There’s a particular kind of public sermon that only works if the audience forgets your track record.

Mark’s latest post is one of those: a confident lecture about divorce, cohabitation, “spiritual marriage,” and how the state still considers people legally married—served with a side of hashtags and moral superiority.

And sure, in the abstract, you can have a conversation about legal marriage versus religious belief. But that’s not what this is.

This is what Mark always does: he grabs a rulebook when it’s useful as a club, then drops it the moment the same rulebook turns and points back at him.

The pattern is predictable

Mark doesn’t treat “law” as a shared standard. He treats it like a remote control:

• Law is absolute when he can use it to shame someone else.
• Law is corrupt / irrelevant / misunderstood when it applies to him.
• Authority matters until authority tells him “no.”
• Rules are non-negotiable for everyone else—but endlessly negotiable for Mark.

And that’s the part that never changes: not the theology, not the legalese, not the righteous tone.

It’s the selective enforcement.

The hypocrisy is the point

This is the same guy who can loudly posture about “standards” while repeatedly treating accountability like persecution—whether it’s civil procedure, boundaries, or court orders.

So when Mark posts about who is “still married,” who is “committing adultery,” or what “the state recognizes,” what he’s really doing is something simpler:

He’s building a public courtroom where he plays judge, jury, and holy interpreter—because in the real ones, rules don’t bend just because he insists they should.

The real takeaway

This isn’t about righteousness. It’s about control.

Mark doesn’t argue principles to live by them. He uses principles to manage perception—to frame himself as the authority and everyone else as the problem.

And that’s why it hits so absurdly: Mark’s “laws of the land” only seem to become sacred when they can be pointed outward.

When they point inward, they’re suddenly optional.