Ah yes, another sermon from Mark Anthony Stephens—the walking contradiction with a Wi-Fi connection.

In his latest Facebook homily, Mark invokes Romans 13 and Washington State law to educate the masses on bigamy, boldly asking, “Why lie?”

A fair question, Mark. Let’s try answering it—with receipts.

Let’s Begin With the Irony, Shall We?

Bigamy, per RCW 9A.64.010, is intentionally marrying or purporting to marry someone while still legally married. And while that may sound familiar, it’s not just because you Googled it today in a passive-aggressive attempt to deflect.

It’s familiar because it mirrors your own timeline—one muddied by overlapping relationships, confusing claims of marital status, and the sort of conveniently flexible truth you wield like scripture.

The Divine Loophole?

After explaining how Christians should obey laws—unless those laws conflict with God’s will—Mark gives us the ol’ “God said I could” out-clause.

Here’s the logic in Mark’s world:

• Obey authority—unless you don’t like it.
• Follow the law—unless it convicts you.
• Romans 13—but with a Mark 1:1 exception: “My perception shall override reality.”

But we’re not done.

Let’s Talk About Real History

This is the same Mark who:

• Lived in multiple homes not under his name—including one that burned down under mysterious circumstances (yes, the same one his son lost his baseball uniform in, for which he never reimbursed the league—see Rob Peters’ signed statement.
• Allegedly convinced his own son to sign a “contract” denying his eating disorder diagnosis, as per Dr. Rao, while actively undermining doctors and misrepresenting facts.
• Laughs at chaos in youth sporting events, records disruptive behavior, and encourages adults to shout obscenities at children’s games.

But tell us more about Romans 13.

---

📜 The Laws You Actually Break, Mark (Since You Brought It Up)

While Mark waxes poetic about RCW 9A.64.010 (Bigamy), let’s review a few more relevant statutes—ones that don’t get selectively quoted in his spiritual performance pieces.

🔹 Failure to Pay Child Support

RCW 26.18.050 – Failure to comply with a support or maintenance order

A responsible parent who willfully fails to comply with a child support order may be subject to contempt of court and other enforcement remedies.

Mark has consistently claimed he’s unable to pay child support due to low income—yet documentation shows travel, frequent relocation, and expensive hobby equipment. He’s not just late—he’s habitually evasive.

🔹 Contempt of Court

RCW 7.21.010 & RCW 26.09.160 – Contempt for failure to comply with parenting plans, evaluations, or support

Willful disobedience of any lawful court order may result in contempt proceedings, monetary sanctions, or jail time.

Mark has:

• Ignored repeated court orders for Domestic Violence and Mental Health Assessments
• Refused to provide financial documentation
• Failed to comply with OFW requirements and court-ordered communication procedures

That’s not spiritual discernment. That’s legal defiance.

🔹 Violation of Restraining or No Contact Orders

RCW 26.50.110 – Violation of a domestic violence protection order

A knowing violation of a protection order is a gross misdemeanor and, in some cases, a Class C felony.

Mark is currently subject to multiple No Contact Orders, including permanent protection orders, yet continues to:

• Post indirectly to or about protected parties on social media
• Monitor their online activity
• Engage in targeted narrative messaging, in direct circumvention of court protections

And let’s not forget the recent documentation where even Liam’s physician noted these violations are not just legal infractions, but endangering a child’s recoveryDr. Rao.

🔹 Failure to Comply with Court-Ordered Assessments

RCW 26.09.191 – Restrictions in parenting plans for conduct detrimental to the child

Mark’s refusal to complete psychological and DV evaluations is not just a bad look—it’s legally disqualifying behavior for unsupervised parenting time.

The court has already restricted his involvement until these assessments are completed. Instead of compliance, Mark chooses excuses:

• “I don’t live in Washington.”
• “I can’t afford it.”
• “I don’t agree with the premise.”

If Mark’s obedience to government authority is conditional, then his sermon on Romans 13 isn’t theology—it’s projection.

The Real Question Isn’t “Why Lie?”

It’s why project?

Why obsessively create public posts about adultery, bigamy, sin, and broken covenants—if not to reinforce a false narrative that you are the victim of other people’s timelines and choices?

Because here’s what we see: a pattern of public “corrections” that only exist to cover tracks, point fingers, and confuse your audience just long enough for you to play the “obedient, wounded husband” while actively disobeying court orders, doctor’s instructions, and basic common sense.

Obey the law? Then start with the ones tied to restraining orders and child support.