Rick Green [00:00:07] Welcome to the intersection of faith and culture. Thanks for joining us today on the WallBuilders Show. We got a representative from Tennessee; Gino Bulso will be joining us later in the program, talking about some of the bills in Tennessee and some of the progress being made there. Lots of good legislation across the country actually. It's just an incredible time to be alive folks. We're seeing a real culture shift. Rick Green here with David Barton and Tim Barton, our websites, wallbuilders.com and wallbuilders.show for the radio program, wallbuilders.show and then wallbuilders.com for everything else. David and Tim, you guys have testified at the Tennessee legislature several times. I mean, for years, actually, David, I remember going with you one time, probably 20 years ago, when I was just first starting to do stuff with you. And you talked to the caucus. I don't know if you remember that or not. It was in some, I think we were even in a hotel room. I don't remember if we were at the Capitol, but it was the whole Republican caucus of Tennessee. How much has changed in 20 years and the kind of good legislation that's getting filed right now. 

David Barton [00:01:01] Yeah, Tennessee has become a very strong state for very strong constitutional and traditional religious moral kind of values is its really kind of a throwback to what was healthy about America even just a few decades ago and they've been really bold in Tennessee. So, they've come out and they become one of the key states in the nation for doing things right. That's for sure. So, looking at what Tennessee some of the things are trying to do right now. One of them that just it took me back to the 250th when we're going to talk about what they're one of the initiatives they've got. But the 250th is we're celebrating this year. And the reason we have 250th is because of the philosophy that we started with. Unlike other governments, we started the different philosophy, we got different results. Most governments never get the opportunity to experience 100 years, much less 200, 250. So, we're really unique. But you start with that declaration, you take the 161 words, set forth six principles. Those six principles became the foundation of American government. The Constitution is built on them. The Constitution actually dates itself to the Declaration. The Constitution recognizes the Declaration as our birth certificate. This is what brought the Constitution to being. And when you look at it right up front, those key 46 words, it talks about that there really is a moral basis of right and wrong. That God has established that. The laws of nature and nature's God. And within that moral basis, we're told that everything has to be built on that. And so, from that God gives us certain inalienable rights, and we fight for those rights and defend those rights. That's what government's supposed to do. And so, as it goes through all of that, what you get is neither one of those documents is value neutral. Neither the Declaration nor the Constitution is value-neutral. And we've had about 40 years of secularists telling us, oh no, it's a secular government. There's no values in it. We determine the values. And we were founded on a set of values that we respected for more than 200 years that have gotten away from us in the last few decades. And I think what is happening with various efforts across the United States, we're starting to recognize that we don't work well apart from a fixed set of values. And part of those fixed set of values is established by the laws of nature and nature's God. And one of those is what we would call natural marriage. Natural marriage is male and female, that this is what it takes, and that's the basis of a moral relationship. And that's gotten away from us the last two to three decades, particularly. And we've seen America take a nosedive in areas we never thought we'd get into. And it's just good to see that there are some efforts across the US to try to get back to that, the laws of nature and nature's God. And Tennessee is one of the states that are really, they're, they're heading in that direction, leading in that direction and, and Gino Bulso is a representative there. And he's got some great initiatives going after trying to really turn back some of those court decisions that got us into really muddy waters. So, this is gonna be a great effort coming out of Tennessee and hopefully it'll be very successful. It'll benefit all the nation as a result. 

Rick Green [00:03:58] Quick break folks, we'll be right back. Gino Bulso, our special guest, state representative from Tennessee. You're listening to The WallBuildes Show. 

Rick Green [00:05:11] Welcome back to the WallBuilders Show. Thanks for staying with us. Great to have representative Gino Bulso with us from Tennessee. The great state of Tennessee. In fact, representative, I got to tell you, I'm jealous. So many of my friends have moved to Tennessee instead of Texas. And for a Texan, that's hard to handle, man. I don't know what you guys are just doing so many good things that you're attracting great people. 

Gino Bulso [00:05:29] We are indeed, and we're happy to do it. We're sorry for your loss there in Texas, Rick, but as the volunteer state, a lot of folks are just volunteering to come up and join us. 

Rick Green [00:05:40] I'm telling you, well, there'd be no Texas without all the Tennesseeans that came and fought at the Alamo and everything else. So, I give you that as well, but I tried so hard to get when Jeremy Boring was running Daily Wire, we almost got them to move to Texas, but y'all won. They moved to Nashville. So that's just one of many, but anyway, bless you, man. Thank you for serving. And, you know, we wanted to get you on to talk about the same sex marriage bill, the potential of, of this issue finally, you know being reversed and coming back the other way, so talk to us about. What led to this and you know, where you see this legislation potentially going? It could be, could lead to, you know a, a judicial battle that, could actually overturn or at least challenge Obergefell. So yeah, so let's just back up and tell us about the bill, what it does and, and why you decided to take this particular fight on. 

Gino Bulso [00:06:32] Sure, what you're referring to is known as HB 1473 here in Tennessee. And we filed it, Rick, because, you know, while Obergefell is in force and while the states are bound to comply with its interpretation of the 14th Amendment, we want to make sure that it is enforced as narrowly as possible. And so, what this bill does is it sets out very plainly... Neither the 14th Amendment nor Obergefell's interpretation of it that the Constitution somehow provides individuals of the same sex to marry is binding on private citizens. The 14th Amendment, of course, is a limitation on public actors, on the state, not on private actors. So the bill very simply says that Obergefell is not binding on private citizens or businesses here in Tennessee. 

Rick Green [00:07:31] And what's the practical outcome of that? So what is that, what type of people would, do you think that would most impact in terms of businesses or individuals? And then how would that play out? 

Gino Bulso [00:07:42] It would play out this way, and I'll need to bring in another bill that I've got pending, which is known as HB 1472, which we call the Banning Bostock Act. You may recall, Obergefell was decided in 2015, but in 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court decided another case, Bostok versus Clayton County, Georgia, where it expanded the reach of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to sexual orientation and gender identity. Historically, of course, Title VII, you know, creates an anti-discrimination federal law regarding five protected classes, race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. And in Bostock, the court, by a 6-3 majority, interpreted sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity. And so, this other bill that I've got HB 1472 states explicitly that our state anti-discrimination laws are not to be interpreted in accordance with Bostock. And we've got a bill called or a statute called the Tennessee Human Rights Act, which similarly creates the same type of protected classes that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 created. So, we've got these two bills working in tandem, so that if, for example... A private business that were not bound by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, you know, wanted to rely on its own conscience or religious exemption not to cater a wedding or reception for a marriage of individuals of the same sex. It's not bound by Obergefell, therefore, it doesn't have to do that. And if it's also not bound, by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, then our other companion bill would allow it to go ahead and operate in accordance with its own religious convictions and its own conscience. 

Rick Green [00:09:52] But, is it I mean, Representative, doesn't it say right there in the Constitution that the Supreme Court gets to add language to any legislative act anytime they want and then make state I'm kidding. It's almost like well. It's almost like they think that though, right? I mean, it's literally what they did in that case. Like, it blew my mind. I was like, they are basically taking an act that was very clear. There's plenty of legislative debate on what's included, what's not. And just deciding on their own, you know, of unelected, you know unaccountable lawyers in Washington DC. And no offense to you and me as lawyers, but these guys, that just seems so out of bounds to me. So, I, I'm, I applaud you for even being willing to push back and say this is not going to be applied in, in, Tennessee. 

Gino Bulso [00:10:37] Thank you, Rick, because we need to push back estates. That's one thing that we have to do any time that there's federal overreach, we can never allow that to go uncorrected. You know, we saw. 

Rick Green [00:10:49] You basically seed the ground if you don't, right? 

Gino Bulso [00:10:52] Exactly. And obviously, you know, Roe versus Wade was decided back on January the 22nd of 1973, and it took more than 50 years finally to get it overturned in Dobbs in June of 2022, and we don't want these other federal overreach decisions from the Supreme Court to last nearly that long. And I think Obergefell in particular is probably even more of an overreach than was Roe, because the Supreme Court took the Fourteenth Amendment, which obviously was enacted in 1868 by states and voters who only had in their statutes, marriage between one man and one woman. And somehow, they took a constitutional amendment that was adopted by states in 1860, all of which precluded any type of marriage other than between one man and one woman and magically said in the year 2015 that when the amendment was passed that somehow it protected this right of individuals of the same sex to marry, which is just obviously absurd. And it took almost 150 years or so for the Supreme Court even to reach that ridiculous conclusion because until Obergefell, obviously most states continued to have marriage as just between one man and one woman in Tennessee. That's also by our state constitution. And we've got Article 11, section 10 of our state constitution that likewise limits marriage to a legal contract between one man and one woman. And so, we wanna push back on it. And the same thing is true of the Bostock decision. In his dissent in Bostok, Justice Alito began by saying there's one word for the court's opinion today, legislation, which is exactly what it was. 

Rick Green [00:12:46] There you go. 

Gino Bulso [00:12:46] Because for 45 years after The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, you had particularly Democrats in the US Congress trying to expand the protected classes to include sexual orientation and gender identity. In both the Biden and Obama administrations, for example, there was this thing called the Equality Act that some of the Democratic caucus members tried to pass, which would extend the protection of Title VII to sexual orientation, gender identity and what's also called non-conforming gender behavior. And those bills, obviously, I think very clearly showed that it really took legislation to expand Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, but then all in one fell swoop in 2020 comes along the Supreme Court and they engage in legislation. They expand it, even though the people's representatives in Congress would never Agree to that. 

Rick Green [00:13:49] Yeah. And I think, you know, before I let you go, I gotta ask you this too is how important is it because you're doing this and I don't think we see enough of this to, to take these issues and address them on a policy perspective, but also just on a tactical perspective? Like you're addressing the process itself, the question of who decides at the end of the day and, redrawing those jurisdictional lines and essentially saying the court should not be making policy decisions. And in the same way the federal government should not be making some of these policy decisions for the states. So, for you as a legislator, you have to deal with both of those things and we don't talk enough about that. So, I just wanna give you a chance to address that. Cause I know you get hammered on just the policy side of it, you're for or against this or whatever, but you're also addressing just the, okay, even if you disagree with me on the policy thing, if you win the day at the end of the day that Americans want marriage to become something different and you want the Civil Rights Act to apply to that, then go get a constitutional amendment that does that, or get the Congress to pass a law that does that. If you want to change the 14th Amendment, then go to get a constitutional amendment to change it. How often are people willing to engage in that discussion with you? Not just a policy discussion, but just a question of who decides and who has jurisdiction? 

Gino Bulso [00:15:05] Well not often enough. 

Rick Green [00:15:07] Sorry, I muddied that question up really bad. Sorry about that. But anyway, go ahead. 

Gino Bulso [00:15:11] No, I understand your question exactly because oftentimes the debate runs immediately to the substance of the issue that is being debated. But for the most part, what we're dealing with here are attacks on the Constitution and the separation of powers and the idea of a limited federal government. Those principles, frankly, are just as if not more important than the substance of the issues that we're debating. And as you point out with regard to Obergefell, the real problem with Obergefell wasn't that all by itself that recognizing marriages of individuals of the same sex is not something that is historically an accurate way to portray what our country is all about. But just having the US Supreme Court decide that was the problem because they're not there as a legislature much less a super legislature. This is something that should be decided on a state-by-state basis, just the way abortion was as it was for many years until 1973. And so, you know, the Supreme Court stepped in at once in a Roe versus Wade, where they just enter a debate that should played out in state legislatures across the state, and they exceeded their constitutional mandate by issuing a ruling. And then in 2015, they do the same thing on another issue regarding marriage. And so, I think ultimately, we'll see, Rick, what happened with Obergefell, what happened Roe versus Wade. It'll get reversed, but it's just a question of how long it's gonna take and how difficult it's going to be to unwind. Because when you try to think about the fact that there are marriages that states are being forced to recognize, that should never be there and are not in nature, even marriages. You know, how, how we deal with that going forward, even once Obergefell is reversed will be a very difficult, thorny issue. 

Rick Green [00:17:22] Yeah, and, and many of the warnings that guys like you and us made are, are now coming true. So, a lot of people are kind of waking up to this cause they're going, okay, we thought this was just even, even, and I would argue against this as well, but they, they were, this is just a man and a man or a woman and a woman. Well, now it's becoming furries and, you know, all of the crazy stuff that's out there and you're literally hearing people, you know, wanting to, to have the state recognize a marriage to an animal or to an object or two, it is, we've lost our minds. And we all said that would happen. Once you open this door, you're saying marriage can be anything that anybody wants it to be. And so, as the craziness increases, the more rational among us are starting to, that thought they could be okay with some expansion of marriage are starting to say, you know what, you guys were right. I think you guys we're right. 

Gino Bulso [00:18:10] Well, anytime that you have states or in this case, the US Supreme Court inacting as positive law, something which contradicts natural law, you run into immediately the kind of problems you're talking about. And obviously in nature, there's a sexual complementarity between male and female that you don't have with members of the same sex. And the reason that marriage is such a, a bedrock institution is because it's the foundation of the family and the family requires by nature, mother, father, and then child. And what we've done, and when I say we, I mean, the US Supreme Court, what it's done to the fabric of the country by not just overreaching it's constitutionally mandated jurisdiction, but doing so in a way that just plainly violates natural law, is just terrible. And how, how long it's going to take us to undo the damage is anyone's guess. 

Rick Green [00:19:10] Yeah, yeah, no doubt. And, you know, thankfully positive signs, not only in terms of the numbers, the percentage of, of support for, for changing marriage, all of those things are moving the right direction finally for the first time in a long time. But also, you know, Alito and Thomas both have, have kind of said, hey, bring those cases to us. We're very interested in revisiting a lot of these jurisdictional questions from the last few years. Now, how long they'll have to, to, address them and have some landmark decisions like that is of course up in the air, but what a great time to be alive and what a great to be on the front lines and helping to shape that debate and, put in motion some things that could be, you know, very monumental for our country. So, Gino, we just want to say, thank you, man. Thanks for being a leader and willing to take on some of these tough fights. I know when you take on these kinds of issues, that's where we get some of the worst hate and vitriolic opposition. So, for you to do that as a member of the legislature, takes significant backbone and we just wanna applaud you today and appreciate you coming on and spend some time with us. 

Gino Bulso [00:20:08] Thank you, Rick. It's been a pleasure and best of luck to you. 

Rick Green [00:20:12] Well, I look forward to having you back. Folks, stay with us. We'll be right back with David and Tim Barton. 

Rick Green [00:21:23] Welcome back to The WallBuilders Show. Thanks for staying with us. Thanks to Gino for joining us today as well. Back with David and Tim Barton. Of course, Tim, you've been out to the Tennessee Capitol several times to testify on various bills. So this is, this is one of many pieces of good legislation coming through Tennessee's legislature. 

Tim Barton [00:21:37] It is, and we've been very pleased at WallBuilders Pro-Family Legislative Network to work with a lot of these great legislators in Tennessee. And what is fun guys is seeing some of the new creative approaches that people are taking. That when we recognize there is a problem, and then of course, navigating what legally can we do and even within some of the bounds of federalism, of what is the role of the state government as opposed to something federally or even the local government, trying it respect constitutional jurisdictions and boundaries. And at the same time recognizing we need to promote some of the right values and protect things that are important. This is a really creative way to do some of those things, saying that we understand what the federal law says on a certain level, but individuals are different than federal institutions or than big corporations, etc. Guys, this strikes me as a very creative and potentially successful, although I know people are going to want to challenge it and there's probably going to be some 14th Amendment considerations and there's going to be things thrown in. But this seems like a really creative way to start chipping away at that foundation that has been there for a long time, a long time being relative, I guess, since 2015. But to some of these, these things that have undermined the marriage position and restoring individual rights, First Amendment rights seems like pretty basic way to help with some of this. I'm interested to see where this goes. 

David Barton [00:23:05] I think there's a lot of potential here, because even as Gino was talking about, the 14th Amendment, man, go back to the original intent. The 14th Amendment, it guarantees equal rights, but it was a racial civil rights amendment. It had nothing to do with gender. And the way the court has expanded the 14th Amendment has so undermined so many parts of the Constitution. And we know that we have checks and balances, separation of powers. We know that, you know, we have the executive and judicial legislative. But we also have the states and the feds. And this is an effort by the state of Tennessee to limit federal powers. And that's part of the checks and balances is that vertical separation of powers. The feds don't get to tell all the states what to do. They don't to tell the states how to define marriage. That's not the fed's role. And that not the 14th Amendment intent. And that what they're claiming gave them the right to redefine marriage as the 14 Amendment. No, that was a racial civil rights amendment, part of 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendment. So, I see so many good things in this effort. You know, hopefully, marriage will get redefined back the way it's supposed to be, but at the same time, it may help put the federal government back in the box and get some of the courts back on track. 

Tim Barton [00:24:12] And by the way, the misappropriation of the 14th amendment, like we're talking about here with marriage, is also the misapplication of like birthright citizenship, where it was saying, look, it was dealing with people that had been enslaved in America and their kids saying, hey, if they're born in America, they're American citizens. It wasn't talking about people flying in from China, having babies and going back to China, and then saying that their babies are American citizens, even though they're gonna go back to China and be raised in 18 years of education in China, and then they can come to America and have property and vote, et cetera. It is the misapplication of some of these sayings that have brought on these problems. And so, seeing creative solutions to resolve some of this conflict, it really is exciting to me. 

Rick Green [00:24:51] And some of these battles, they take a long-time guys. I mean, obviously Roe v Wade 50 years to overturn that and some of these other decisions. So, if this one gets turned around and like you said, Tim relative timeframe, a long 10, 12, 15 years, that'd be a whole lot better than 50, huh? 

Tim Barton [00:25:07] It would. And to your point, there were people that recognized the importance of fighting for the value of life and unborn life. And so, there's people that dedicated their entire life, almost like a John Quincy Adams, right? They fought their whole life for something they never saw realized in their lifetime, but they knew the eternal and moral significance of it. And so, they dedicated themselves to it. I think this is another one of those causes. When you talk about what marriage is, when you talk about that the basis of the family unit and ultimately that the family units what God kind of built all of the other institutions on right from the marriage and then the family and you have church and government all the things God did comes from this basis. So, it makes sense the devil wants to attack it but it also makes sense that we as believers should be willing to dedicate our time our lives fortune and sacred honor to help to restore, redeem, rescue this from some of what's been going on 

Rick Green [00:26:03] Yeah, these are big, big issues, right? That have been, you know, very hard fought and we saw some losses. We, we had some real setbacks as we've been fighting these over the years. So, to come back now and have people, like Gino, you know, to stand up firm and, and others to, to be in this fight in such an important way is, is very, very encouraging. And some people are afraid to discuss this topic. Don't forget Patrick Henry's opening line to give me liberty or give me death. According to the magnitude of the subject, not to be the freedom of the debate, like Tim just said, I mean, this is the is the core debate, the family unit, the core political unit of what makes a society strong so it's a huge subject and therefore you should be willing to discuss with others and have that freedom of debate. Thanks so much for listening to a folks you've been listening to the WallBuilders Show