So who ultimately made the decision?

What an individual or an organization believes about marriage is not and never should be any of the government's business.

You proved it. You demonstrated that it's different by your actions, because you said you've never done this before.

I think a lot of people already think that there are two systems, as many have talked about, one for we, the people, a different one, entirely different one, for the politically connected.

You do not have to check your beliefs, right? That is what this country is about.

The First Amendment Defense Act does not allow Federal workers or contractors to deny services or benefits to same-sex couples.

The First Amendment Defense Act is a reasonable, rational, and important step forward in the protection of religious beliefs and moral convictions regarding marriage.

That is why this bill is so important.

The need for religious liberty hits close to home for me.

This right is in its nature an unalienable right.

every American, including the President of the United States, including a candidate for the highest office in our land, ought to be treated equally under the law.

The First Amendment Defense Act is absolutely critical to the many charitable and service organizations in this country whose convictions about marriage are fundamental to their work.

The First Amendment Defense Act preserves the core of the American experiment and safeguards the values that we all hold dear: diversity, human dignity, equality, and freedom for all people.

I say to all detractors of this very measured piece of legislation just read it, please.

Let us be clear. That is not true. FADA is very limited in scope, and it does not take away civil rights protections.

Even Director Comey acknowledged this fact at a recent congressional hearing.

Members of the committee, the real test of liberty is what happens when we disagree, and laws that protect views on marriage promote tolerance.

If that doesn't underscore why we need this legislation, Mr. Chairman, I don't know what does.

Are we really willing to censor and even force individuals, organizations, and churches to close simply because they adhere to the long-held belief that lies at the very core of each of the Abrahamic faiths?

You have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails.

any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position should have known that an unclassified system was no place for these conversations.

They deleted all emails that they did not return to the State Department, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

A lot of Americans are thinking just what the chairman talked about in his opening statement, that there are two standards, one for we the people and one for the politically connected.

no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.