know, the law itself is built on this, there's all kinds of
682. 48:01presumptions that go back through the ages that in which the state differs to the reality of the
683. 48:07family. It has not treated it as some sort of utilitarian concoction. It has instead kind
684. 48:14of recognized it as being a truth of existence. And now we are in this revolutionary overthrow
685. 48:20getting away with doing off with that idea. And that truth, I guess I should say. And in
686. 48:28the process of doing so, one of the things that's happening to the law is it is reconceiving
687. 48:33itself as being beholden to nothing outside of the wishes of those in the corridors of
688. 48:40power.
689. 48:41The law no longer is understanding itself as submitting to a pre-existing order of truth.
690. 48:47It is instead the exercise of coercion.
691. 48:50And that's why it's so important that those persons who like particular ways of life would
692. 48:56get their hands on the levers of power, so as to be able to manipulate things.
693. 49:00But this is a conception of law that's new on the scene, and I think it's ultimately very
694. 49:05destructive."
695. 49:08The views and opinions expressed in this broadcast may not necessarily reflect those of the American
696. 49:13Family Association or American Family Radio.