Relatable with Allie Beth Stuckey - Ep 264 | The Supreme Court's LGBTQ Ruling: Redefining Sex | Guest: Carrie Severino

Episode Date: June 17, 2020

Carrie Severino, president of the Judicial Crisis Network, explains how the Supreme Court's redefining of the 1964 civil rights law's definition of sex is harmful to American legislation. Unelected judges are making these decisions instead of the public's elected officials within Congress. Additionally, how will this affect the religious work environment if an individual disagrees with a person's sexual orientation or sexual identity? Bostock v. Clayton County will certainly be a defining moment in U.S. history.     Judicial Crisis Network: https://judicialnetwork.com/ Today's Sponsors: With 24/7 access to your classroom, daily support, and financial aid available, Ashford gives you the tools you need to help make your dreams a reality. Enroll now by going to Ashford.edu/ALLIE Express VPN keeps all of your information secure by encrypting 100% of your data with the most powerful encryption available. Get an extra 3 months FREE! Go to ExpressVPN.com/ALLIE

Hey, this is Steve Day. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where we're headed.

You can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. Hey, guys, welcome to Relatable. Happy Wednesday. I hope everyone has had a wonderful week so far and that you enjoyed Monday's episode with my two friends, Virgil Walker and Daryl Harrison from the Just Thinking podcast. A lot of you reached out to me saying how much you appreciated the interview and just the that they gave, I highly recommend checking out the episode if you haven't already. Today, I actually

have another interview. So I have a lot of interviews lined up because we're talking about topics that I am very interested in getting other people's insight on. You guys know that I love to do my monologues and I love to give my analysis and of course I'm going to do that. But there are a lot of experts out there on the subjects that we are discussing that I think offer even better and closer insight into the issues that we are discussing. Today, we are, are going to discuss the Supreme Court case early, the set of cases under the one name, Bostock versus Clayton County, that have to do with discrimination in the workplace based on sexual orientation and so-called gender identity. That was decided on Monday. A conservative

Justice Gorsuch actually wrote the majority opinion. It was a six-three decision saying that the 1964 Civil Rights Act that said that you cannot discriminate in the workplace based on sex also applies to sexual orientation and so-called gender identity. And of course, this is not the decision that contextualists, that traditionalists when it comes to constitutional interpretation wanted not just because of the interpretation itself, but the principle and the nature of legislating from the bench. That's what we're going to discuss today. And I am going to discuss that with Carrie Severino of the Judicial Crisis Network. She follows the Supreme Court closely, and she has an interest in and brings awareness to the decisions that the court makes

and has an interest in justices that follow the Constitution. And so we are going to analyze that case today and look at what it means. Hey, this is Steve Deast. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular.

This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you, about where we are or where we're headed, you can watch this D-Day show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us. So we're going to talk about this Supreme Court case. And what I just want to make clear, before we actually get into the conversation with Carrie Severino, and we'll discuss this with her as well. But you probably saw a lot of celebratory reactions to the decision of the Supreme Court saying, yes, of course, this is right. People shouldn't discriminate on the basis of

sexual orientation and transgender identity. The issue is not whether or not we believe that it's right to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and transgender identity. I would say the vast majority of employers, the vast majority of people in the workplace believe that you shouldn't discriminate based on these things and will not discriminate based on these things. I would say the vast majority of employers want the person who is best for the job, no matter who they are married to, no matter what they dress like. However, the issue is not whether or not it's okay to discriminate, but whether or not this is the Supreme Court's job to legislate from the bench. And of course, is it a correct decision? Not only that, but is it a correct decision

to reinterpret what the 1964 civil rights law said about sex? Is it okay to readdeme? Is it okay to read define sex to mean something else, to broaden it out with moral implications. So the reason why this is contentious and why this is difficult for many Christians who believe that the Bible is the word of God, that God created the heavens in the earth, therefore he is the authority over all of it. Therefore, he says what is and what isn't. And he created the male and female. And he defines marriage in one way, which is between one man and one woman. We believe that sexual orientation and so-called gender identity have moral implications attached to it that biological sex in and of itself does not. And so it is not the same for the Christian who has this kind of biblical worldview or anyone

who has this kind of moral worldview about gender and sexuality. It is not the same to view someone based on sex and or view them based on sexual orientation or whatever gender they supposedly identify as. So there is a moral component to the sexual orientation that is not there in regards to sex for people with the traditional scientific perspective on this stuff. So that is that is the problem here. It is not whether or not the court did not decide whether or not it is mortal to discriminate. They decided whether they decided something that Congress was supposed to decide that was actually supposed to be legislated and hasn't been able to be legislated because it hasn't been the will of the majority of the people. It's very similar as the Obergefell decision. So you can still believe

that transgender people, that gay people should not be discriminated against in the workplace and still disagree with the reasoning of this decision and the principle behind the decision, which is that the court is able to legislate something that really should happen in Congress. in on the state level. So I just want to, I want to make that clear because it is obviously going to be, it's very obvious already that this is a conversation that says, oh, you know, I don't really agree with how the court can about this. And then the other side says that you're a bigot, that you are denying the humanity of gay people and transgender people. And that is not the case at all. It is about constitutionality. It's also about religious liberty. Our religious people,

are religious employers, are religious organizations going to be able to live out their biblical worldview in the workplace? Are they going to be able to say a man is a man, a woman is a woman, which is a biological fact? Are they going to be able to say these biological facts? They're not just religious statements. It's a biological fact. Are you going to be able to say that without being in violation of federal civil rights law? That should have been a decision that is made in legislatures. So that is the problem that is before us. And again, as with so many things when it comes to social issues, we have to be able to remove ourselves from the emotionalism

and from the high drama of these conversations and think logically, think constitutionally, of course, think morally and realize this is not a conversation about whether it's right or wrong to discriminate. Again, you can believe that and still disagree with the constitutionality of this decision. Another reason why a lot of people are disappointed by this is because it was Justice Gorsuch, who is a conservative justice. He is. I don't think it's a farce. He truly is a conservative justice, obviously appointed by President Trump, who wrote the majority opinion. I encourage you to read his opinion. I encourage you to read the dissent by Justice Alito. And I also encourage you to read

Kavanaugh's dissent as well. They lay out very good arguments that we'll actually discuss today with Kerry Savarino for why this decision, was made in an erroneous way. Carrie, thank you so much for joining me. Great to be here. Thanks for having me. For everyone who does not know, can you tell them who you are and what you do? Yes, I'm the president of the Judicial Crisis Network, and we are dedicated to trying to help

confirm judges who are going to be faithful to the Constitution and to the rule of law. Before that, I clerked for Justice Thomas in the Supreme Court. So I'm an avid follower of the cases coming. down from the Supreme Court and kind of helping explain them for people. And that is exactly why you were here today. Can you give everyone just a brief summary of the case that was decided by the court on Monday? Yeah. So there were a set of cases together. And the question they were asking is whether the 1964 civil rights laws, which say you can't discriminate in employment based on a series of things, you know, on the basis of sex and the basis of race,

the basis of religion, et cetera, whether that on the basis of sex then also means that it includes on the basis of sexual orientation and on the basis of gender identity. And the challenge with this here is we have a lot of federal laws and we have a lot of state laws that say specifically no discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or no discrimination in the basis of gender identity. The language in this statute that was being interpreted doesn't say that. It simply says on the basis of sex. And so what we saw coming out on Monday was a decision that then interpreted that concept of on the basis of sex so broadly that it swept in basically anything that has to do with sex, which is how they got in sexual orientation and in transgenderism

into that previous law that for decades, known of the politicians who passed it and for decades later, everyone acknowledged this law doesn't cover this territory. It's a concern because the revision of our laws is not for judges to do. That is for the legislature. And this is why Congress has many times discussed and debated, should we add sexual orientation to this law? Should we add gender identity? That is where that should be happening. It shouldn't ever be happening with the unelected men and women on our courts making those important decisions for us. And Justice Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, which may be to some people out there, that might be a little bit surprising because he is, he has talked about being a textualist. Obviously, he was appointed by President Trump.

But for you, was this a surprise? So on one sense, yes, it's surprising because I think this is his decision while it was framed in textualist terms isn't a very good application of the philosophy of textualism. It is sort of a surprise meaning textualism, which is not what Justice Scalia, his predecessor on the court, embraced the idea that somehow a law suddenly means something different than everyone understood it to mean when it was passed because we have to interpret things. You know, the legislators can't predict what people might read into their laws in the future. We only can deal with the words that they actually meant at the time. At another level, though, it's not entirely surprising because some of his questions during oral argument did seem to get hung up on this question of, well, if it's because of something having to do with sex, the word sex is in there, maybe that stretches broad enough to cover

this. So we saw some aspects of this logic coming out in his questions during oral argument. Unfortunately, I don't think that at the end of the day is the right textualist analysis. And Justice Kavanaugh in his dissent really kind of close. clarified, I think with some good examples for the American people, what the original meaning actually is supposed to be. So it's not just you look up a dictionary definition of each word and then kind of cobble them back together, like some online translation program. We know those don't really work very well. And the way people use language in real life is very different.

So he talked about how statutes are interpreted, for example, a statute covering fruits. Does it cover a tomato? Even though botanically it's a fruit, most people don't. don't consider tomatoes fruits, they think of them as vegetables. And illegally, actually, the same thing would apply. Because when people mean fruits, they mean a different kind of thing. They don't mean the botanical definition that cop follows. He said, look at the term, for example, a three pointer. Technically, a field goal in football gets three points. So maybe that's the three pointer. But we know most people who are familiar with the English language and the sporting world understand, a three-pointer almost always is referring to a basketball shot from beyond the three-point

circle on the court. So in the usage of these terms, we have to understand them as they were actually meant by people at the time. We don't get to kind of just pick apart the language and then put it back together. So the logic that Gorsuch gave, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but just to summarize, it was discriminating in the workplace on the basis of sexual orientation or so-called gender identity necessarily means discriminating on discriminating. toward biological sex because, for example, you would not fire a woman for being married to a man, but if you fire a man for being married to a man or a man wearing a dress that a woman would wear, then that is, according to Gorsuch, sex discrimination. And so is that true? Is that the argument

that he was trying to give? That's the argument he's making. I think there's a couple fallacies embedded in that. And the real difference is there's a difference between discriminating because of sex, because you are male or female. Right. And we're very familiar with that concept. And it happens both ways. The Supreme Court has said it applies to men, just like it applies to women. There's a difference between that and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It's a real thing.

It happens, but it's not the same thing. And this is why so many laws that outlaw discrimination, the basis of sexual orientation, they have language to do that. We have a specific term. As Justice Kavana also pointed out, he said, look, the Seneca Falls, the movement for women's liberation was very different than the Stonewall riots. I mean, they're different movements. There are a lot of people who may belong to both, but it's a different principle at work here.

We can't conflate the two. Logically, it's just two different types of discrimination going on. Right. Can you tell us what this will mean, for example, women's sports or public restrooms or religious organizations or religious people that run a business because I'm a Christian. And so I know that there is obviously a difference between sex and sexual orientation for people who believe the Bible is the inerrant word of God. There is a morality that is tied to sexual orientation that is not tied to sex.

And so there presents a problem here. Can you tell us what it means? I know I asked a ton of questions in that one question, but can you tell us what this means? what this means in the way of religious liberty and in the way of just individual liberty, especially for women and girls. Yeah. So Justice Alito in his dissent, there were two dissents here and his really went through a great list of the areas. The court said it wasn't dealing with today. And okay, that wasn't the specific issue before, but the implications in all of these other area of law from the sea change and an understanding of what the word sex means are really widespread,

as you kind of alluded to. There's questions of religious freedom, which if this change, were being done in the legislative process, which is how our changes to laws are supposed to be done, you would see that generally balanced out by, you know, an understanding of, okay, if you have a church, are they then required to hire someone who is living in a way that's at odds with the values they're teaching? Or say, a religious school, same kind of principle. That, unfortunately, wasn't done by the court because they can't make those kind of legislative compromises. You have questions like the question that arose in Hobby Lobby, that are almost certainly going to come up. So, for example, in Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court upheld the right

of Christian business owners not to have to pay for health care that violated their conscience, including abortions, abortifacient contraceptives. In this case, now what happens? Could Christian business owners be forced to pay for sex change surgeries or cross-sex hormones that they also find morally problematic, but then be forced to fund for their employees? That's still an open question now. Questions about whether bathroom or locker room usage can be limited to members of a single biological sex. And there are real concerns about safety issues, about women who have experienced sexual violence themselves and then find themselves in a intimate environment like that with someone who is a biological male. However, he may identify is still a very threatening

experience for many women. The future of women's sports is another serious question. If women's sports teams, not just as we've seen at the school level, but now also professionally, because we're talking about employment law in this case, are forced to hire men, biological men, who identify as women, then competing unequal footing with biological women. Will we even be able to see women left in so-called women's sports? It has really long, broad implications. And I think the court will be experiencing a veritable tsunami of litigation now following this because it leaves so many questions unanswered. It's kind of an illustration of how this is clearly not what the law always meant, because if we're seeing this much uncertainty now brought about by this change,

it just illustrates, yes, this is a sea change in what the understanding of this term that's been around since 1964 actually means. Justice Alito wrote the dissent. And I think that you or the, yes, he wrote the dissent, I think that you already alluded to that. Can you summarize his main objections to the majority opinion? Well, I think he starts out putting it very well. He said there's only one word for what happened in the majority opinion today, and that is legislation, that this is what the meaning of the word, again, by every politician who passed it, by every court that interpreted it for the first many decades the law was around is that because of sex means because you are male or because you are female, not because of your sexual behavior, sexual orientation.

As Justice Alito had asked during oral arguments, too, he said, wait a minute, how can this be, you don't actually have to know even the person's sex at all to make these determinations. What if they said simply, I'm happy hiring someone who's heterosexual, I don't care if they're male or female, but I don't want to hire someone who is homosexual in this position. You don't have to know if it's a man or a woman. You just simply have to know whether they are living a homosexual lifestyle. And I think that is, so he pointed out the distinction. He also went through all of the challenges that are going to follow from this law.

And he had a litany of dictionary definitions as well saying, okay, look, this term has been interpreted for decades. And here's every dictionary you could possibly find to show you that sex simply did not ever mean sexual orientation. It's not the same as transgenderism. It has a separate meaning and trying to blur those meanings does not do service to the actual words of the statute or the English language. So I think one thing that people listening to this kind of need to understand is that we're not talking about whether or not it's right to discriminate. We're talking about whether or not it is the job of the court to essentially like you have said, legislate in this way and the way that Congress hasn't been able to. And I think another concern probably that people have when they're thinking through such a decision with such wide implications is what it not only has to do with the First Amendment in regards to religious liberty, but also the freedom of speech, someone and employer in the workplace, saying, you know, a man is a man, a woman is a woman. Are they going to be in danger of being in violation of federal civil rights law?

So this is something that Justice Alito's dissent pointed out, the real tension with First Amendment principles that's going on here because you have jurisdictions like New York that are now hitting people with very heavy fines. if they use a pronoun that someone isn't the pronouns, preferred pronoun that someone had, you could easily imagine an employer similarly having an issue where his employee could claim there was a hostile work environment, not just for pronoun uses, but even potentially just for commentary that suggested he believed there is reality to biological sex. That's a real risk. And at the end of the day, it's not, though, about the decisions on how do we run our civil rights law. That's something that needs to be debated in the political spheres. That's something that

Congress needs to weigh in on. And they have been debating. And there are actually laws that they've been discussing right now at passage. It's really a question of who decides. Is it our elected representatives that decide? That's how the Constitution set up our system. So we have to elect our legislators. Or is it unelected judges who serve for life terms who have no accountability directly to the people who are making these decisions on what should be some of the most hotly debated policy issues, not they're not, they're not a, an issue that is a legal question for a judge to decide. Do you have any advice or encouragement for what people who are worried about this and the implications of this should do? Obviously, voting is not enough because people voted for

President Trump and we got Gorsuch, who has made some good decisions, but this one, obviously is disappointing. And the judges are not elected officials, like you said. So what, what can people do to make any kind of change or to voice their opinion or dissent and things like this? Well, I think being willing to talk about concern about these decisions, it's very difficult in a world where, you know, I've just seen the hit I've gotten on Twitter in the last 24 hours. You know, people who are having a hard time understanding that there's a, there's a, there's a, logical distinction between having a constitutional concern about a legal decision and hating people and being a bigot. You know, this is, we can't, we can't sink to just reflexively demonizing

anyone who we have a disagreement about, even if it's a serious one. We have to be able to debate these questions. But I do think that making sure we are heard of the polls is still the most important thing we can do. Look, the distinction between Justice Gorsuch and the kind of judge that say Joe Biden would nominate, this kind of person that Hillary Clinton would have put on the court is still incredibly dramatic. Justice Gorsuch agrees with Justice Thomas in the court more than any other sitting justice. That is something that is a wide gulf between him and the kind of person that, you know, Joe Biden would probably put someone on the court who is to the left of Justice Ginsburg. So while all of these men and women are fallible, I don't think this is something that

was a, you know, a calculated move on his part to try to do, you know, come up with a wrong decision. He simply has, I think, a mistaken approach to textualism in that case. There are decisions of Justice Scalia's that I disagree with, that he came to conclusions, even one of the foundational religious freedom decisions that I think most people on the right would say, now he got wrong. That's simply a function of the fact that we have fallen men and women in these positions. You can't expect everyone to get every decision right. What we need to have, though, are judges who do take the text seriously. I think Gorsuch does. I think he confused it in this case, but I fully expect that going forward we're going to see him continue in a textualist and originalist

path. And I have to say the choice before us is really, do we want more justices like that? And remember, Justice Kavanaugh, who also wrote a very strong dissent in this case. Or do you want to see justices who aren't even going to have the pretense of trying to. to look at the text of the law who are happy to embrace the idea that they can add new value to not just statutory language, but to the Constitution itself, that they can bring new things into that founding document that our country has. That is a wide gulf. And I think that's one that we have to ensure that we still have judges who believe that the Constitution means what it says and our laws mean what it says. Exactly. So voting still matters, especially in this

presidential election. Can you please tell everyone where are they? can find you and any other resources that you would like for them to check out. Yeah, so I'm on Twitter at JCP Severino. I have a website at Judicial Network.com. That's where JCPN, my organization, is located, as well as on Twitter at Judicial Network. Awesome. Well, thank you so much, Carrie, for joining me. Thanks.

Have a great day. What I think is interesting about this, I just want to add this commentary before we end the episode, is that the people who pay the price for this, obviously Christians are going to pay the price for this. Are they able to exercise their religious liberty in the public sphere? It seems like that's getting not only more and more dangerous and more and more popular, but also more and more illegal. The left, because their ideologues, are finding a way to subvert the Constitution to make sure that Christians aren't actually able to live out and speak about their faith in any kind of substantial way. Now, I don't want you to be worried about that. You should go listen to

last Wednesday's episode, which was past the point of no return where I remind us that the church is refined by fire. It's not destroyed by it. And that in most of the world and for most of history, Christians have not had freedom of speech. They have not had freedom of religious expression. The American experiment is a reprieve from the tyranny that has tried to crush Christianity in the Christian church for so long. And we should be grateful for that. And we should continue to fight for that, but we also cannot be surprised. One, and we can also not be scared into paralysis about the laws and the decisions that are coming down the pipeline that Christians are going to have to pay for. But not only that, but decisions like this that say,

basically, that you can identify as whatever gender that you want to, and you have to be accepted into spaces that correspond with not your biological, but the gender that you identify with. So no matter what that is on any day, you have to be accepted into women's locker rooms. You have to be accepted into women's restrooms. You have to be accepted onto women's soccer teams, lacrosse teams, and all of that stuff.

The people who pay the price for that are women. And, you know, the left talks a lot about misogyny and internalized misogyny and deep-seated sexism and pervasive, systemic sexism and all of this stuff. And, you know, it's really easy to kind of brush that to the side and say, oh, you know, that's not true. Women make the same as men do. Women have all the same rights that men do. But I think it's actually true. I think that there actually is deep-seated misogyny in a lot of people, but it's not coming from the places that the left thinks it's coming from. It is coming from these

movements that desire to completely eliminate and experience the existence of women. It desires to eliminate any real meaning of what it means to be a woman and to have women's only spaces. I don't know if you guys saw that J.K. Rowling, she is obviously a leftist. She hates Donald Trump, but she has been labeled a turp for a trans-exclusionary radical feminist. Like Megan Murphy, if you've heard of Megan Murphy, she's a very interesting person to follow. She got kicked off Twitter for basically saying a man is a man and a woman is a woman. She is a feminist. She is a on the left side of the aisle, but she believes in the existence of biological sex and the importance of recognizing biological sex and biological women being different than men. Well,

J.K. Rowling came out and said the same thing, and she just got blasted. She got death threats. People tried to docks her. These transgender activists tried to come after her. Of course, burning her books and all of the crazy stuff that fascists always do, by the way. Just for stating that, hey, a woman is a woman and women have different experiences than men, and they have different experiences than people who identify as transgender women. You just do. If you have not read the book, Love Thy Body by Nancy Pearson, and if you're a part of the women's book club, and if you're not part of the women's book club, you should. You should join on Facebook, but if you're a part of it, we're going to read it at some point. But she, her argument is

basically that the Christian worldview values the sanctity of the physical body of biology, much more than the secular worldview does. The secular worldview says biology doesn't really mean anything. It's subject to what our inner soul really wants or really says. It's subject to what we feel. The Christian worldview says, no, the body biology means something. It means something and it is good. And it has a purpose. It has not just a biological reality, but it has social implications. It has moral implications attached to it. And we actually think people are born in bodies that are good, that are purposeful, that are intentional, that are beautiful, that are fearfully and wonderfully made, and that there is a specific purpose and intention that God has for physical bodies.

Whereas the left believes that biology is really arbitrary based on social whims and based on personal whims and we are seeing that they are trying to push that gender subjectivism on everyone else and women are going to pay for it because you can try all day to say that sex is arbitrary, that it's not real. There's no such thing as biological sex that woman doesn't mean anything. Woman just means whatever you want it to mean. But truth is a beach ball. Biological truth, especially it is a beach ball. You can try to push it under the water as much as you want to, you can get the entire beach to get on this beach ball and push it under the water and you'll be able to for a little bit, but either the beach ball is just going to pop or it's going to keep on

coming back up. That is what happens when you try to suppress the truth. And in that time, when you are pushing the beach ball under, people will suffer. People are going to suffer. People always suffer when you try to go against or enact policies that go against human nature. Nothing that you ever do, no study that you ever publish will ever be able to discount the basic biological reality of male versus female. You're just not going to be able to get rid of that. You can see from the womb that males and females are different. They're different down to their DNA. If you've ever been around children, male and female children raised in the exact same way with the exact same toys, the exact same clothes, with the exact same colors around them, talk to the exact same way.

differently. They are different. I am around babies, boy babies and girl babies, and they are different already. At only a few months old, you are never going to be able to deny that or change that with any kind of social policy. And when you do, people will suffer. And because women are physically weaker than men, that's another difference that apparently the leftist doesn't want to accept. We will be the victims of the eraser of women or the attempt to erase. women and allowing men, biological men, into protected spaces for women. Women are going to be the victims of that. So these people who say that they care about women's rights and want to protect women. And all they mean by that, by the way, is allowing women to kill their children.

Like that's their idea of empowerment. Their idea of feminism, which is so empowering and apparently equalizing is allowing women to kill their children and allowing men into women's locker rooms. Super empowering. I can't imagine why feminism, today's feminism isn't more successful and effective, why it's not attracting more people. Anyway, those are the thoughts that I have for today. We will be back here on Friday.

Hey, this is Steve Dase. If you're listening to Allie, you already understand that the biggest issues facing our country aren't just political. They're moral, spiritual, and rooted in what we believe is true about God, humanity, and reality itself. On the Steve Day show, we take the news of the day and tested against first principles, faith, truth, and objective reality. We don't just chase narratives and we don't offer false comfort. We ask the hard questions and follow the answers wherever they leave, even when it's unpopular. This is a show for people who want honesty over hype and clarity over chaos. If you're looking for commentary grounded in conviction and unwilling to lie to you about where we are or where

we're headed, you can watch this D-Day Show right here on Blaze TV or listen wherever you get podcasts. I hope you'll join us.