← I Don't Have Enough FAITH to Be an ATHEIST
I Don't Have Enough FAITH to Be an ATHEIST
Does LOVE Make a Family? Dismantling the #1 Lie of Modern Parenting with Katy Faust
00:53:07
Loading summary
Transcript93 lines
- [00:03]
A
Ladies and gentlemen, on September 8, 2025, the final walk I had with Charlie Kirk that night. We used to go on walks at night when I was in Phoenix and talk about any issue that was on his heart. How can we better articulate it? How can we move the culture in the right direction? How can we move the church in the right direction? And I said, charlie, let's talk about what's on your heart. You know what, what are the issues that are really concerning you right now? And the three issues he mentioned that we talked a lot about. One was the government, particularly with regard to Islam. He was worried that if Islam takes over in the United States, we'll lose our religious freedoms. And that's what history shows us. Also our freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom of the press, all our First Amendment rights go away. We talked a lot about that. Then we talked a lot about the resurrection. Because if God exists and Jesus rose from the dead, game over. Christianity is true. And so how can we best articulate the resurrection to college audiences in particular, especially in a Q and A environment where you don't have a lot of time? And then the third major issue which we spent the most time on that night was marriage and the family. Because Charlie was lamenting the fact that although men appeared, young men in his generation appeared to be wanting to get married and have kids. In fact, according to the survey, after the last election, Trump voters were Trump voting men, number one priority, get married, have kids. Trump voting women, about number five, Harris voting women, 12 out of 13, marriage and children. So Charlie was lamenting that stat and trying to figure out how could we get young people to want to embrace marriage and children. And in reflection, as I thought about that night, Charlie was concerned about the three institutions that God had created. The government, the the church and the family. Those three institutions God created for different functions, different reasons, but they're all interrelated. And we both agreed that night, although we didn't have a real firm solution to the problem, that if we don't get the family right, nothing else is going to matter. Yeah, we'll get some people saved, but we won't have the opportunity to get many of them saved. If the family collapses, the government collapses and it's chaos. Because without the biological two parent family, you don't really have a stable civilization. So what we're going to talk about today is that third issue really. The first institution God created was the family. And there's no person better to talk about it then. Ladies and gentlemen, the great Katie Faust here she is. She's been patiently waiting for me to go through that intro. But it struck me, Katie, that night when we talked about that, that Charlie was dialed in on the three most important issues, the three most important institutions, the three most important factors about life. And you want to talk about the family because it's so important. You've got a new initiative. Tell us what's going on.
- [03:35]
B
Great to be with you. And Charlie, as always, had his finger on the pulse. On the pulse. And you know what? That's what happens when you have a lot of close interactions with real humans. It's easy to create all kinds of fantasy lands when it comes to economic systems or ideas about sex and gender if you live in academia and you're completely steeped in an ideological world, but when you have real close contact, contact with real people and lots of reality, it destroys all those fantasies. And Charlie had a lot of close contact with real people, with real struggles, with real issues. And so he could not afford to live in this fantasy land that, you know, all religions are the same. They're not. Or all families are the same. They're not. And that's what we're fighting for. At Greater than this is a new campaign that my nonprofit then before us, launched last week. The idea is we need to retake marriage on behalf of children. Ten years ago, the Supreme Court mandated a definition of marriage that excluded a child's mother or father. And they did it in the name of adult equality, in the name of making sure that it was constitutional for two adults of the same sex to be able to get married. Well, that had extreme deleterious effects on children. And now we've seen 10 years of the law reordering itself away from the procreative realities that children come from a man and woman, and around adult validation, around exalting adult identity as the primary aim of marriage policy. So we've got 10 years of child victimization on our hands, and we've got the receipts to prove it. And now a new coalition of people from across conservatism are rising up to say, no more. We are going to stop this. We are going to put our foot down, and we're going to say, no, you can't have marriage. Because if gay marriage is legal, that requires children lose their mother or father, and that's an injustice.
- [05:45]
A
And for those of you that don't know, I assumed everyone knew who Katie was. She was on the program a month or two ago when we covered this in some other topics. But then before us is Katie's organization. And the main point here is, is that we have to put our children inter their rights as minors, as vulnerable people before our own romantic desires. That's kind of the point here. And before Obergefell, which is the case that mandated same sex marriage on the entire nation, really illegitimately. In fact, I think two of the three worst cases ever decided in American jurisprudence were authored by Anthony Kennedy. The first was Planned Parenthood versus Casey, which basically he said that you have your own right to define your own reality. Just bizarre. Which would make all law nullified by a person's desire. And the second with this was this Obergefell decision because he said something similar, this radical relativism that a person's dignity is tied up in whether or not they can marry somebody the same sex.
- [07:01]
B
Which is as if single people don't have dignity or divorced people don't have dignity. I mean, it's absolutely ridiculous. Oh, we have to validate your dignity. And for some reason, like your longing to have your relationship recognized requires the loss of a child's mother and father. So is gay marriage some kind of national therapy for you? Is that what you think it is? Because it has very real victims. Those victims are children.
- [07:26]
A
Well, in a certain sense he was onto something. And the sense he was onto something is that the law is a great teacher. Many people think whatever is legal is moral and whatever is illegal is immoral. So what he was essentially saying was by the state conferring that a same sex couple were the same as an opposite sex couple through the law, that that would give them dignity. And in a certain sense he's correct about that because that's how people think. If it's legal, it must be moral. And what he seems to forget is that you treat equal things equally. You don't treat unequal things equally. In fact, if same sex marriage was the same as traditional or I really better term natural marriage, there would be no need for same sex marriage. The re the reason people argue for same sex marriage is because they know there is a difference between a man and a woman and a man and a man or a woman and a woman. That's the very reason they're arguing for it. They say, well, we don't want what you have. We want our own thing and we want to call it the same thing you have. But let's go back to square one. And we don't even need the Bible to know this. What is the purpose? The government is involved in marriage from the very beginning. Katie. I have my own definition or my own insights, but I want to hear yours.
- [08:45]
B
Well, I'll give you the Defense of Marriage act's definition from 1996 that was passed by both houses of Congress, signed into law by Bill Clinton. They said, quote, quite simply, government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children. The government doesn't hand out marriage licenses to test the strength of your emotional bonds with each other. It doesn't do it based on how you self identify. The reason why government has an interest in marriage is because it actually is the one institution that makes new citizens. And the government has an interest in ensuring that those citizens, citizens are raised in an environment where they are most likely to grow up to be, let's be honest, responsible taxpayers. Okay? That's what their interest is in. It's the next generation. But we have turned through a variety of different means, this primary, the most child friendly institution the world has ever known because it unites the two people to whom children have a natural right. It has transformed that institution into a vehicle of adult fulfillment. You can't do that unless you cut children out of the equation. So they argued for and passed gay marriage on the grounds that marriage has nothing to do with children. I mean, there's lots of heterosexual couples that are infertile and they can't have kids, so what's the difference, right? We heard that over and over and over and over. So we redefined marriage to turn it into a institution that didn't necessarily require procreation. They said marriage has nothing to do with kids. And then they got their ruling and they turned around and said, now that we have marriage, give us kids. Give us kids. Within two years after the Obergefell ruling, the Pavan case in Arkansas passed. And that was where two lesbian couples sued the government and said, hey, a woman who gives birth, she can automatically just name her husband as the other parent of the child. It is something called the presumption of paternity. It goes back a couple centuries. They said, now that we're married, we need the full constellation of benefits afforded to us promised by Justice Kennedy in his arguments in his decision. Well, that means that if I'm a woman and my wife gives birth, I should be able to go on the child's birth certificate. It should be a presumption of parentage. If they get it, we get it. There can be no difference between our two relationships. And that was the beginning of the legal action outworking of this decision that is going to require children legally lose their mother or father so adults can have their. So Called equality.
- [11:19]
A
There was a politician in Britain years ago when this was being debated over there and he said this, he said children will be treated like trophies. In other words, the adopting a child for a same sex couple. And of course this isn't true of all same sex couples, but for many it validates their relationship. Now we have a child, see, we're a real couple. Well, God has created this universe in such a way and us in such a way that a child only comes from a man woman union and a man woman union is best to bring up that child. And that's what all the data show. Regardless, again, we're leaving the Bible out of it for this, for this conversation. But the point here is, and you have the receipts on this, Katie, how different are the upbringings by data, not anecdote by data, between a biological two parent family and other families which are not biological two parent, whether they're same sex, whether they're adoption, divorce, all that.
- [12:29]
B
Good, let's lay that out, shall we? Because we don't need to guess. We've been studying family structure for decades. Very, very close. You know, from about 1950s on, we were very serious about studying family structure. There's certain things that we know for sure, certain things that scholars on the left and the right agree to. So what are some of those things? Well, first it's that biological parents, a child's genetic mother or father is the most connected to, invested in and protective of them. They invest more money, they invest more time, they save more for college, they buckle the seatbelts more of the children that are biologically theirs. They take them to the dentist and the doctor more often, they spend more money on their food. We know this because we've got households where children are being raised by an unrelated adult and a biological adult. And we see drastically different outcomes as it relates to connection, investment and protection. Conversely, an unrelated adult in the home is statistically always correlated with increases risk of abuse and neglect. Okay, so even if there isn't direct abuse by the unrelated parent, there's more accidental death in homes with unrelated adults because they are less attentive to to the children in their home. Take it further to a further extreme. Unrelated adults in the home are much more likely to abuse children. Unfortunately, this is not something that is contested. It is a sociological absolute. It is so well known within the social science literature that unrelated adults disadvantage children, that we actually have a name for it. Have you heard of this, Frank? Do you know what it is?
- [14:16]
A
No, what is it?
- [14:17]
B
It's called the Cinderella Effect.
- [14:19]
A
I'd heard of it.
- [14:20]
B
You can google the Cinderella effect and you will see. We all know that the stepmother tends to be a repeat character in a lot of fairy tales. She never wants the child's best interest. She favors her own children. And so that is actually true. We have measured that in terms of stepmother connection, protection and investment in in step children. But the most drastic Cinderella effect comes when it is in connection to unrelated men in the home. Evolutionary biologists Wilson and Daly did extensive studies on children in Canada over the span of I think 17 years. And they found a 200 times, not 200%, 200 times increase in children who were subjected to fatal beatings on behalf of stepfathers versus genetic fathers. So it is true that sometimes biological parents can be abusive. But what is true is that an unrelated man in the home left to care for the child himself is statistically the most dangerous person in a child's life. So when you are talking about family structure, it is not love makes a family, it is loss makes a family. The child loses their mother or father. So you can form that modern family. And anytime that modern family includes an unrelated adult, risk of abuse and neglect will increase. So that's just a family structure, universal. Here's another one. Men and women are different. Frank, I don't know if you've heard this.
- [15:55]
A
Wait a minute. I know you know what some people are going to say wrong, but they are different.
- [16:02]
B
The president's going to then say, you're fired.
- [16:05]
A
Yeah, he is serious. Okay, okay.
- [16:08]
B
Because obviously everybody know men and women are different. You know who really knows? Kids. Of course kids know that men and women are different. How do we know that? Because children.
- [16:17]
A
Stop for a second. I just gotta, I gotta make this point now.
- [16:19]
B
Go, because.
- [16:21]
A
And then you can jump back in.
- [16:22]
B
Go.
- [16:25]
A
The whole push for same sex marriage presupposes men and women are different. Because if they weren't, there would be no need for same sex marriage. You'd simply say marry somebody of the opposite sex. They're just like you. Right? So on one hand they're trying to say that men and women are are the same. So we can pair up whether we're men or women or two men or two women. On the other hand, they're saying, well, we're not the same. That's why we need this new provision called same sex marriage. Okay, Sorry to interrupt. Go ahead.
- [16:56]
B
Logical consistency has not been their strong supreme. And on that same vein, I know I'm skipping ahead a bit. I was having a little throwdown with Martina Navratilova a couple days ago on X, who was, I think called me vile four different times for saying children have a right to their mother and father and that is why we need to retake marriage on behalf of children. And she was just saying, but mind your own business. Don't take away people's rights. Why are you such a bigot? And I said, you have valiantly argued for sex distinctions in sports. I am sure a lot of people accused you of taking away people's rights and they told you to mind your own business. But here's the thing.
- [17:39]
A
How did she respond?
- [17:39]
B
Or did she vile bigot. Get out of my mentions. I never wanna talk to you again.
- [17:44]
A
Oh, who? Okay, well, that's an argument.
- [17:47]
B
Yeah. But interestingly, I told her, sex distinctions matter even more in the family than they do on the tennis court. This is the place where they matter the most. So are you saying sex distinctions only matter when you're talking about a championship match, or does it matter when it comes to making babies and raising babies? And so again, here's that logical consistency. Where does sex distinctions matter? The answer is, it matters everywhere, especially in the family. So those sex distinctions, you know, children don't just need caregivers, they don't just need parents. They need a mother and they need a father. Not just because they offer distinct and complementary benefits to child rearing. For example, women tend to develop children's fine motor skills through their natural interactions. Dads tend to develop children's gross motor skills through the rough and tumble play and all of the like, pushing them to, to push the boundaries, not just in the way they talk. Like, women tend to simplify their language right down to the child's level. So the kid understands everything. Men talk to children like they talk to everybody else, so the kid doesn't understand everything. But they're constantly cognitively expanding. So it's not just a developmental need, it is a hunger. Children hunger to be loved by a man, and they hunger for the love of a woman. That is why we see fatherless children so susceptible to crime, to gang involvement, because those little boys will find a man to love them. That man will love them by saying, run these drugs for me and you can be part of our family. Right? Those girls are 63% of them of fatherless girls are 63% of teen mothers are fatherless because they have found that male love that they were starved of. They found it in the arms of a guy for five minutes who said, baby, I love you. I'm never going to leave you. And they were so vulnerable because they were desperate for male love. So here's these are the natural realities of the human child. They come from a man and woman. That man and woman are statistically the most connected to, invested and protected of them. An unrelated adult always increases risk of abuse and neglect. The male and female offer distinct and complementary benefits. Oh, and throw on top of that, children get their biological identity from the man and woman who made them. And kids created through purchased sperm and egg very often suffer from identity struggles. So now let's look at this Same sex headed households always missing a biological parent. Always, always include an unrelated adult. Always missing the maternal or paternal love that children crave and that maximizes their development. Always starved of at least 50% of their biological identity. How do you think those kids are doing? Frank?
- [20:42]
A
Ladies and gentlemen, this book got me fired back in 2011. Correct, not politically Correct. At that time it was called Correct, Not Politically Correct How Same Sex Marriage Hurts Everyone. I updated it in 2023. Now it's called Correct, Not Politically Correct about Same Sex Marriage and transgenderism. This is the topic I'm talking about right now with Katie. This book does not quote Bible verses. This book is the natural law common sense medical case why same sex marriage and transgenderism are not good for individuals and they're not good for society. So if you want a way to argue even with an unbeliever, pick this up. But don't go to Amazon, okay? Because Amazon hates this book even though it's got great reviews because it doesn't comport with their viewpoint. And so they got it priced at like 35 bucks. Don't get it there. Go to cross examine.org, click on store. We'll get it to you. Again, correct, not politically correct. And it will help you deal with this very sensitive and difficult issue. But without marriage, ladies and gentlemen, if we give up marriage, if we make marriage completely genderless, that is not a good thing for civilization. And I explain why in the book all also want to mention the Change My Mind college tour starts tonight. If you're listening to this on February 10th, Elon University here in North Carolina, then North Carolina State the next night, the 11th, and then on the 12th will be down, Lord willing, in Jacksonville, Florida for northern Florida University. We've got several coming up after that. All of these college events we have are free for students. It costs us about $15,000 every time we go to one of these campuses because we have all this security now and of course the other expenses. So any donations that you make will go toward that particular college tour that we have, which is called Change My Mind. We don't charge students a dime. So thank you for supporting us. If you go to cross examine.org, click on donate. You'll see it there. And all the other work that we do here at Cross Examined is funded by you. Thank you so much. Let's go back to Katie and our discussion with her new initiative that you want to be a part of.
- [22:54]
B
How do you think those kids are doing, Frank?
- [22:56]
A
Well, that's a question. And last I saw anybody that tried to study it was shouted down as a bigot and vile rather than let's just look at the evidence and see where it leads. So has anyone other than Mark, Mark Regerius down there in University of Texas at Austin, I think that's his name. Has anyone else studied that?
- [23:14]
B
Yeah, Rickneris was the first and he was a lesson to all the others. If you dare speak up against the trash consensus that children with same sex parents fare no different, we will destroy your research. We will destroy your job, we will destroy you personally. And they tried. And thank God he held on. And thank God his university stood behind him. Barely. And that man has been so vindicated. But yes, there's been a few others that have done it. Dr. Paul Sullins pulled government data from two different sources. Massive data, way larger than any of these other pittance cheap contrived studies that are, you know, supposedly show kids fare no different. And when you actually use the gold standards of scientific research, like not recruiting your participants, like having adequate control groups like populations that can be extrapolated, like population wide surveying the actual outcomes of kids, not what the parents think the kids think about having gay parents, you get a massive difference. You get drastically increased risk of emotional problems. Daily fearfulness and crying increases. Obviously Mark Regneris found wildly disproportionate rates of sexual abuse in children who were raised by an LGBT parent. Welfare dependencies, mental health diagnoses, a lot of emotional conditions and struggles, which is to be assumed because when a child is raised without their mother or father, what do you think happens? They're hungering for that missing love. They're often subjected to instability. They are in households with unrelated adults. They're at all different kinds of risk factors, factors for a variety of different aces, adverse childhood experiences. That any study would come to the conclusion that children fare no different is literally a sociological miracle. It simply does not exist.
- [25:12]
A
Now you speak from some personal experience too. Although this is not data in the sense Survey data. But your mom, at the age of 10, got involved in a same sex relationship. And for much of your childhood, then you were tossed between a same sex parent home and your father's home. Did he remarry?
- [25:33]
B
He dated. And then remarried twice.
- [25:36]
A
And remarried twice. Okay, so in your own experience, how was that? And obviously now you're well adjusted, but how was that?
- [25:44]
B
Well, the good news is my parents both stayed connected to me before and after the divorce, so. So I got 50% of what I wanted from each, which is 50% less.
- [25:55]
A
Right.
- [25:56]
B
But at least I still had a strong, emotionally connected relationship to both of them. And they wisely never expected their new partners or spouses to parent me, so they kept those lines pretty clean, which was smart.
- [26:12]
A
Now, did you have brothers or sisters in the same situation?
- [26:15]
B
Just a Katie.
- [26:16]
A
Just you, Katie.
- [26:18]
B
Yeah. So it is a blessing that I didn't lose either one of them. But it is complicated for kids. It is very complicated when new adults join your family. The truth is, my mom and her partner had stability, like, and I didn't have any conflict with them. I never have. I was there two days ago, like, hanging out with them. So, like, I still have very strong connected relationship with them. They've always been a part of my life. They've been a part of my children's life. I hope that they think about me as one of the top two people who love them more than anybody else in the world. So what did I learn from my childhood? Mothers and fathers matter. Divorce is bad. And you can love LGBT people and believe that the natural family is the best thing for kids, and there's no contradiction between those two things.
- [27:06]
A
What would your mom say about that statement?
- [27:09]
B
I always say I don't speak for my mom, but she knows that two men could not replace her. And that is what the gay marriage world says. The gay marriage mindset says two random men, neither of which are biologically my father, could have replaced my mother with zero impact on my development, my identity, my own conception as a woman, the way that I think about myself as a mother, which is quite frank. I mean, that's Frank. Bleep it out if you need to. But that's actually the right word for the kind of mentality that we have, that a child's own mother or father is optional in their life. Nothing could be further from the truth. Like, I still delight in and need my mother, even though I am mid century Frank.
- [27:53]
A
And does she know about this new campaign? What's her.
- [27:56]
B
My mom?
- [27:57]
A
Yeah.
- [27:58]
B
I don't have Any secrets from her? She's always known what I think. She's very aware of my work. She's read my books. So there's quite a lot of open communication there.
- [28:09]
A
Good. Now it's called the Greater Than Campaign. Where do people go to learn about it and to join it if they want to? And by the way, there are people that have gotten behind this. I certainly have. Because it's the truth. That's why. Because it's the truth and it's a moral imperative that children should have by law a mother and a father. And equating any other relationship to that is just false.
- [28:35]
B
That's right.
- [28:37]
A
It's not true. So you got Professor Robert George at Princeton. You've got Dr. Al Mohler. You got Michael Knowles with the Daily Wire. The great Ali Beth Stuckey is part of this Lila Rose Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, the Colson Center, American Family Association, Heritage Foundation, Josh Hammer of Newsweek, Joel Berry, the Babylon Bee, some top legal scholars, state family policy centers, many others. What do you hope? What's the strategy here? What do you hope to do with this?
- [29:07]
B
We're going to take it all back.
- [29:08]
A
How? What are you going to do? And how can people help?
- [29:11]
B
Okay, go to GreaterThancampaign.com and you should sign up. We won't spam you. We'll send something a couple times a month just to keep you posted on what's happening there. But you should come and know more about this than anyone else. You should be an expert on why natural marriage actually is our best shot at child protection and child flourishing. And you should know without a shadow of a doubt how gay marriage victimizes children. So get on there like, this is the fight of our time. If you believe that children deserve protection, then you have to get in this with us. And, yeah, go check out all the organizations I think that we launched with like 43 or 47 public partners. We've had 20 join since then. By the time the 11th anniversary of a burger fell rolls around in June, we better have more than 100, because this is something where it's honestly, it's all of conservatism speaking with one voice. That is what we want. We want all different corners of the world that is still anchored to reality saying, you don't get to reimagine marriage as some tool of adult fulfillment at the expense of children. And that's what gay marriage did. So how are we going to do it? Three different things. We have to do three things if we are going to retake marriage on behalf of children. The first one is we need a credible judicial strategy that has a pathway of success. And I'm not going to talk about specific policy or judicial recommendations, but I will just tell you that what gay marriage did in law was, was it flattened any distinctions that you'll find in the natural family. It said a procreative aspect, no different from a non procreative relationship. It says mother and father. You can't say mother and father. That's discriminatory. So we're just gonna say parents and guardians. Oh, biology. That's discriminatory too, because two adults of the same sex can't both be biologically related. So biology is now just one option as it relates to parenthood. By the way, adoption. That's really undignifying. How dare you say that? I need to adopt my own child, the child that I special ordered and assembled through big fertility. I'm not going to adopt that child. I intend to parent that child. I'm a de facto parent. I have a valid contract. Therefore, hand me the kid. So they've created new pathways for parenthood. They've redefined infertility. It's not a medical condition that happens between heterosexuals anymore because obviously 12 months of unprotected heterosexual sex qualifies you as infertile. But 12 months of unprotected same sex sex will never result in a live birth, no matter how long they try. But they really want insurance coverage for their IVF motherless and fatherless children. So now they've redefined infertility. So do you see that like anything that identifies the natural contours of the family have been legally erased. Now, in the Obergefell world, the only thing that defines a family is the demands of an adult. But all of those distinctions of the natural family matter to children and protect children. So our legal strategy in general is we're going to force those natural contours of the family to reemerge in law. We're just going to say, yeah, mothers and fathers, yep, biology, yep, procreation is different. Yes, men and women matter to children. We're going to do that in law. And I'm sure that will incur a challenge because now the gay activists have been acclimated to believe that all of those distinctions, even if you say them out loud, means they're unequal. That's unconstitutional. Well, I'm sorry, those are child centric realities. So we're simply going to make good law that elevates the rights of children and then we're going to force The Supreme Court to make a choice. Which one do you want? Do you want these laws that objectively defend and protect children's right to their mother and father? Do children's own mother and father matter to them? Or is a state assigned stranger just as good? We're actually changing the entire question that's going to be put before the court.
- [33:26]
A
You know, in reality too, this is now getting a little inside baseball with legalities. Marriage has never been a federal issue. You know, it's always been a state issue. States had their different laws on marriage, but of course the Supreme Court just decided it was going to insert itself. Now it's become a federal issue. So if they're going to insert themselves at the federal level because marriage is not in the United States Constitution, this is why it's a state issue. Traditionally, if they're going to. And same thing with abortion by the way. This is, it's the same thing. We're going to, we're going to impose this new anti reality on people through just five unelected justices in black robes on all the states. Even though it's not a federal issue, it's a state issue. And so now in order to remedy this, remedy this, we've got to go back to that same institution to get that done. And in that sense, Katie, they're really not judges, they're just super legislators because there's no law to interpret on marriage in the Constitution for the Supreme Court. Just like there's no law on abortion, they had to make it up. So in order to fix this, we have to actually do something that is in a way illegitimate. Unless you're going to get a constitutional amendment. And that's going to be hard to get because as I say, the law is a great teacher. It's taught people to think that same sex marriage is a right when in reality it's not. And so now to reverse this, we got to go back through the court.
- [35:08]
B
I am no lawyer, but I've got some legal advisors who are top notch and they could write a sermon on the trash reasoning of Obergefell that it is completely disconnected from constitutional. I think it was Justice Thomas that is like celebrate if you want, celebrate this ruling if you want, but don't do it on the basis of the Constitution. The Constitution did not give this to you. Hey, by the way, it's a constitutional win.
- [35:36]
A
Even leftists said the same thing about Roe versus Wade. They said there's nothing, there's no constitutional basis. Yeah, there's no constitutional basis for this ruling. It's it's simply the court being an activist court.
- [35:49]
B
That's exactly right.
- [35:50]
A
You know, they've taken this out of the realm of the people.
- [35:53]
B
So we're going to, we're going to change the way we talk about this. You know, I've talked recently, especially over the somewhat high profile, high engagement exchanges that I've had on Twitter with a lot of people that are widely recognized as gay marriage champions, from Dan Savage to what's his name, Zach Walls, who was the kid with lesbian moms who like virtually single handedly got gay marriage passed in, what was it, Iowa or Indiana where he was like, I love my gay moms and you don't think my family should exist. Everyone just swooned like, oh, we've got to give this kid gay marriage. And you know, Martina Navratilova and like, it's amazing because all of the different ways they talk about this, well, you're erasing my existence. But this is about my rights. But what about equality? When you actually say, do children need a mother and father? Do they benefit from being connected to the two people who science says is the most likely to lead to a life of thriving for them? What I love about this is we used to be playing on a field where everything revolved around the adults and their backstory and their longing, their identity. We've said we're not going to play on that field anymore. We're not just going to stop this game, we're going to move over, we're going to play a totally different, different sport over here. So you guys were playing soccer. We're saying no, we're going to have this game over on the baseball field. So don't bring your corner kicks and your throw ins because they don't work. We've got a totally different game. The game is the rights and well being of children. And what's amazing is now we're arguing on my turf. Now we're arguing on the real science, the natural law, the common sense, the common law going back centuries that elevates the preeminence of the natural parent child relationship to something that is supposed to be pre political, that you're not supposed to touch. And now saying, actually the state has now insisted on a massive power grab to determine who is and is not apparent in the name of adult equality. So I love it because all of the ways that they used to emotionally manipulate the public doesn't work when you are talking about marriage as an institution of justice for children. So the first I told you, we're going to do three things. The first one is the judicial strategy. But the second one is we're going to change public opinion. If anything, if we have learned anything from the demise of Roe, it is not enough to overturn bad Supreme Court decisions. We have to change public opinion. So thankfully, you mentioned some of them. I have these amazing conservative spokesmen, influencers who are on board with me. They've been in working group meetings. Steve Dase and Delano Squires and Jack Posobiak and Heidi St. John, among a variety of others. And what are we going to do? Abby Johnson? We are going to train America to help them understand the direct connection between gay marriage and child victimization and natural marriage and child protection. And we are going to tell them very plainly, you think that you support gay marriage, but if you believe children need a mother and father, you can't have both. You have to choose. Either children have a right to their mother and father, or you can support gay marriage. You cannot have both. There is no way we've done this in 38 countries have legalized gay marriage. How many of them, Frank, have strengthened and reinforced children's right to their mother and father? Any guesses?
- [39:09]
A
Zero. None of them have. Because it's. The answer is that's the problem. But people don't understand. There's a cascade effect. When you put this same sex marriage, I call it same sex marriage, not gay marriage. Because people prior to Obergefell who considered themselves gay could have still gotten married. It was open to everybody. They just didn't like their choices. So this is same sex marriage. And actually more accurate, it's genderless marriage. We've turned marriage genderless. And if it's genderless, why have it at all? What's the point? Right? And why two, why not three, four, five, six? You see, you just blow the whole thing up when you get rid of the natural law. That's obvious by the design of the body and how we come together to have children. You know, a man and a woman can do everything alone except procreate. They need one another.
- [39:59]
B
Children need it. And like that's the point. Children need it. They cannot come into existence without a man and a woman. And that specific man and woman will benefit them in ways that other adults don't and can't and never will. Not on a sociological level, not on a psychological level, not on a biological level, not on a safety level, not on a development level, not. No way. If we frame this from the perspective of this is who children are and what they need, there's one definition of marriage and one alone.
- [40:29]
A
Let me ask you one other aspect of this that isn't often talked about. It's not just the impact on children, but it's the impact on laws related to healthcare, which increase costs for everyone. How does that affect laws also that mandate fertility for same sex couples? So now tax dollars go toward that. When prior to Obergefell, that couldn't be forced through. What are some of the other implications that come from saying, oh, how about education in schools? Now that it's the law of the land, now we need to promote it to school children? Comment on any of that?
- [41:11]
B
Well, one of the reasons why I started them before us is, is because Hawaii was passing this terrible bill and it was, you know, they always, I always say it then before us, the victim determines the policy. And for the longest time, gay adults, actually, any adult that really, really wants something in the marriage and family or sexual realm that doesn't get what they want, they will frame themselves as the victim. Right. I'm a victim because I can't have immediate access of abortion whenever I want for non medical purposes up to the time of birth. Right. Like, they'll frame anything they want as they are victimized if they cannot have it. And I remember this law was being passed in Hawaii that was going to, you know, these two adult men who did not look. I like, they looked so creepy. But they were the poster children for this push in Hawaii because they needed the state to subsidize their surrogacy. Do you know how much money they paid out of pocket to rent the womb of another woman when the heterosexual couple next door, they got pregnant on their own. We are at such a disadvantage. If we want to have a child, it's going to be six figures. Why would we have to be subjected to that? After all, Obergefell said that there can be no distinctions between heterosexual and homosexual. This looks like a distinction to me. So they were pushing this law to mandate insurance companies cover or subsidize IVF and surrogacy for gay men. And the only opposition, of course, the LGBT lobby was on board. The Democrats were on board. Everybody loved it. The only people that pushed back were the insurance companies that were like, do you understand how much this is going to increase everyone's premiums? No one's going to like that. And of course I'm like, why the hell is it only insurance companies that are debating this? Where are the people defending the children that are made intentionally motherless? Where are the ones that are going to be Put in homes with unbiased, vetted, unrelated men who are always statistically the most dangerous person in a child's life, who is defending the kids. So that is the one that really said, I need to stop just mouthing off about this and actually start a nonprofit. So that's what we did in 2018. And of course, there's other kinds of societal fallout for this in terms of, like, indoctrination of children as it relates to. And let me tell you this, the constant drumbeat of all families are equal. Love makes a family. Moms and dads, you know, can't. Kids don't need moms and dads. They just need caregivers. You know who that is the worst thing for kids with two mothers and two fathers? That is the worst for them, actually. Any child that's lost their mother and father when they hear love makes a family. And kids don't need moms and dads. Here is the problem. All those kids still want their father. It's instinctual. Think about your own childhood for a second. If you had your mom and dad, but my guess is that was the only thing that you wanted. You wanted your mom and dad to love each other, and you wanted your mom and dad to love you. And if your mother left you or if your father was gone, how much did it bother you? Did it make you sad? Did you stay up at night crying about it? Yeah.
- [44:14]
A
Yeah.
- [44:14]
B
Did you bury it? Did you put I want a father on your Christmas list and send it to Santa? You did. And nobody had to tell you. Boy, it must be hard to not have a dad. The people in your life were probably saying things like, boy, your mom works really hard. She's such a good mom. And you probably did have a good mom. Nobody had to tell you that you desperately wanted a father. You wanted it naturally, because it is probably one of the most universal human longings to be known and loved by the two people who gave you life. And now we've got this family regime, this family redefinition machine that is minimizing and erasing all of those distinctives. And it's the kids without mothers and fathers who take it the worst. Because now they think they're crazy for wanting what every child throughout history has ever wanted when they say when. And I know this because I have run groups of kids with same sex parents and they all want their missing father. And the worst thing is that if they would voice that and they'd say, where's my dad? All the other kids have a dad. And I would like to have a dad. What they're told is, you don't need another dad. You're so lucky. You have two moms. You have two moms. So what does the child do? Then they think, okay, I want a father. Everyone thinks that. I'm so lucky. There must be something wrong with me. There must be something wrong with me for wanting a dad like everyone else. Gay marriage and the family redefinition machine is one of the cruelest forms of gaslighting you could ever inflict on kids with same sex parents.
- [45:53]
A
And it's happening. And of course, what will Satan do? Attack the three institutions God created? The family, the government, Lawlessness. We've seen a lot of that lately. And, and of course the church. The church. He's going to attack all those three. And that's what's happening. By the way, one other point on this, Katie, I like to tell people, when you look at any activity, whatever it is, there's only three things a government can do about the activity. It can prohibit the activity, permit the activity, or promote the activity. Prohibit, permit, or promote. Now, in our country, out of the natural law and of course out of the Bible, for years homosexuality was prohibited. Then it was permitted. And then it took a leap to being promoted through same sex marriage. It's been said before that whenever you move a fence, you ought to pause long enough to see why the fence was put there to begin with. Whatever you think about same sex relationships and opposite sex relationships, you can't deny that they are different. That's why people want them, because they are different. If they are different, then they're not equal. And if they're not equal, we shouldn't legally treat them as equal. That's just basic logic. What?
- [47:13]
B
And here's the problem. This is the big problem. We were required to treat them equally. That is what Obergefell did. It mandated equal treatment between same sex and opposite sex couples. But when it comes to children especially, they will never be equal. So the law had to accomplish what biology prohibited. And that was making two adults of the same sex the parents of a child. And that meant reordering all of parenthood law, everything. And, and bottom line up front. What that did is it reduced children to accessories. Now the law will award children to any adult with the money and means to acquire them. That is what Obergefell has done. It has reduced children to the status of accessory because we've treated two different things equally.
- [48:02]
A
Yeah. And we've said essentially that we're going to try and recreate reality and try and make something that biologically is impossible possible. It's just not. Mothers and fathers are different. They parent differently. They bring different goods to the child. And that's just reality. If you want to deny that, go right ahead, but you're denying reality. And that, that hurts people. It hurts children and children. If there's one institution that's about children, it's marriage. If there's, if, if, if it's not marriage, what is it? And just because some marriages don't have children doesn't mean the overall institution of marriage isn't overall about children.
- [48:51]
B
People say to me all the time, lots of marriages don't have kids. I'm like, yep. But every child has a mother and father.
- [48:58]
A
Right.
- [48:58]
B
And marriage has historically been the tool that nearly every society throughout history has used to give them both. We haven't found anything more efficient or effective. So we need to give it back to them. And that's what Greater than is going to do.
- [49:11]
A
All right, give the website again where people can go, what they can do to get involved. It's going to be a marathon, not a sprint. So it's step by step. And look, it's the right thing to do. You're not, how do I put this? You're not guaranteed success. You're guaranteeing that you'll be faithful and leave the results to God. Yeah.
- [49:35]
B
A lot of people say you're going to fail. And I'm like, good thing I don't make decision decisions based on whether or not I think it's going to work out. That's not how Christians operate. You make decisions you obey, period. Whether or not you think it's going to work out. This is a question of obedience, not calculation.
- [49:54]
A
Well, you know how certainly you're going to fail doing nothing.
- [49:57]
B
Yeah.
- [49:58]
A
That's how you're certain? It's certain then. Well, okay. Not even going to try then.
- [50:04]
B
Of course we're going to try.
- [50:06]
A
Yeah.
- [50:06]
B
But we're also going to win. We are going to win.
- [50:09]
A
Let's go.
- [50:09]
B
Yeah. Greater than we're@greaterthancampaign.com Sign up for the newsletter. If you are a lawmaker, go ahead and send us a message. We'd love to be connected to you. We've got materials coming out, hopefully by the summer where we are specifically going to speak to the church. I've got incredible Protestants on that working group and some wonderful Catholics too. We're going to try to minister to both sides of the Tiber here and communicate the this God given definition of marriage that includes permanence, monogamy, and complementarity, each of which have a very specific child benefit to them. We're going to communicate that marriage is God's plan A for child protection. And then we're going to tell the church, you are the organization. You are the body across the globe that is responsible for child defense. This is what Christians have done throughout every country, every century that we've existed. We have faced a variety of different cultural threats to children. The threats have changed. The church's response hasn't. We have always done two things. Pissed off adults and elevated the rights of kids. And that's what we need to do with marriage right now.
- [51:23]
A
Greaterthan campaign.com okay, I have just one piece of advice, Katie. You need to be far less terrible. Tentative.
- [51:31]
B
I was. I was worried that you were going to say I have to clean up my language, which I know can be a bit of a sensitive spot. But I'll tell you what, strong language is what is needed when children are being victimized. And I just. I just want to stand for it anymore.
- [51:49]
A
All right, well, let's make sure that. That an effort, a big effort is made here, because children matter. Civilization matters. And adults matter, too. They just need to straighten out their anthropology and their theology about what is right and good, not. Whatever desire I have, I ought to follow. That's a disaster, man. If you follow every desire you have, you're going to be dead very early.
- [52:17]
B
And you'll destroy the kids in the process.
- [52:19]
A
Yeah, you don't want that to happen. All right. The great Katie Faust, ladies and gentlemen. Always great having you on the program.
- [52:24]
B
Thanks, Frank.
- [52:25]
A
Good to see you. We're going to do it again. Give me, email me an update sometime. And by the time this thing airs, this is going to be after the Super Bowl. But your prediction is.
- [52:37]
B
I live in Seattle, but we're Bronco fans, so I probably should say Seahawks, just so that I can live in harmony with my neighbors for a few days afterwards.
- [52:47]
A
And your husband is. I know he's on special assignment right now. Or is he home?
- [52:54]
B
He is home, which is very, very nice.
- [52:56]
A
Okay, good. Well, tell him I said howdy.
- [52:58]
B
Good. I will.
- [52:59]
A
Thank you. All right. Good to see.