The Coming Political Earthquake – Part 2/Program 1

By: Dr. Frank Wright, Janet Parshall, Craig Parshall; ©2008
Are there good reasons to fight to save the traditional definition of marriage and family, or should we care if same-sex marriage is legalized across the US?

Contents

Introduction

Announcer: Today on the John Ankerberg Show, The Coming Political Earthquake: How the November elections could impact America in very drastic ways.

My guests will explain: Why the coming elections are not just about the next four years, but about the Supreme Court Judges who could affect our laws for the next 30 years.

Mr. Craig Parshall: Those Supreme Court Justices will not only govern during that administration, but if history tells us anything on that, it will be a law in effect for at least two to three decades. So American citizens will reap the benefits or the unfortunate bad law of a Supreme Court Justice for the next 30-40 years.

Announcer: Then, how the definition of traditional marriage and family is at stake.

Mrs. Janet Parshall: I think a lot of people out there never thought in a million years we would have to stand in the marketplace of ideas and give a defense for what constitutes a marriage as one man and one woman. It was one of those universal truths. It’s been there since time immemorial. Cultures that have lasted have been built on that cornerstone institution. Cultures that have fallen began to dabble with that.

Announcer: How the November elections could decide whether America will uphold the right to life of unborn children in the womb.

Dr. Frank Wright: If you won’t defend the life of a baby in the womb what will you defend? What kind of people are we if we will not stand up for the weakest among us?

Announcer: How newly elected officials could drastically change our religious liberties.

Mr. Craig Parshall: The problem with hate crimes is that it has very little to do with preventing crime and a lot to do with labeling Christians with hate, saying we are hate-mongers when we simply preach what the Bible has to say.

Announcer: I will not tell you which political candidate to vote for or which political party to join. Rather, our purpose will be to inform you of crucial issues based on biblical values and explain why basing your choices on those biblical values is crucial.

My special guests today are: Dr. Frank Wright, President of the NRB, the national religious broadcasters, an association of more than 1,500 Christian television and radio broadcasters, representing millions of viewers, and listeners.

Second Janet Parshall, host of a daily three-hour nationally syndicated radio program originating from Washington, DC, entitled Janet Parshall’s America. In February, 2005, she was selected by President Bush to represent the White House in the capacity of public delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women. As a radio and television commentator, she has appeared on almost every political network television program.

And third, Craig Parshall is the Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters. Prior to coming to NRB, he represented clients before the US Supreme Court, the Federal District Courts and Courts of Appeal in Washington, DC, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Denver, Dallas and Richmond, and has argued before the state Supreme Courts of Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Maryland.

Join us today for this special broadcast of the John Ankerberg Show to hear how the November elections could impact Christians in very drastic ways.


John Ankerberg: Welcome to our program. We’re going to talk today about the important issue of, are we or are we not going to save traditional marriage as we know it? Are we going to institute same sex marriages? This is one of the key topics in the election and we want you to understand the issues from a biblical point of view. What does scripture have to say? Then we want to look at the medical science in terms of what does the medical science tell us about the health issues in terms of all of these things around the family. And we’re going to talk about philosophy and abstract things as well as we go along the line.
Now, I have got three great guests today, I mean just terrific guests, I’m so honored that you guys are here. We’ve got Dr. Frank Wright, who is the President of the National Religious Broadcasters. Every year, folks, you can see on television every once in a while little clips from the National Religious Broadcasters. I think we had like 6,000 folks there that attended this last year and it will be in Opryland this next year again. And the thing is that Frank is the boss, he is the President of 1,500 Christian Television and Radio ministries. Now, we submit to that, but I’m saying, the fact is that you are fellow that we elected and you’ve got to be very, very smart. He has got a Ph.D. in finances, he has also got a great history. For 20 years he was associated with the ministries of Dr. D. James Kennedy at Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida. He was the Executive Director of the Center for Christian Statesmanship, a spiritually based outreach to Senators and members of Congress and their staff. And so you got to know and hobnob with the Senators and the Congressmen. And then we stole you from Dr. Kennedy, and you’re now the President of NRB. What I like, Frank, too is you’ve got all of the experiences in terms of crisis pregnancy center that, you kind of governed that, and you were in charge of guiding the Coral Ridge outreach programs to the poor. And so there is a lot that you can contribute.
Next to you is this dynamo, number one talk show host in the country over here. Janet Parshall of Janet Parshall’s America, a three hour daily nationally syndicated program originating from Washington, DC. Folks, can you imagine getting up and talking to close to two million people every single day for three hours? That’s what she is doing, and her crowd is growing. And President Bush asked her to represent the White House in the capacity of being a public delegate to the United Nations Commission of the Status of Women. And she’s been on Crossfire, Hardball, Nightline, the Larry King Show, Hannity & Colmes, the 700 Club, Late Night with Aaron Brown, CBS, ABC, NBC, CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, CBN, PBS, and BBC and NPR, to name just a few of the programs she’s been on.
The dynamo sitting next to her is her husband. And he is the Senior Vice President and General Counsel for the National Religious Broadcasters. So Craig Parshall is our attorney, and he is well qualified. He has represented clients before the US Supreme Court, the Federal District Courts, and Courts of Appeal in Washington, DC, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Denver, Dallas, Richmond, VA, to name just a few. And he supported and drafted important legislation up on Capitol Hill including the Religious Freedom Amendment to the Constitution. And so, folks, we are glad you are here.
Today the issue that we want to talk about is something that is going to be debated in all of the Vice Presidential debates, the one Vice Presidential debate as well as the Presidential debate. And it has to do with the family. Now, everybody says they’re for the family, okay? I don’t hear anybody say, “I’m against the family.” But the definition of the family is changing and it’s having repercussions in our schools and in the way we do business in this country, in the military, all along the line. And it’s the debate of, are we going to save traditional marriage between a man and woman and raising children in the home; or are we going to say that that definition includes two men, two women or a combination of that, alright?
Now, Janet, set this up in terms of, I feel that this is a key issue and it’s at stake right now. In the next few weeks of time America is going to make a decision, we are going to go to the polls, we are going to go to the voting booths and we are going to actually vote, alright? And it is going to make a difference, alright? Explain the differences that we’re going to see here coming up in this election depending on which way we vote.
Janet Parshall: Well, from the office of President down to your State Legislature, what’s really at stake here is whether or not we uphold those traditional conservative, might I be so bold, biblical values. And what we saw happen in California in that four to three decision was judicial activists thumbing their nose at what the voters of California had said, some four million of them, I would like to point out. And basically now, come November, in a few weeks once again they’ll have the opportunity to affirm what they did back in 2000, which is, marriage is one man and one woman.
But the residual effects were, just like that [snap] the Governor of New York said, “We’ll recognize it here;” just like that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts said, “We’ll do it here.” In fact, I heard one homosexual activist in California say, “As California goes, so goes the nation.” So this was a test trial: if you could turn the culture over in a state as big as California, it’s going to be a piece of cake to do it in Kansas or Wisconsin. If you can do it in California you can do it everywhere.
So what we have at stake here are two individuals running for the office of President of the United States who will pick judges who will then have to deal with these cases. And let me give you a case in point. Bill Clinton did a preemptive strike, when he heard the rumblings in this culture about saying, “Let’s do what we want with marriage.” Because of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution, basically marriage from a secular vantage point is a contract. So if you have one contract in Missouri should you recognize that other contract in the state of Illinois? Well, it comes to the contract of marriage the Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA] basically said, “The contract in one state doesn’t necessarily have to be recognized as a contract in another state.” And several states stepped up to the plate in 2004 and said, “In this state, no, it’s going to be one man and one woman.”
Well, here’s what we’ve already heard rumblings from two people vying for the office of President of the United States. One has said, “I will overturn DOMA.” One swipe of the pen the walls fall down, every state in the union will do what the three states I just mentioned have already done. Another said, “I uphold the institution of marriage as one man and one woman. I would preserve the definition of marriage and I would uphold what the Defense of Marriage Act or DOMA means.” So, right out of the gate you have two people who would take the trajectory of this country on this basic conservative biblical value, on an institution, by the way, that God Himself defined, not a bunch of judges in Massachusetts, God Himself defined. So in other words when we go to the polls and we vote, we have a choice. And let me put it out there just the way it is: the choice will be to either obey God and vote His way, or to turn our back on God and vote another way.
Now, some people say, “Oh, Janet, you are trying to establish a theocracy.” Wait, no I’m not. The values of the Bible are deeply, inherently conservative by nature, especially when we go to this cornerstone issue. I think a lot of people out there never thought in a million years we’d have to stand in the marketplace of ideas and give a defense of what constitutes a marriage, as one man and one woman. It was one of those universal truths. It’s been there since time immemorial. Cultures that have lasted have been built on that cornerstone institution, cultures that have fallen began to dabble with that.
In fact, some would say, and I hear this in Washington when I debate gay activists all the time, “Well, look at your own Bible. You had polygamists, for goodness sake!” To which I always say, “Yes. Continue to read, as Paul Harvey said, the rest of the story.” Wherever there was polygamy you had trouble in those households. Go back to what God Himself stated, Jesus reaffirms yet again in the New Testament, no ambiguity on this issue. So what’s at stake here is whether or not we honor God and account to Him or turn our back on God and do what’s right in our own eyes.
Ankerberg: Craig, when we were brought into the law courts, I was so naïve I actually thought lawyers and judges obeyed the law. And I was shocked to find that the laws that I was thinking they were going to base the case on, in terms of evidence and so on, nobody was talking about that. So I was wondering what in the world are they making their decision on? And what I found, that all the levels going up all the way from the Appellate Court, to the Supreme Court of Texas, to the Supreme Court of the United States, we had lawyers at different phases in terms of our court case, which we won, thanks to your help and a lot of others, but the thing is that the judges actually bring their opinions and worldview to these decisions, okay? We drill them as much as we can, we ask as many questions as we possibly can, but right now those judges are finding things in the Constitution, they’re finding things in the laws, that aren’t there, okay? And they’re getting away with it. And our people want to know, how in the world can that happen, and what can we do about it, and does my vote really count in terms of this topic?
Craig Parshall: Let me give you a little bit of experience from the perspective of my practice. I was a trial lawyer for about 30 years before I came to the National Religious Broadcasters to join their great organization to be their lawyer from the inside now to help their organization and broadcasters like you. When you’re in front of a jury as a trial lawyer, you want a jury that’s really going to listen to your evidence. And so you have something called a vore dire when you pick a jury and you ask them some questions. Mr. Jones, Mrs. Brown, how do you feel about my client? How do you feel about the case? Would you be objective and neutral about the outcome until you hear all the evidence come in?
Well, selecting judges is pretty much the same thing. When you are picking a jury as a trial lawyer, you don’t always base your decision on what they tell you. You look at their background and you’re given a backgrounder on each of the jurors, and if you see a worldview that this person has had their whole life, it’s unlikely you’re going to change their minds during the course of the trial. The evidence will not be heard by them, won’t be considered, because their presuppositions philosophically, religiously, and so forth will shape the outcome. Judges are the same thing. Judges don’t like to talk about this, but the reality is they don’t shed their personal philosophy at those great columns of the Supreme Court or the federal courts around the country. They’re bringing them to bear. So the larger the question, the more abstract the question in terms of great constitutional issues, the more you see the personal philosophy. I want a judge who’s going to be hedged in by a philosophy that says, “I will judge the Constitution based on the text of the words and the Founders’ intentions and nothing else.” What you find, unfortunately, as in California, the State Supreme judges there rendered a decision that reads more like sociology textbook or the ramblings of a social scientist then it does of a judge bound by the facts and by the law.
Ankerberg: Frank, some people would say, “You know, we don’t have to go back to the way the Constitution was originally written. I mean, we’ve got a new society today, new ideas. You know, it’s okay to change some things, isn’t it?”
Frank Wright: You know, that’s a popular notion, but when you are talking about law, the idea that law is something that changes based on who’s in power turns government, turns governing into totally power politics game. It’s all about who’s got the political muscle, who’s got the wealth in the society to obtain that muscle. And so what you end up with is an oligarchy in which the most powerful in the society dictate the rules.
The founders of our country were wise in understanding that the democracy, or in our case a Constitutional Republic, was those freedoms were best secured when those freedoms were distributed. And that’s why we have the checks and balances that we have. That’s why we have separation of powers. That’s why we have the level of accountabilities. In Scripture God reveals Himself as Lawgiver, Judge and King. And so we have the same three branches of government. We have the Executive Branch representing the king; we have the lawgiver in the Legislature, and judge in the Judiciary. And when you break down the barriers between those by empowering one of those branches to some extraordinary degree without accountability, democracy itself, freedom and liberty itself are at risk. The Founders said that. Jefferson, who the liberals quote ona enda, as my German grandmother used to say, Jefferson used to say, “As government expands freedom recedes.” And we live in a day where the courts have expanded the scope, the influence, the power of government in such a way that it’s exactly as you described, John. It’s them deciding, as one justice said in a moment of perhaps too much candor, “The constitution means what the Supreme Court says it means,” reducing it to the control of those who are in power at the present time.
Ankerberg: And it’s scary, Frank, from my point of view, when you have $136 million on the line, and you’re putting it in the hands of somebody who is not following the rules and there’s no rules to the road and he is doing a subjective opinion, that is really scary!
Wright: John, not only that, those judges who are lawyers themselves came from law schools who taught them that that is going to be your role as a judge. You’re going to be evolving the structure of our law to fit the times. And that’s your more important role, not judging an individual case, but making the law work for the culture at large. That’s a recipe for disaster; and in the case of the family, the changes that these judicial activists want to make will be just that, a disaster.
Ankerberg: Alright, we are going to take a break. And when we come back I want to ask you, Janet, the fact is, we’ve got some people that are on record that are running for office at all levels saying “we’re going to do this and we’re going to do that.” They are upfront about what they’re saying and you’ve got a pretty clear choice here. This is not something that is a mystery game. And we’re going to talk about those choices and the importance of our viewers that are listening in terms of them making a decision and using God’s teachings, God’s doctrines of what He says makes life go around, okay? And we’re going to talk about all of that when we come right back. Stick with us.

Ankerberg: Alright, we’re back. And we’re talking with Dr. Frank Wright, we’re talking with Janet Parshall, and we’re talking with Craig Parshall. And we’re talking about what’s happening, what’s at stake in this next election, and we’re talking about the family and same sex marriage, two issues that our politicians are talking about at all levels. How do Christians bring biblical values into this fight and why should we, alright?
Well, let me tell you a reason why you ought to vote, why it’s important. There is a fellow by the name of Tim Gill who has dropped $80 million so far on gay and lesbian causes. He’s been very upfront, and he’s saying, “Look, I’ve also learned how to play the game.” He established a foundation with $200 million to influence the process. And his technique in the state of Colorado of putting money in key races at the lower levels changed the State Legislature in Colorado where our good friend Jim Dobson is at, okay. Now, I’m saying his goal is to change the definition of marriage and he wants to institute and legalize, make it in cement, put it in cement, that it’s okay, and actually, this is on an equal par to have same sex marriage with traditional marriage. Alright, now, a lot of money, a lot of organizing at all the levels, that’s our competition, okay? That’s what we’re up against. They’re clear. And our parties, Janet, our leaders are saying, “This is what I’m going to do if I’m elected, I’m going to do A; I’m going to do B.” It’s a pretty clear choice, there’s no secrets about it. Tell us about the choices we have and what the consequences could be.
J. Parshall: Well, let me start at the federal level and let me start with the office of President of the United States; again, a bright clear line of distinction between the two. Barack Obama said that he would support any federal legislation that supports the civil rights based on sexual orientation. Let me pause here for just a moment and our friends need to understand this. Up to this point the United States Supreme Court has never granted something called, “Protected Class Status” to people based on their behavior. Sexual orientation, acting out sexually, is a behavior. And one of the reasons why that juggernaut of a movement tries to silence people who have been in that movement is because they can stand before the culture and say, “I changed.” Those are the most frightening words a homosexual activist can hear, because it pulls away from the Supreme Court the right to get this covering of protection. If you get Protected Class Status you get a whole myriad of civil rights laws that kick into place as a result of getting that Protected Class Status.
So what we’ve see with all of these other decisions up to this point is a backdoor entrance to give homosexuals, or people whatever their sexual orientation, a Protected Class Status. Never in the history of this country before, based on behavior do we give you a zone of protection. Barack Obama says, “I will support that;” John McCain says, “I will not support that.”
The immediate effect of something like that is the employment non-discrimination act. Barack Obama says, “I want to continue the faith-based initiatives that George Bush started,” only he wants to take it in a dramatically different way, including but not limited to, offering no protection whatsoever on the hiring practices of a faith-based organization. Uh oh; Church pay attention here, that means that if you want everyone in your faith-based organization, your ministry, to have the same worldview, Christians in particular a biblical based worldview, but you want to say, “I’m only going to hire people who share that because all of us collectively become the living Epistles that scripture has called us to be, oops, sorry, you can’t do it. If a homosexual activist wants to come into your faith-based organization, Barack Obama, if he is President said, “You can’t discriminate against him based on his sexual orientation.” John McCain has said exactly the opposite.
Third manifestation of this is hate crimes legislation. What does that mean? Let me take you to the country of Brazil. They just passed in their Senate legislation that said if you write, speak, preach or talk against homosexuality, five years in prison. Now, what happens in the United States, if they do it in Brazil? They are already doing it in Canada. A pastor wrote a letter to the editor that said, “I have a problem with this gay sensitivity curriculum coming to my local school.” He got pulled before something called the Human Rights Commission and he was given an overwhelming fine and was told “Don’t write, speak, talk or preach.”
Wakeup call! Pastors who are watching this program right now, do you think that Satan is bound by a geographical boundary, if it happens in Canada or Sweden or England or Australia or Brazil that somehow Satan is going to hit the borders of America and go, “Oh, that’s right, I can’t do that here”? Exactly the opposite. In fact, let me tell you, in 1993 I am in Washington. The homosexuals gathered for a very huge parade, made a proclamation of their rights, distributed what they called a Manifesto. And I will never forget it. One of the points in that manifesto was “we will do everything in our power to silence the voice of opposition to our movement.” Who’s the voice? The church is the voice.
So should we be surprised that we are seeing people now moving to try to introduce hate crimes legislation so if a pastor stands up and says, “Thus saith the Lord; here is the whole counsel of God;” someone stands up and says, “That is a disparaging remark against me. I deem it to be hateful.” The next thing you know that pastor is cuffed and taken off to jail. John McCain, Barack Obama, and this is just the President by the way we would talk about a myriad of legislation at the state level. But just to the office of presidency, Barack Obama says, “I want to further that concept.” John McCain said, “I want to stop that concept.” In fact, the record on this, Barack Obama, John McCain, decidedly different; when we saw hate crimes legislation work its way to the Senate, the person who was able to stop it on the Senate side was John McCain, Duncan Hunter on the House side. Otherwise we came perilously close this last go around to have this already put in place.
So we are not here subscribing to the Chicken Little worldview that the sky is falling. But I’ll tell you what we are: we are your imbedded correspondents in Babylon. As war correspondents we’re here to tell you this is what is happening now. Church, you had better wake up now and you had better go in and vote understanding you’re casting a vote not only for truth but for the future of this country.
Ankerberg: Thirty seconds, wrap this one up for me. What do you want the people to walk away with here?
C. Parshall: What you have to understand that every movement is either good or bad based on where it’s going. Every movement is by definition is moving somewhere. The homosexual rights movement is moving in the direction not just of equal rights, it goes way beyond that. It goes towards silencing Christians and making sure that the Bible is not preached in a way where with the full counsel of God these practices are pointed out as being sinful. Those pastors, those Christians who take a stand on this issue will find themselves not only not being tolerated by American society, according to these laws, some may even face jail time.
Ankerberg: Now, I’ve got friends that are struggling with the whole question of homosexuality. There’s a large percentage of our people in the pews that are struggling with this silently, alright? So we’re not done talking about this topic and there’s a whole bunch of issues that are still related to this that we haven’t covered. Folks, please join us next week. We want to talk more about the importance of the traditional family, of marriage in the family, a man and a woman, children, also the fact of what are the costs to society, the health costs, to those who break God’s standard and have same sex marriages? The statistics are frightening and I’d like you to hear about them next week. So please join us.

Read Part 6

Leave a Comment





MOST POPULAR
RECENT ARTICLES