Side A - (0:24) - 10/11/05

• Cheryl Wetzstein: Folks have been bringing up polygamy as a fait accompli after gay marriage for quite awhile. And I've been told, especially by homosexual rights groups that I interview, that that's a non-issue. And there's other people who have told me it's a non-issue. But you certainly don't agree. (Chuckle.)
  Mark, the Founder: Oh! We say we ARE the next civil rights issue, and ironicly, not from the Left, but from the Right.
  
  
• Mark, the Founder: All the arguments that are being used in opposing the biological impossibility of "same sex marriage" are actually justifying and extremely explaining the very rationale why polygamy makes even that much more sense.
  
  
• Mark, the Founder: You're not going to be an idiot and pull off polygamy. It's just not going to happen. You're not going to attract. You're not going to draw. You're not going to be able to hold it together.
  
  
• Mark, the Founder: Any intelligent woman, if there were only 10 men and 10 women left on the earth to procreate the earth, and four or five of them (men) are unhealthy idiots, and another two or three are kind of so-so, and two or three are attractive, intelligent men, you guarantee that polygamy is going to take place. Guaranteed. Any intelligent woman is going to draw to the intelligent, attractive man - and certainly not to the idiots, and not to the unhealthy.
  
  
• Mark, the Founder: It is the total hypocrisy of our country that someone like Hugh Hefner can have a TV show with three of his mistresses that he's keeping - and it's a regular TV show now on secular television - where he's keeping three of these girls, and they're more or less "wives" ...and he has relationships with all three of them. And it's "unmarried" by the government definition, and that's "all well and fine." But let him cross the line to take responsibility, and say, "I'm going to be their HUSBAND in absolute responsibility" and do all this - and suddenly, he's a "criminal." That is total hypocrisy of a country that says we value family. We justify fornication yet illegalize marriage.
  
  
• Mark, the Founder: "One man, one woman" is Marriage Marxism - because marriage precedes government. And government has its power from the authority of "the governed," the consent of "the governed." And since marriage precedes government, it is not government's business to be then coming back onto the individuals and telling them them what they may define for themselves - because marriage precedes government.
  
  
• Mark, the Founder: Frankly, the roles of government, when it comes to marriage, really, should not be anything more than perhaps being a repository for public records of contractual arangements.
  
  
• Cheryl Wetzstein: The arguments in favor of polygamy are deep, and wide, and long compared with the novelty boutique of gay marriage.
  Mark, the Founder: Right. I think, "homosexual marriage," it's a biological impossibility. You will hear me say that frequently, "the biological impossibility of 'same sex marriage.'" And because I say that, of course, that's why certain liberals, of course, will HAVE to accept what I'm saying (about polygamy rights), but with their fingers holding their nose. So, I'm not necessarily seeking their support - they have to support (polygamy rights for consenting adults).
  
  
• Cheryl Wetzstein: To your knowledge, there is nothing that persuades you that "homosexual marriage" has any history at all?
  Mark, the Founder: No, not at all. That's an invention. That's a biological impossibility. See, from my perspective, the very theory of "same sex marriage" is an invention of government defining marriage in the first place with anti-polygamy. It's an invention. The (modern) idea of government marriage is an invention of "Marxism presented as supposed Americanism." The defense of anti-polygamy laws created the justification for government to say, "We can define marriage." Now, you've got the idea of government defining marriage, and government being involved in marriage, then you end up with the Income Tax back in 1913, and all that, and you start having increasing uses and applications of government applying marriage, such as tax benefits and things of that nature, marriage rights, and all these other issues. (With that,) ...you've created a new monster called, "government marriage." And government marriage is not anything related to Biblical marriage. It's not related to anything. It's a whole new monster - called, "government marriage." Automatically, you guaranteed that homosexuals were going to try to latch onto that monster called governmment marriage themselves. And from that standpoint, if you have the idea of equality under the law, (and) government marriage is not real marriage (anyway), and so, that's why homosexuals were guaranteed to pursue it. And that's why anti-polygamy is the real "slippery slope" that led us to this point of the invention of the biological impossibility of "same sex marriage."

Side B - (0:29) - 11/22/05

• Mark, the Founder: The "House of Cards" (analogy) is probably the best way to perceive the whole outline of what we're trying to conclude here, in that the different floors represent different constituencies.
  For example, liberals have to (accept polygamy rights) because of their "tolerance" dogma.
  The feminists that believe in a woman's right to choose what she wants to do - and if a woman wants to choose this (polygamy), then she should have the right to choose this - they're easily persuaded.
  The cultural conservatives undrstand that this could be a way to help single moms get off welfare and prevent that, and providing good, quality fathers for children, as opposed to no fathers at all, based on this society of "dumbed down males" and men running off and leaving fatherless children.
  Think of each one of these (floors) as a political constiuency... Each constitiuency represents a floor in the "House of Cards" (of anti-polygamy thinking).
  And the first floor of that "House of Cards" is the conservatives themselves. So, once we persuade them (i.e., the conservatives), we effectively - picture the imagery, you kicked out the first floor of a "House of Cards." Once the first floor is crashed down, everything comes down. The opposition (to polygamy) of the entire "House of Cards" comes crashing down, because:
  Liberals have no reason to be fighting it. Certainly feminists who believe a woman's right to choose - if she wants to choose this - would certainly not have a reason to fight this. Cultural conservatives who understand the value of reducing welfare and providing good, quality fathers for children and abandoned single moms would see that. That comes crashing down. And then, certainly, just about anybody else - the highest floors - everybody else is pretty much laissez faire and could care less what consenting adults choose to do.
  So everything comes crashing down once that first floor of the conservatives are presuaded and removed from being the foundation of the anti-polygamy "House of Cards."
  
  
• Mark, the Founder: The idea of anti-polygamy "in the Bible" requires a mind game of self-delusion. It's like looking up at the clear midnight sky and saying, "There's seven moons up there." And there isn't. It's a total figment of an imagination. You cannot come to that conclusion when you seriously read the Bible. It's a game of self-delusion to come to anti-polygamy thinking.
  
  
• Mark, the Founder: Here we are in America that believes in the free market and capitalism, and oppose the concept of socialism, that very (free market) concept means that the best should be able to serve more. That's what free market is about. But would you have the idea of one customer for one business so that everybody can have one? That doesn't make sense. The best serve the best, serve more customers, for example, and the better men would be able to help and nurture and encourage women.
  
  
• Mark, the Founder: For the Christians learning about us, we are the equivalent of the modern day Reformation.
  
  
• Mark, the Founder: It is important that if he (Tom Green) is going to be used as a point of reference that, as far as pro-polygamists are concerned, he's the "polygamy Tim MacVeigh."
  ... I want to make sure 1.) that my picture is not next to Tom Green in any way, and 2.) it really is necessary to establish that pro-polygamists are vehemently against him. Vehemently. He is NOT a "poster boy" for polygamy... He is NOT representative of polygamy at all...
  Cheryl Wetzstein: You and your people do not appear anywhere near him the story. So, it's just, when I talk about Utah, I talk about Utah. None of your people are from Utah.