Issues of the Day

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, we heard a great deal of applause today from all around the gallery when the so-called Equality Act passed.

Equality, what it really means is equality for some, but if you believe the teachings of Moses and Jesus, then you are not only not going to be treated equally, you are going to be persecuted, prosecuted, tied up in court.

You will have people try to destroy not only you, but any religious institution that tries to faithfully follow the teachings of Moses and Jesus.

So the Equality Act is a misnomer, as is the statement that this means the end of persecution.

Somehow, I hear Al Pacino in the background when it comes to persecution, saying, Oh, I'm just getting started.

So I come before the House with a broken heart, as someone who has studied, loved history, studied history, continues to read more history, constantly.

This Nation is in big trouble. We have gone from the days when--I guess the Bible is still probably the most-quoted book, year after year, in this body, but somehow it often is used for personal abuse or used without giving real context and real meaning.

But above every door in the gallery is the side profile of what were once considered the greatest lawgivers in all of history. Some of us learned about the code of Hammurabi. He is up there. The Justinian Code is next to Hammurabi.

I think there are two or three Popes that were considered great lawgivers.

Some wonder why Napoleon is up there, but the Napoleonic code is still the basis of law in Louisiana.

Jefferson wasn't there during the Constitution, but he helped with a great many laws and, of course, did most of the writing of the Declaration of Independence. But there was much in the Constitution, or a number of things were based on some things that Jefferson had already worked on.

But the only profile that is not a side profile is that of Moses.

When Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke last in here, from this podium behind me, the second level--some people wonder why the President, or people like Netanyahu speak at the second level and not the top level, and that is because this is the people's House. To speak in here you must either be a Member of Congress or have been invited by the Congress to speak here. That is why they are at the second level.

But, at the end of Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech, he paid tribute to the fact that he was facing a great Israelite, Moses; that, like I say, at one time he was considered the greatest lawgiver of all times.

In view of decisions over the last 50 years, we have had a majority-- the Supreme Court, probably has reduced his 10 commandments down to four or five.

But this bill, today, will allow persecution and prosecution of anyone who tries to faithfully follow the teachings of Moses and Jesus.

When it comes to marriage, I know the Supreme Court has ruled. They have substituted a majority, at least five judges, substituted their opinions, and that is what they are, opinions, for that of the law, the Constitution; because the Constitution, if you really followed it strictly, marriage is not mentioned as a power or something that the Federal Government would have power over. So, as the 10th Amendment says, such a thing would be left to the States and the people. And many of us believe that is where it should have been left.

But the Supreme Court, at least five oligarchs, decided to take that over. And since they were so much wiser in their own eyes than Moses and Jesus, they substituted their opinion for the opinions of the people of 50 different States and, just basically, took over that function, without amending the Constitution, without even changing the law legislatively, or referendum, any means like that. They just substituted their opinion.

It was Moses who said a man shall leave his father and mother, a woman leaves her home, and the two will become one flesh.

When Jesus was asked--naturally the Pharisees were testing him, trying to trick him, but he quoted Moses verbatim; man shall leave his father and mother, a woman leaves her home, the two will become one flesh. But Jesus added another line on to that: What God has joined together, let no man put asunder. Nobody separate.

There is a video called White Winds, and in that video, the research they have done indicated that there has only been one time in recorded history when legal marriage included same-sex couples.

And, of course, those of us that have studied history, think about, historically, the Roman Empire days, when same-sex couples were widely accepted. Ancient Greece, same-sex couples were widely accepted.

But according to the research, this indication was that they say marriage is, basically, as being an institution for procreation. And so marriage was a man and woman. Have whatever same-sex relations you want, but in those times and places, marriage was said to be between a man and a woman, if it was legal.

Some of us would think back to the days of Sodom and Gomorrah, when-- well, the term ``sodomy'' comes from Sodom. But when same-sex relations were widely accepted, obviously, no discrimination.

But according to the research in the documentary, marriage, even in Sodom and Gomorrah, did not include same-sex couples because marriage was for procreation, family.

According to the research, there is one recorded piece of information about legalized marriage being same-sex couples. It was from a Babylonian Talmud that indicated that during something called the Days of Noah, marriage was legal between a same-sex couple.

So, according to the research of that documentary, we are living in days similar to the days of Noah before the flood.

We are now beginning, in this country, in recent years, to experience what people fled to this country to avoid experiencing, and that is, discrimination against an individual because of their religious belief as Christians.

Whether the Pilgrims, or so many other groups that came, of course, there were some, even prisoners that came for other reasons. But in the settlement of North America, what is now the United States, over 90 percent accepted Judeo-Christian beliefs as appropriate and the norm.

Some called Jefferson anything but a Christian, but he made clear that he believed the teachings of Jesus. The story is told that--and I did ask the opinion, or not an opinion, but ask for the facts from the Congressional Research Service--about this Capitol being used as the largest Christian church in Washington, D.C., in the District of Columbia.

They came back with the information that it truly was; that what we now call Statuary Hall--back at the time it was the House of Representatives' Chamber--for the majority of the 1800s it was considered, or it was used on Sundays for Christian worship service. And Thomas Jefferson, as CRS verified, would come to the church service--the nondenominational, Christian worship service that was held just down the hall--each Sunday that he was in Washington during his time as President.

The story is told that on one of those occasions he was riding his horse, as he normally did, to come to church up here on top of Capitol Hill in the Capitol. And someone saw him with a big Bible and asked, Where are you going, Mr. President? And he said, I'm going to church up in the Capitol.

And the individual said, But you don't believe everything that they do.

And he said, Sir, I am the highest elected magistrate in this country. It is imperative that I set the proper example.

So those were early beliefs. Sometimes it is hard for us to reconcile those beliefs with the cruelty of slavery.

Even Jefferson, in the first version of the Declaration of Independence--what looks like the longest grievance against King George--Jefferson was saying, We have a right to separate from King George because of the fact that he allowed slavery to ever start in America.

So, on the one hand, Jefferson actually understood how destructive slavery was; and on the other hand, he had slaves.

But it is--if you look through our history and how we improved up until now, the great strides in civil rights, great victories in civil rights, have come based on a powerful push from churches, Christian churches, and from people who were guided by Christian principles.

The 1730s, 1740s, 1750s, sometimes referred to as the first great awakening in America, powerful, powerful time of revival.

Winthrop is said to have spoken to a majority of Americans. They knew of him or had heard him speak. He was a traveling evangelist.

Many historians say it was the great awakening and the belief in religious freedom that drove--the belief in freedom that drove those early Americans to a Revolution in standing for the rights given by our creator and acknowledging, of course, that there is a creator.

Of course, the Constitution is written, agreed to in 1787, ratified in 1789, but it is concluded, it is dated, ``In the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven,'' and it is referring to our Lord.

I am sure that if many judges, many Federal judges had their way, we would strike ``our Lord'' from the Constitution, as them thinking that is somehow unconstitutional to mention ``our Lord'' in our own Constitution.

But you look in the 1800s, certainly there were secularists who saw the damage of slavery and there were some churches that supported it, but the movement toward abolition was driven by people who believed in God, most of them in Jesus Christ.

John Quincy Adams, who ran for the House after being President, stood up down the hall over and over to speak against slavery. He had written to a guy named William Wilberforce in England. Wilberforce had a spiritual Christian awakening and ran for parliament. He believed God's call on him was to bring an end to slavery in all of the British empire, and that is what he spent his adult life in parliament trying to do.

He had a victory at one point, partially through his parliamentary career, in getting the slave trade outlawed. But still slavery persisted, just not the trade in Great Britain. And then 3 days before he died in 1833, slavery was outlawed altogether.

John Quincy Adams thought he was supposed to bring an end to slavery in America the way Wilberforce had fought and successfully done in England, but he didn't get it done.

He served in the House of Representatives from 1831 until his massive stroke in 1848. It happened when he was trying to get up and speak against the war with Mexico, because he was afraid war with Mexico would end up perpetuating slavery even longer.

Daniel Webster, one of the great abolitionists, he would have crowds gather around outside his office during times when he would read the Bible out loud from within his office.

I have been here in Congress since January of 2005, and I don't believe I have ever heard anybody reading out loud from the Bible and having crowds gather around the outside of their office in the hall here at the Capitol, but it used to happen.

Daniel Webster was driven by his Christian beliefs that slavery had to come to an end. He, John Quincy Adams, so many others believed that it was totally inconsistent. How could we expect God to keep blessing America when we were putting our brothers and sisters in chains? The church-ordained ministers were such a powerful force in bringing an end to the evil cruelty called slavery here in America.

Then in the 1950s and 1960s, we didn't have a great awakening in the 20th century, but nonetheless, there was an ordained Christian minister named Martin Luther King, Jr., and he was guided, informed by his Christian beliefs. He was the most powerful individual force in moving our country into accepting what the Constitution said and in assuring that people would be treated equally.

But what Congress has been doing in recent years is passing more and more legislation that will permit persecution of people trying to follow their Christian beliefs, and that passed the House today.

Born out of the best intentions of people that don't want to see anybody persecuted, and yet as a result of this bill, if it were to become law, there would be widespread persecution and prosecution of people who try to hold to their Christian beliefs.

And I know our friends don't want to harm battered women or do damage to women's shelters, but I tried to encourage my friends, look at the literature about women who are victims of sexual assault.

Having been a felony judge for a decade, I heard testimony constantly about the victims and the victims' suffering and their ongoing suffering and their trauma that they continued to live through and the things that triggered their trauma.

It appears from the research literature that women--of course, we are told that one out of four women will experience sexual assault.

We are also told that it is a fraction of 1 percent, a fraction of a fraction, perhaps, of 1 percent of people who truly suffer from gender dysphoria.

It used to be called a disorder. I think it still was in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual IV. It for sure was in III. But now in V, it is called gender dysphoria, dysphoria being the opposite of euphoria. It is a confusion, a dissatisfaction, an unhappiness with a biological gender, so gender dysphoria.

It is interesting, even in the Equality Act itself, I mean, at one place here it recites findings, and here on the bottom of pages 6 and 7, it points out that about one in five transgender people experience homelessness.

Now, it doesn't go into the reasons for that, if that is true. And possibly there could be discrimination that leads to homelessness, but since this is a condition of unhappiness, a dysphoria, we don't know the reasons for one in five, if that is correct, of people suffering from gender dysphoria being homeless.

But without giving that finding, you go through the bill, this bill is going to allow people to sue lenders who don't lend to people suffering from gender dysphoria at the same rate as those who do not suffer from gender dysphoria. Well, not only can those seeking loans come against and sue the bank and win, the attorney general of the United States is authorized under this bill to bring the full power of the United States Government at war against any individual who questions or is concerned about lending money to someone suffering from this dysphoria.

But if someone even considered the fact that this gender unhappiness or dysphoria, if they even considered that, then they are going to lose the lawsuit under this bill to the individual and to the Attorney General of the United States.

Now, previously, ministers were thought to have some religious exemption. This is the first bill in American history we could find, and it is certainly the first one since the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993, but the first time a bill actually spells out specifically that you cannot claim religious beliefs as a defense.

So I am not hearing people talk about it, but I understand that Orthodox Jewish synagogues believe they should have men as rabbis.

Well, under this, if it becomes law, if a woman comes forward and says, ``I believe I am a man and I want to be your rabbi,'' and they are not hired, well, not only does that person have a claim against the synagogue, but also the Attorney General can come in and destroy the synagogue financially. And that can happen with any church.

If a church says, ``We love everybody,'' like my own church, Christian church, Green Acres Baptist, we love everybody. We welcome anybody in our church. We will not discriminate against anybody who wants to come worship the Lord with us. But if you want to be married, it needs to be what Moses and Jesus said marriage is. Well, in the past, you could utilize religion, religious beliefs as a defense, but if this is the law of the land, then there will be no defense for religious beliefs.

And, again, if White Winds is correct, then for the first time since the days of Noah, we have come to believe that we are so much smarter and so much wiser than Moses and Jesus. So it is an amazing time.

I know Christian friends say, Louie, you seem so down. You know, Paul said, ``Rejoice in the Lord always, and again I say rejoice.'' And I understand that, but I also know that as Jesus contemplated Jerusalem, he had a broken heart. He said:

How many times have I wanted to bring you under my wing and love you and protect you, and you wouldn't have it.

So there is a rebellion going on in this country, a rejection of things upon which this country was founded.

And, you know, people try to paint someone like me as being a hater. I am not a hater. There is nobody in this body I hate.

At a recent event, I had a person who looked like a woman, she said she believed she was a woman, and we had a talk for about 20 minutes. And I understood her thinking and I understood what she felt, though she was a biological man. We disagreed about her lifestyle, but I had nothing but Christian love. And we hugged, agreed to disagree, and hugged as we went our ways. We were up here at the Washington Convention Center.

I don't hate her. I don't hate anybody.

Plenty of people hate me.

But it is so unfair to say that anybody, just because they believe in the teachings of Moses and Jesus, is a hater. It is simply not true.

But I do know that if anybody is not willing to forgive and love, they haven't really grasped what it means to be a Christian.

But it doesn't mean you have to accept and encourage and applaud things that you know are not helpful. I mean, for heaven's sake, the most thorough research ever done on transgender--and it was done, I believe it was Finland, a 30-year study, people seeking sex change surgery--that 30-year study found that those who were seeking sex change surgery were 20 times more likely to commit suicide. Now, how could somebody who loves their fellow man and fellow woman, how could somebody who truly loves them want them in a state of mind in life that they are 20 times more likely to kill themselves, to take that precious gift of life they were given? How is that loving somebody to want them, encourage them, Oh, you stay in this lifestyle. You are ten times more likely to kill yourself, but that is fine, we applaud you for being in that situation, 20 times more likely to kill yourself.

And there is this great study here, ``The New Atlantis, a Journal of Technology and Society'', this is from the fall of 2016, of a special report on sexuality and gender: Findings from the biological, psychological, and social sciences, by Lawrence Mayer, MB, MS, Ph.D., and Paul R. McHugh, MD. Dr. McHugh is an amazing, brilliant man. He was the head of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins. Johns Hopkins was the first hospital in the United States who did sex change operations.

But as Dr. McHugh points out, after about 20 years of monitoring the people on whom they did sex change surgery, they found that the patients who went through this brutal, really brutal sex change surgery, were no better off mentally than they were before. That was Johns Hopkins' finding. They said: Why should we cut off or take out perfectly healthy organs if the result is the person is no better? So they quit doing sex change operations. As I understand it, they were later threatened with losing a lot of money in support, so they are back doing them now.

We hear from the left all the time about the importance of science, and yet when it comes to science, like the heartbeat bill based on science, we have been told that it is nothing but a mass of tissue inside a pregnant woman. And yet, technology now has gotten so good that at some 6 or 8 weeks into a pregnancy, you can hear a heartbeat, and that heartbeat is from a living person.

And as has been said on this floor previously, if someone sees a body collapse, you run up and check if there is a heartbeat. If there is a heartbeat, you call for an ambulance. If there is no heartbeat, you call for a morgue. We put a lot of stock in a heartbeat, so why shouldn't it be part of a bill? And yet States that have passed the legislation that says there is a heartbeat, then you can't do an abortion, it is a living being.

Personally, I am thankful that nurturing women are the ones who carry a child in utero, because if it were left to us men, I don't believe there would be near as much love and affection felt by the child in utero.

But I think back about when our first child was born 8 to 10 weeks prematurely and my wife had to stay in Tyler. I didn't know whether to stay with her or go with our child who was taken to Shreveport, trying to keep her alive. She said: Go. Do anything you can for our child.

So I went to Shreveport. When I got there, the neonatologist, Dr. Singh--just a wonderful, wonderful doctor. He loved those babies--he said: Look, your baby's eyes, they are not working properly. She can't see you, just a general blur. But she has been listening to your voice for many months now. Even though she was in the womb, she could hear your voice. She knows your voice. You talk to her. Stay here and talk to her, caress, talk, that will be a great comfort.

And as most people know, a premature child, usually the lungs are the last to develop, and that was Katy's case. The breaths were so short and just erratic, and the heartbeat was really fast and erratic. It was in Tyler and it was in Shreveport. After a couple hours of my sitting there and just talking to her and caressing her little arms and face, Dr. Singh came over and said: Have you looked at the monitors? And I hadn't. I was looking at our child.

I looked up. The breathing was still fast, the heart was still fast, but they had stabilized, they were not erratic. And Dr. Sing said: She is drawing strength from you. She is drawing life and strength from you. Well, how was I going to leave after that? They said I could only stay 2 hours, but I couldn't leave. My child was drawing strength from me.

So after I had been there 8 hours, he came over and said: Sir, you really have to leave, you have got to take a break, you can't sit here this long. And I said: But look at the monitor, she is doing well, I don't want to leave. Eventually, they forced me to leave, but my mind was back with Katy.

Anyway, that child knew my voice. She could hear my voice those 7 months in the womb. They know. They make a difference.

And the people who have supported the heartbeat bill, all of them that I am aware of here in this body, it is based on Judeo-Christian beliefs and the value of one person, the right to life that precedes the right to liberty and pursuit of happiness.

This body has been in the business of taking away religious freedoms for quite some time, and it appears that it is going to continue. But, Mr. Speaker, I just want people to understand, the positions of the people I know of who were against the Equality Act, it is not out of any hate, it is not out of any desire to be discriminatory, part of it is a desire not to have people 20 times more likely to kill themselves.

For heaven's sake, we have enough veterans taking their own lives, so tragic; Americans taking their lives, so tragic. There is not much you can say at a funeral of someone who has taken their life that brings a lot of comfort to the family.

It specifically says in here, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, as amended, and it says right here in the bill that people who are transgender, one in five will experience homelessness, without telling us why. It says, So you have got to give them credit. Well, we just brought our economy to the brink of ruin in 2008. And at some point, in the beginning of that tragedy, we almost lost everything, back in the nineties, when banks were required to lend money for homes to people who couldn't afford it.

And I personally feel like some of the lenders who pushed people into homes fraudulently that they couldn't afford should have done some jail time. But it went on, it happened. A lot of lenders have told me over the years: We are being forced to lend money to people we know can't afford it, but, if we don't, the Federal Government is coming after us. And if this bill becomes law, that will be the case, too.

A banker who says, Well, I am a little concerned, there is a 20 percent chance that this person suffering from gender dysphoria is going to be homeless. They don't make good decisions. Maybe it is because of some discrimination, but certainly some of it is because of poor personal decisions. And now I have got the Federal Government under this Equality Act saying I have got to lend them money anyway. That if the fact that they are 20 percent more likely to be homeless, if I consider that at all and say, We can't risk that money, we don't want to bring the country to the brink of failure again, then the United States Attorney General is authorized to sue me. The individual that is not granted the loan will be authorized to sue.

This bill, though, unlike the Hate Crimes Act, some of us were pushing in the Hate Crimes Act, let's at least define what sexual orientation is. So because, as I said back then in debate, if you don't define sexual orientation, some judge sometime in the Supreme Court at some point will say, Well, you didn't define it, but you used the term sexual orientation. So the meaning of that is very clear: anything you are oriented toward sexually. So that would legalize some sexual orientations that are currently crimes, whether it is necrophilia, pedophilia.

Some have tried to say that I equated homosexuality and bestiality. They were lying. I never did that. I said, let's define out those things that we can agree should not be included, and we were refused any type of limiting definition.

So one thing in this, there is a limitation that says, sexual orientation. The term sexual orientation means, homosexuality, heterosexuality, or bisexuality.

But then when it comes to gender identity, that definition is going to cause a great deal of problems. And it makes clear, it even spells out that you cannot deny access to a restroom, locker room, dressing room, based on gender identity. It says, that is in accordance with the individual's gender identity.

My friend, very smart friend, Mr. Askin, said that he has been amazed over the years how courts could move forward and progress in determining people's civil rights. He felt like we are not going to ever have a problem with men claiming to be women, so they can get huge scholarships, national notoriety, millions of dollars, or television appearances. No man would ever do that. And if they tried, the courts have been really good about being able to discern who is faking, who is a man that says they are a woman and they really don't mean it, and who is legitimately a man thinking that they are a woman.

The trouble with that is this Equality Act makes clear no individual has the right to tell someone who says, ``I think I am a woman,'' if you don't think they are a woman and you try to ask questions to determine if they are really thinking they are a woman before you treat the person like one, you have just violated the Equality Act. You can't call into question somebody's own self- determinative identity of what they are, genderwise. This bill makes that very clear. They and the Attorney General of the United States can come after you.

That is why some people who have probably never voted for a Republican in their lives have been heard saying: Wait a minute. Title IX back in 1970 says you have to have an equal number of women's scholarships and men's scholarships.

We had a witness who is a professor and said she was one of the first couple of people to get a women's athletic scholarship under title IX at Villanova, where she went to school. She pointed out: Look, here are the three fastest times of the women in the 2016 Olympics in the 400 meter. Those are those three dots. And then the thousands of blue dots, thousands of which are faster than those women, those are men, and many of those are second-tier athletes. They are not great male athletes, and they still beat the best women's time.

Just in the last couple of weeks, we had a guy who believes he is a woman, and he broke a number of weightlifting records for women.

I know there are a lot of Democratic Party voters who may have been here in the gallery clapping, violating the rules and clapping on the passage of the Equality Act, but I have a feeling they have a daughter who cannot get an athletic scholarship even though she is the best female athlete in her high school, one of the best female athletes in the State, and they are shut out from a female athletic scholarship because guys are now applying who think they are women, and you can't question them.

If they tell you they have self-identified as a woman under this Equality Act, if that becomes the law, and you try to challenge them on whether they really do think they are a woman or not, then you are wide open to the Attorney General coming into your school and costing mega- dollars.

But I have talked to people who worked in women's shelters, and they have said: We have been totally dedicated for decades to helping women who are battered by sexual assault, maybe a husband assault. But we are a Christian group, and if we are mandated to allow a man to come in because he thinks he is a woman, we are mandated to bring them in where these women are so vulnerable and so fragile, we will have to close our doors.

I have had small college leaders tell me: If this bill becomes law, we will have to change so much in the way of accommodation to accommodate people under the new law that we will have to shut our doors. We are just barely making it by a shoestring right now.

Now, the massive colleges and universities, you know, they are getting so much money these days, they will be okay. But the small colleges, they are going to have trouble coming up with the money.

The women's shelters are going to have trouble coming up with the money, and they are not going to want to. They care so deeply about the women who have been battered. I have seen it. I have talked to them. But I have experienced the love they have for these women. They are just at the end of their rope. And they sometimes call the women's homeless shelter. They have nowhere else to go.

Now, after they have been brutalized by a husband or some other man, somebody that is stalking them, they are going to be told they can't keep a man out if he thinks he is a woman. They will close their doors.

So I know this Equality Act was done out of the spirit of caring and not wanting to hurt anybody's feelings, but as we have heard over and over throughout the history of this place, rights do have to be balanced.

So on the one hand, you have people who are very confused and unhappy about their gender, even though there is also plenty of evidence to indicate that a child who identifies with the gender that that child is not biologically, if that child is left alone, not pushed in one direction or another, over 80 percent of the time that child will ultimately resolve the situation and become comfortable, mentally, with their biological gender.

But someone like Walt Heyer--I love the guy; he has been a woman, physically, and he is back being a man--tried to commit suicide, and now he spends his time lovingly counseling, encouraging, trying to talk people down from killing themselves. He is just a sweetheart of a guy. I saw him again, recently.

But if this Equality Act becomes law, he won't be able to do that anymore. You can't try to talk somebody through their difficulty, their suicide ideations if you are going to encourage them to be mentally what they are biologically, because this allows even the Attorney General to come after people like that.

People in this body would think such a person is mean-spirited. I don't find a mean-spirited bone in Walt Heyer's body. He is just a sweetheart of a person.

But when you hear people say this bill will bring an end to persecution, it will bring an end to discrimination, that is true with regard to someone who is different, mentally, from what they are biologically at that moment.

As I said, the studies indicate that over 80 percent of the time, someone who is left alone and not trying to be coached one way or another, they end up having their mental attitude on gender resolving and being biologically and mentally the same gender.

But you try to counsel somebody on that, you are going to be sued individually. The Attorney General can come after you. And if your position is based on the kind of love that Jesus Christ has filled you with, care and compassion, and you try to counsel someone out of that love and compassion, well, you have just violated the Equality Act, and Big Brother government is coming after you.

It is really tragic. We used to have more religious freedom. Yes, there were a lot of battles between denominations in America, and that is why, in the Continental Congress, everybody didn't trust one person in the Continental Congress to do a prayer that was fair to everybody, because there were so many different denominations.

It sounded like the Quakers were usually the toughest to please by a prayer by somebody who was not a Quaker. But they were always able to come together and agree: Okay. This minister may not be from my Christian denomination, but that minister will do a fair prayer for all of the Christian denominations here.

But that is why, when Benjamin Franklin made his motion 5 weeks into the Constitutional Convention, that they begin each day with prayer the way they had during the Continental Congress, it ended up being voted down, because, basically, they were saying: We don't have a treasury. We are not getting paid, and so we can't afford to hire a chaplain we can all agree on. So, if we can just get a Constitution together, then we can have a treasury, then we can hire a Christian minister to come in here and pray for all of the denominations represented here.

That is when Randolph from Virginia said: Okay. All right. You are right. We don't have money to hire a chaplain right now, so I move that we recess. Here we are, the end of June. A few days from now, it will be July Fourth. We are going to celebrate our Nation's independence. I move that we recess here in this Constitutional Convention and we reconvene together at a church that has a minister that we can all trust to be fair to our Christian denominations. Then we will worship together, and after we worship together, then we will come back and try this constitution, try putting one together.

Now, that one passed, and they all gathered at the Reformed Calvinist Church in Philadelphia.

My friend Dave Brat loves that because he is Calvinist.

And the Reverend William Rogers was the minister presiding. Apparently, he did an awesome job as a Christian minister of bringing all of these delegates attending the Constitutional Convention together.

It was written by others that when they reconvened, there was a new spirit. Yes, they had disagreements, but there was a new spirit there.

I know people are taught nowadays that Benjamin Franklin was a deist, someone who doesn't believe in God, just thinks some force, some thing, something, created the universe, and if that thing or force, person, is still around, it never interferes with nature or man. Everybody is on their own.

But it was Ben Franklin that said: ``I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth-- that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it possible that an empire can rise without His aid?

We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that `except the Lord build the House they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel.''

We will be confined by our local partial interests; and we, ourselves, shall become a byword down through the ages.

That is because he knew this was the best chance in the history of all of the world to have people self-governing. The Romans had a form and the Greeks had a form, but not like this.

We have been blessed. We have continued to work together over the centuries to get the Constitution to where all people will be treated as they are created: equal; not equal in talent or intellect, but equal in the sight of God, our Creator.

Yet, the Equality Act sends a message that if you are going to base your life on the teachings of Moses or Jesus or both, then we will not only persecute you, we will prosecute you. And the Attorney General of the United States is authorized under the Equality Act, basically, to destroy your life if you happen to believe and practice what Moses and Jesus said.

We have done so much destruction of families in this country over the last 50 to 60 years, and it is tough. I have seen it. People I love have been a single mom or single dad raising kids. It is tough.

We have taken action, passed laws that really have been destructive of the home as a nuclear home. We have seen the falling away from Judeo-Christian beliefs.

As John Adams said, this Constitution is only meant for a religious and a moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any others.

So this is one more nail in America's coffin. As Jefferson said, I fear for America because I know God is just. But this says Moses and Jesus were just wrong. Anybody who tries to follow those teachings publicly, we are going to destroy you until we make everybody equal except Orthodox Jews and Christians following the Bible, and also Muslims who are following the Koran. They will not be able to follow the teachings of the Koran if this becomes law.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source