SPEAKER_03 0:07

Welcome to the intersection of Faith and Culture. Thanks for joining us today on the Wall Builder Show. We got a representative from Tennessee, Gino Bulso, who 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 even 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?

Tennessee’s Values And Founding Principles

Declaration Foundations And Moral Law

Natural Law And Marriage Defined

Tennessee’s Strategy To Reorient Policy

Break And Historical Context

SPEAKER_00 1:01

Yeah, Tennessee has become a very strong state for very strong constitutional and traditional religious moral kind of values. It's it's really kind of a throwback to what was healthy about America uh even just a few decades ago. And they've been really bold in Tennessee. So they've they've come out and they've 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 they're trying to do right now, one of them that just it took me back to the 250th, and 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 the philosophy that we started with. Unlike other governments, we started with a 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 you start with that declaration. You take the 161 words, it 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 is our birth certificate. This is what brought the Constitution into 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. Uh, and with that, within that moral basis, we're we're told that that that's everything has to be built on that. And so from that, God gives us certain inalible rights, and we fire for those rights and defend those rights. That's what government is supposed to do. And so as it goes through all 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 tell us, oh no, 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 does that mean 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 in 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's some efforts across the U.S. 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 Gino Bullso 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. And so this is going to be a great effort coming out of Tennessee, and hopefully it'll be very successful. It'll benefit all the nation as a result.

SPEAKER_03 3:58

Quick break, folks. We'll be right back. Gino Bulso, our special guest, State Representative from Tennessee. You're listening to the Wall Builder Show.

SPEAKER_01 4:11

This is Tim Barton from Wallbuilders with another moment from American history. In the early 1700s, the Reverend John Weiss preached that all men were created equal, that taxation without representation was tyranny, and that God's preferred form of government was the consent of the government, all of which is language recognizable in the Declaration of Independence. Why? Because in 1772, the Sons of Liberty, led by founders such as Sam Adams and John Hancock, reprinted and distributed the Reverend Wise's sermons. So four years later, much of the Declaration reflected the language of those sermons by John Wise. In 1926, on the 150th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, President Calvin Coolidge affirmed the thoughts in the Declaration can very largely be traced back to what John Wise was saying. Few today know that the Declaration was so strongly influenced by the Reverend John Wise. For more information on this and other stories, go to wallbuilders.com.

SPEAKER_03 5:10

Welcome back to the Wall Builder Show. Thanks for staying with us. Great to have Representative Gino Boso with us from Tennessee, the great state of Tennessee. In fact, Representative, I gotta 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 uh you're attracting great people.

SPEAKER_02 5:29

We are indeed. Uh, and we're we're happy to do it. We're sorry for your loss there in Texas, Rick. But as as a volunteer state, a lot of folks are just volunteering to come up and join us.

HB 1473: Limiting Obergefell’s Reach

SPEAKER_03 5:40

I'm telling you, well, there'd be no Texas without all the Tennesseans 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 him to move to Texas, but y'all won. They they moved to Nashville, so that's just one of many. But uh but anyway, uh bless you, man, for thank you for serving. And um, you know, we wanted to get you on to talk about the same-sex marriage bill, the potential of this issue finally uh you know being reversed and coming back the other way. So talk to us about what uh what led to this and and and you know where you see this legislation potentially going. It could be could lead to uh you know a a judicial battle that uh could actually overturn or at least challenge uh Oberfeld. So yeah, so let's just back up and and uh uh tell us about the bill, what it does, and and why you decided to take this particular fight on.

SPEAKER_02 6:32

Uh sure. What you're referring to is known as HB 1473, uh here in in Tennessee. And uh we filed it, Rick, because uh, you know, while Obergerfell is in force and while the states are bound to comply with its interpretation of the Fourteenth 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 that uh neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Obergerfell's interpretation of it that uh the Constitution somehow provides individuals of the same sex to marry is binding on private citizens. Uh the Fourteenth Amendment, of course, is a limitation on public actors, on the state, not on private actors. So the bill very simply says that Obergerfell is not binding on private citizens or businesses uh here in Tennessee.

SPEAKER_03 7:31

And what's the practical ass uh uh 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, you know, how would that play out?

HB 1472: Pushing Back On Bostock

SPEAKER_02 7:42

It would uh play out this way, and I'll need to bring in another bill that I've got pending, uh which is known as HB 1472, which we call the banning Bostok Act. Um you may recall Obergafell was decided in twenty fifteen, but in twenty twenty the US Supreme Court decided another case, Bostok versus Clayton County, Georgia, where it expanded the reach of Title Seven of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty-four to uh sexual orientation and gender identity. Historically, of course, uh Title VII you know creates uh an anti-discrimination federal law regarding five protected classes, race, color, religion, sex, and national origin. And in Bostok, uh the court by a six three majority interpreted sex to include sexual orientation and gender identity. And so this other bill that I've got, H. B. 1472, states explicitly that our state anti-discrimination laws are not to be interpreted in accordance with Bostok. That and we've got a a bill called or a a statute called the Tennessee Human Rights Act, which similarly creates the same type of protected classes that Title Seven of the uh Civil Rights Act of 1964 created. So uh 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, uh wanted to rely on its own conscience or religious exemption not to cater a a wedding or reception for an individu uh a marriage of individuals of the same sex, uh it's not bound by Obergefeld, therefore it doesn't have to do that. And if it's also uh not uh bound by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four, then our other companion bill would allow it to go ahead and operate in accordance with its own religious convictions and its own conscience.

Conscience Rights For Private Parties

SPEAKER_03 9:52

But but isn't 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, man. I'm with you.

SPEAKER_04 10:02

It 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.

SPEAKER_03 10:09

It 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, the uh unelected, uh you know, unaccountable lawyers in Washington, D.C. Uh and no offense to you and me as lawyers, but uh, but 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 gonna uh be applied in in in Tennessee.

SPEAKER_02 10:36

Well, uh thank you, Rick, because we need to push back as states. Uh that's one thing that we have to do anytime that there's federal overreach, we can never allow that to go uncorrected.

SPEAKER_03 10:47

You know, we saw You basically seed the ground if you don't.

Federal Overreach And State Pushback

Fourteenth Amendment And Marriage History

SPEAKER_02 10:51

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

SPEAKER_03 12:46

There you go.

SPEAKER_02 12:46

Because for forty five for 45 years after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted, you had uh 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 uh some of the Democratic uh caucus members tried to pass, which would extend the protection of uh Title VII to sexual orientation, gender identity, and what's also called uh non-conforming gender behavior. Um and it was those bills obviously I think very clearly showed that it 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.

Separation Of Powers And Who Decides

SPEAKER_03 13:49

Yeah, and and and I think you know, but before I let you go, I gotta ask you this too, is how important is it because you're doing this, and I 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 the question of who decides at the end of the day, and and 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 and and we don't talk enough about that. So I just want to give you a chance to address that. Like you because I I know you get hammered on just the policy side of it, you know, 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 that that Americans want you know marriage to become something different and you want the Civil Rights Act to apply to that, then go get a constitutional amendment that that does that, or get the Congress to pass uh a law that does that. If you want to change the 14th Amendment, then go get a constitutional amendment to change it, or you know, 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?

SPEAKER_02 15:05

Well, uh not often enough.

SPEAKER_03 15:07

Sorry, that was a money. I muddied that question up really bad. Sorry about that. But anyway, no.

Natural Law, Family, And Social Order

Signals From The Court And Next Steps

SPEAKER_02 15:12

I understand your your your question exactly because oftentimes uh the debate runs immediately to the substance of the issue that is being debated. But for the most part, yeah, what we're dealing with here are attacks on the Constitution and the separation of powers, yeah, and the idea of a limited federal government. Those uh 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, um the real problem with Obergefell wasn't that uh all by itself, that you know, recognizing marriages of individuals of the same sex is not something that uh is historically uh an accurate way to portray what our country is all about, but just having the US Supreme Court decide that was was the problem. Yeah. 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 uh abortion was, uh as it was for many years until 1973. And so, you know, the Supreme Court stepped in at once in in O'Reill v. Where they just enter a debate that should be uh played out uh 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 uh uh uh regarding marriage. And so I think ultimately we'll see, Rick, uh what happened with Obergefeld, what happened with Roe v. Wade. It'll get reversed, but it's just a question of how long it's gonna take and how how difficult it's gonna be to unwind, because you know when you try to try to think about the fact that there are marriages that states are being forced to recognize that should never be there. Yeah and are not in nature even marriages, uh, you know, how how how we deal with that going forward, even once Oberger Fell is reversed, will be a very difficult, thorny issue.

SPEAKER_03 17:22

Yeah, and and and many of the warnings that guys like you and us uh made are are now coming true. So a lot of people are kind of waking up to this because 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 and and all that, you know, that 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 a an object or to a thing, 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 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 were right.

Creative State Solutions And Federalism

SPEAKER_02 18:10

Well, anytime you that you have states, or in this case the US Supreme Court, enacting as positive law, something which contradicts natural law, you run into the 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 uh with members uh of the same sex. And the reason that marriage is such a uh 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 uh its constitutionally mandated jurisdiction, but doing so in a way that just plainly violates natural law is is just terrible. And and how how long it's gonna take us to undo the damage is anyone's guess.

SPEAKER_03 19:10

Yeah, yeah, no doubt. And uh, you know, thankfully, positive signs, not only in terms of the numbers, the the percentage of of support for for changing marriage, um, 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 uh we're we're very interested in revisiting a lot of these jurisdictional questions uh from the last few years. And now how long they'll have to to to address them and have some landmark decisions like that is is uh of course uh uh up in the air. But what a great time to be alive and what a great time to be on the front lines and and uh helping to shape that debate and 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 kind of issues, that's where we get some of the worst hate and and vitriolic uh opposition. Um so for you to do that as a member of the legislature takes significant backbone. And we just want to applaud you today and appreciate you coming on and spending some time with us.

SPEAKER_02 20:08

Thank you, Rick. It's been a pleasure and best of luck to you.

SPEAKER_03 20:11

Well, look forward to having you back. Folks, stay with us. We'll be right back with David and Tim Barton.

Long-Game Mindset And Moral Foundations

SPEAKER_01 20:19

Hi, friends. This is Tim Barton of Wall Builders. This is the time when most Americans don't know much about American history or even heroes of the faith. And I know oftentimes for parents, we're trying to find good content for our kids to read. And if you remember back to the Bible, to the book of Hebrews, it has the Faith Hall of Fame where they outlined the leaders of faith that had gone before them. Well, this is something that as Americans, we really want to go back and outline some of these heroes, not just of American history, but heroes of Christianity and our faith as well. I want to let you know about some biographical sketches we have available on our website. One is called the Courageous Leaders Collection, and this collection includes people like Abigail Adams, Abraham Lincoln, Francis Scott Keith, George Washington Carver, Susanna Wesley, even the Wright brothers. And there's a second collection called Heroes of History. In this collection, you'll read about people like Benjamin Franklin or Christopher Columbus, Daniel Boone, George Washington, Harriet Tubman. Friends, the list goes on and on. This is a great collection for your young person to have and read, and it's a providential view of American and Christian history. This is available at wallbuilders.com. That's www.wallbuilders.com.

SPEAKER_03 21:22

Welcome back to the Wall Builder 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.

SPEAKER_01 21:37

It is, and we've been very pleased at the Wall Builders 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. Uh 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, uh what is the role of the State government as opposed to something federally or even the local government trying to 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 then big corporations, etc. Guys, this strikes me as a very creative and potentially successful, although I know people are gonna want to challenge it, and there's probably gonna be some 14th Amendment considerations and there's gonna be things thrown in, but this seems like a really creative way to start chipping away at that foundation uh that has been there for a long time, uh a long time being relative, I guess since 2015, but uh to to some of these these things that have undermined the marriage position and and restoring individual rights, First Amendment rights seems like a pretty basic way to help with some of this. I I'm interested to see where this goes.

SPEAKER_00 23:05

I think there's a lot of potential here because even as Gina 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, and we know that you know we have the executive and judicial and 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 they don't get to tell the states how to define marriage. That that's not the feds' role, and that's not the 14th Amendment intent, and that's what they're claiming gave them the right to redefine marriage, is the 14th Amendment. No, that was a racial civil rights amendment, part of the 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.

SPEAKER_01 24:10

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 then come to America and have property and vote, et cetera. It is the misapplication of some of these things that have brought on these problems. And so seeing creative solutions to resolve some of these conflicts, it really is exciting to me.

SPEAKER_03 24:51

And some of these battles, they 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 in, like you said, 10 relative time frame, a long time, 10, 12, 15 years, that'd be a whole lot better than 50, huh?

SPEAKER_01 25:07

It would. And to your point, there were people that recognize the the importance of fighting for the value of life and an 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 the the eternal and moral significance of it, and so they dedicated themselves to it. I I think this is another one of those causes. When you talk about what marriage is, when you talk about the basis of the family unit, and ultimately that the family unit is what God kind of built all of the other institutions on, right? From from the marriage and then the family and your 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, sacred honor to help to restore, redeem, uh, rescue this from some of what's been going on.

Closing Reflections On Debate And Courage

SPEAKER_03 26:03

Yeah, these are big, big issues, right, that have been um, 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 um like Gino 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, ought to be the freedom of the debate. Like Tim just said, I mean, this is the this 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 it with others and have that freedom of debate. Thanks so much for listening today, folks. You've been listening to the Wallbouler Show.