What is the Equality Act?
By / Jun 27

Last week, the Equality Act was once again introduced into the House of Representatives and the Senate for consideration. This legislation intends to expand the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) and would revise every title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add these categories as new protected classes in the federal code. Last Congress, the Equality Act passed in the House, but the bill died in the Senate. 

The ERLC affirms the full dignity of every human being. At the 2018 Annual Meeting of the Southern Baptist Convention, the Messengers passed a resolution to “reaffirm the sacredness and full dignity and worthiness of respect and Christian love for every single human being, without any reservation.” But the Equality Act does not advance the cause of human dignity. 

If passed, the Equality Act would punish faith-based charities for their core religious beliefs about human dignity and marriage and would undermine decades of civil rights protections for women and girls. The alarmingly detrimental consequences of the bill pose a significant threat to the deeply held religious beliefs of millions of Americans who honor God’s design for sexuality.

What does this bill mean for religious liberty?

This bill would substantially undermine religious liberty protections in the United States. America has long been a place where people with different views and beliefs have lived at peace alongside each other. Though America has not perfectly lived up to this ideal of a shared nation, it was central to our founding as persecuted religious minorities sought safe harbor in this land. Though cleverly named, the Equality Act is out of step with that American ideal. Equality cannot be achieved while eliminating other basic, fundamental freedoms. Of particular note, the bill would essentially gut the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), a bill which passed with broad bipartisan support and was signed by President Clinton.

By undermining RFRA, the Equality Act would force faith-based child welfare organizations to abandon their deeply held religious beliefs or be shut down by the state. The state-forced closures of such agencies is especially detrimental at a time when multiple crises—including the post-pandemic effects and the ongoing opioid epidemic—have led to increases in the number of children in need of services.

What does the bill mean for women and girls?

Most strikingly, the Equality Act undermines decades of hard fought civil rights protections for women and girls. Single gender spaces, such as locker rooms or shelters, would no longer be protected by law. This departure from a legal understanding of gender as male and female makes women and girls vulnerable to biological males being in their private spaces. For example, shelters for those women and girls escaping domestic abuse or homelessness would be forced to house biological men who identify as female. This legislation disregards the privacy and safety concerns women rightly have about sharing sleeping quarters and intimate facilities with the biological opposite sex.

Another example of the harm this legislation poses to women and girls is in athletics and academics. Since 1972, Title IX has advanced women’s sports and scholarship in remarkable ways. If enacted, the Equality Act would threaten female competition as both areas would then be open to biological males as well.

Are there pro-life concerns in the Equality Act?

Yes. The Equality Act would be the most pro-abortion bill ever passed by Congress. It would redefine the term “sex” to also include “pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.” This language would roll back federal law that protects the consciences of pro-life nurses and physicians who object to participating in abortions because of their deeply held religious or moral beliefs. These conscience protections carry decades of bipartisan consensus—a consensus that no person should be compelled to participate in an act they believe to be gravely immoral. The Equality Act would also jeopardize the longstanding Hyde Amendment that protects federal taxpayer dollars from funding abortion. There is nothing equalizing about forcing Americans to fund abortion through taxpayer dollars.

How has the ERLC been involved?

The ERLC has worked tirelessly to defeat this bill. We have partnered with a broad coalition of more than 85 faith-based nonprofits, religious entities, and institutions of higher education to highlight the dangers of the Equality Act. We have raised these concerns with members of Congress and the administration through coalition letters and countless meetings with members, administration officials, and their staff. We have also engaged in public advocacy against the bill by producing a suite of resources to inform Christians and the broader public about the pernicious threat of the so-called “Equality” Act.

What’s next?

In the prior Democrat-led House, the Equality Act passed 224-206, with three Republicans joining all 221 Democrats. In the 118th Congress, Republicans narrowly hold the majority seats, but the bill is unlikely to make it to the floor for a vote. Two of the three Republicans who voted in favor of the bill are no longer in Congress, which makes it even more difficult for Democrats to force a vote on the bill. Another obstacle is Speaker McCarthy’s commitment to unifying the Republican majority’s voice in the House to present a strong front before the American people. 

While it is unlikely the bill will be passed in this Congress, its continued appearance presents a larger, on-going threat to human dignity and religious liberty. The ERLC will continue to highlight how the Equality Act erodes fundamental freedoms and undermines the ability of Americans of diverse beliefs to work together for the common good.

Explainer: HHS reinterprets healthcare discrimination law to include sexual orientation and gender identity
By / Oct 5

On Aug. 4, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a proposed rule that would significantly reinterpret the Affordable Care Act’s Section 1557 nondiscrimination provision by expanding the definition of “sex” to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy-related conditions. Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is a nondiscrimination provision that prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability under any federally funded health program or activity, executive agency, or entity under Title I of the ACA.

Following the announcement, HHS allowed 60 days for organizations and individuals to comment with concerns. The ERLC submitted comments raising our concerns with the proposed rule. As that comment period closed Monday, HHS is obligated to respond to each of these comments before putting forward a finalized rule.

How has Section 1557 been interpreted historically?

During the Obama administration, new regulations expanded the scope of section 1557’s nondiscrimination policies by redefining “sex” to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and termination of pregnancy. The regulations raised a number of significant issues regarding religious liberty and freedom of conscience. For instance, physicians would be required to provide gender reassignment surgeries and administer hormones to facilitate gender reassignment, including to children. The regulations even required medical professionals to perform abortions in violation of their deeply held convictions.

In response to these new regulations, five states and three private healthcare providers filed suit to challenge the final rules. In Franciscan Alliance v. Burwell (2016), a federal district court held that HHS erroneously interpreted “sex” under Title IX and that the final rule was arbitrary and capricious, while Title IX “unambiguously refers to the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.” The court further ruled that the final rule’s failure to include religious exemptions likely violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

In 2020, the Trump administration finalized a rule reversing the Obama administration’s regulations on Section 1557 and narrowing the definition of “sex.” Days after the final rule was issued, the Supreme Court handed down a 6-3 ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County that expanded the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” for the purposes of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This year, the Biden administration reversed the 2020 rule, then reinstated and expanded the Obama administration’s 2016 rule using the Bostock decision as a justification for its redefinition of “sex.”

Why is this change problematic?

While HHS allegedly plans to comply with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and all applicable court orders involving section 1557 regulations, it is unclear what this proposed rule means for religious healthcare professionals and insurance providers. Medical professionals and providers could be forced to administer or cover gender reassignment treatments if they provide the same underlying treatments for other conditions, regardless of their objections to the treatment for religious or moral reasons. That is, if a physician performs hysterectomies for cancer patients or hormone therapy for patients with hormone imbalances, HHS may force that doctor to administer those same treatments for patients seeking gender reassignments.

This rule also expands the legal definition of “sex” to include “pregnancy-related conditions”—a term that prohibits discrimination on the basis of “pregnancy, childbirth, termination of pregnancy, or lactation.” While the exact implications of this expansive terminology are still unclear, advocates are concerned that the administration could again weaponize the “termination of pregnancy” language to mandate healthcare providers and other organizations to include abortions and abortifacents in their plans. The government should never fund abortions nor force healthcare professionals to violate their dearly held pro-life convictions. Pro-life appropriations riders such as the Hyde, Weldon, and Church amendments should always be included in the annual budgetary process and strictly followed by executive agencies like HHS.

How has the ERLC responded?

The ERLC has submitted public comments laying out our concerns with the proposed rule and urging them to reconsider making these changes. This proposed rule would have deeply concerning ramifications for life, religious liberty, and the good of our neighbors if enacted. As ERLC’s Jason Thacker said when the proposed rule was introduced, “No matter how quickly our society shifts on the fundamental issues of life and human sexuality, people of faith should not be forced to participate in or promote the myth that we can create our own realities outside of God’s good design for human sexuality and flourishing,” The ERLC will continue to monitor these changes and look for additional opportunities to raise our concerns and advocate for the recognition of God’s good design for biological sex and for the protection of religious liberty.

Explainer: Title IX expanded to include sexual orientation and gender identity
By / Sep 19

On July 12, the Department of Education (DOE) issued a proposed rule under Title IX discrimination laws that would expand the definition of “sex” to include sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity. Following the announcement, the DOE allowed 60 days for organizations and individuals to comment with concerns. As that comment period closed Monday, the DOE is obligated to respond to each of these comments before putting forward a finalized rule.

What is Title IX?

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex-based discrimination in education, stating: “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” Title IX law is intended to provide equal opportunities for both men and women seeking to participate in educational institutions and extracurricular activities that receive federal funding.

How would this proposed rule change Title IX laws? 

This proposed rule would reinterpret Title IX’s prohibition against sex-based discrimination to include sexual orientation, gender identity, and pregnancy. Section 106.10 of Title IX will “articulate the Department’s understanding that sex discrimination includes discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation, and gender identity.” Under this new rule, preventing individuals from participating in school programs consistent with their self-identified “gender identity” would constitute discrimination. In order to receive federal funding, religious schools and organizations may be compelled to allow transgender students to live in opposite sex dorms, use restrooms reserved for the opposite sex, or participate on sports teams with their chosen gender identity. 

This proposed rule is another attempt by the executive branch to extend the bureaucratic application of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020). In Bostock, the court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects gay and transgender employees against unlawful discriminiation — logic that various executive agencies including the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Agriculture, and now the DOE have applied to Title IX.

 The DOE’s proposed rule explicitly relies on Bostock’s reasoning because of similarities in the text of Title VII and Title IX and other comparable applications by federal courts. But a federal judge temporarily blocked similar guidance previously issued by the DOE, aiming his sights at the “improper expansion” of Bostock‘s reasoning to Title IX. This new rule, then, is likely vulnerable to similar litigation that could severely limit its applicability and effectiveness.

Why is the rule problematic?

The DOE’s proposed change would have sweeping effects that would significantly undermine the original intent and purpose of Title IX. The new language that expands the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) would penalize institutions that did not expand the definition of sex to include SOGI. Organizations and schools under the jurisdiction of Title IX would no longer be able to define sex as a person’s biological sex from birth, but instead would be forced to adopt gender identity as the student’s sex for purposes of Title IX and its implementing regulations.

In athletics, a refusal to account for biological, sex-dependent differences will legally enshrine inequality in sports by changing the very law that sought to achieve the equality in the first place. In addition to being unfair, it is insulting and demeaning to females for our nation’s policies to proceed as if biological males are the standard by which they ought to evaluate themselves. If the proposed change is accepted, the law created to protect them from discrimination and provide them equality would discriminate against them and make them more unequal than ever before. Not only would this proposal completely blur the distinctions between men and women and the corresponding team sports they participate in and facilities they utilize, it will have the effect of rolling back all the good that has been done to ensure men and women have the same opportunity to participate in educational institutions and activities.

Additionally, though Title IX has a robust religious exemption, it does not include protections for people of faith at nonreligious institutions, and the DOE has indicated that they may take further action limiting the religious exemption in the future.

How has the ERLC responded? 

The ERLC has submitted public comments laying out our concerns with the proposed rule and urging them to reconsider making these changes. Title IX directly affects a host of other regulations across agencies making the effects of this change sweeping. The ERLC will continue to monitor these changes and look for additional opportunities to raise our concerns and advocate for the recognition of God’s good design for biological sex and for the protection of religious liberty.

Explainer: USDA allows religious schools to receive lunch funding without violating their beliefs
By / Aug 18

On May 5, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Food and Nutrition Service (FNS) issued new guidance involving sexual orientation and gender identity language requirements. It stated that “it will interpret the prohibition on discrimination based on sex found in Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, and in the Food and Nutrition Act of 2008, as amended, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly the Food Stamp Program (7 USC § 2011 et seq.), to include discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.” FNS is responsible for administering the USDA food assistance programs, including those related to schools, such as the School Breakfast Program and the National School Lunch Program (NSLP). 

This interpretation comes as a result of President Biden’s Executive Order on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation and is believed by FNS to be an outworking of the Supreme Court’s 2020 Bostock decision that found the prohibition of “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation and gender identity. Though the Bostock case dealt with Title VII, which involves employment discrimination, FNS believes that this same interpretation of “sex” also applies to Title IX, which deals with educational activities.

This means that these FNS school meal programs, which are subject to Title IX civil rights law preventing discrimination on the basis of sex, now also ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. In order to receive funding for meal programs operated by USDA’s FNS, state and local agencies, schools, lunch program operators, and sponsors now must update their non-discrimination policies and signage to explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Why is this problematic?

While it is troubling to see continued efforts to push gender ideology in ways that contradict a biblical view of human sexuality, this new guidance was particularly problematic in that it did not provide a robust exemption for religious schools or other faith-based programs that participate in FNS-funded meal programs. Title IX’s religious exemption is automatically granted to religious schools without any type of action required from either the school or government. Recently, this interpretation of the exemption was affirmed in a case involving Fuller Theological Seminary.

Despite Title IX’s strong protection for religious schools and faith based organizations, the USDA insisted that religious schools that object to this guidance must submit a written declaration to the secretary of agriculture identifying the provisions within the rule that conflict with a specific tenet of the religious organization. Additionally, it was unclear whether these schools would face penalties if they did not comply while their exemption letter was being considered. 

In 2019, the NSLP provided free or reduced price lunches to 29.6 million children every day. A significant number of those children attend religious schools that maintain deeply-held religious beliefs in contradiction to this understanding of sex and gender. Many of these schools were beginning their academic years with great uncertainty as they faced difficult decisions: will they violate their deeply-held religious beliefs or risk the loss of funding for some of the most vulnerable children enrolled in their schools. Already, one religious school, represented by our partners at Alliance Defending Freedom, was forced to sue in order to be granted their exemption.

Additionally, more than 20 state attorneys general have filed a lawsuit against USDA, contending that the department’s interpretation of Title IX would cause the plaintiff states to lose federal funding for the National School Lunch Program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). The lawsuit accuses Biden of asking federal agencies to rewrite federal law, and the attorneys general allege that the USDA ignored procedural requirements and misconstrued federal code in issuing its directives.

What changed?

On Friday, Aug. 12, the USDA issued a clarification stating that it would reinstate the broad Title IX religious exemption that automatically applies to religious schools and faith-based institutions without the step of a written request. This clarification comes after months of work from religious liberty advocates and is a substantial victory for religious institutions and people of faith who do not want to compromise their most fundamental beliefs as they work to serve their neighbors in the public square.

Religious schools are on the front lines of caring for some of the most vulnerable children across the country, and the ERLC will continue to advocate for their ability to faithfully fulfill their mission without risking the welfare of the most vulnerable children enrolled in their schools or sacrificing their deeply-held beliefs on issues of gender and sexuality. 

Explainer: States propose bills related to parental rights, gender identity, and sexuality
By / May 13

Florida recently passed legislation expanding and codifying parental rights in their child’s education. One of the most controversial sections of the law prohibits classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity in kindergarten through third grade or in a manner that is not age or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards. 

Critics have used this provision to frame this legislation as a “Don’t Say Gay” law. But supporters on both sides of the political aisle say such legislation is necessary because parents should be informed regarding what their children are taught about topics like homosexuality, transgenderism, and gender fluidity.

“Parents have a fundamental right to make decisions regarding the upbringing of their children, and schools should not be keeping important information from parents,” said Florida Senate President Wilton Simpson. “Children belong to families, not the state.”

Since the passage of the Florida bill, more than a dozen other states have proposed similar legislation. Here is some of the legislation related to parental rights and LGBTQ+ issues in education:

Alabama: In April, the state passed an amendment that prohibits classroom instruction or discussion on sexual orientation or gender identity for students in kindergarten through the fifth grade in public K-12 schools.

Arizona: A proposed bill in the legislature would allow parents to review the formational documents of any school student group or club involving sexuality, gender, or gender identity. Another bill had language stricken from its final version that would have prevented school officials from withholding or concealing, facilitating, encouraging, or coercing students into concealing a student’s gender identity or “requested transition” if it is “incongruous with their biological sex.” Parents also would have needed to give consent before students were asked questions on a survey about gender expression, perception, or stereotypes. 

Indiana: A proposed bill would prohibit any requirement for students enrolled at a state educational institution to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling. Another proposed bill would require parents’ written consent for students to receive sex education on transgenderism and would require parental consent for medical inspections or mental health treatment, including on counseling about gender transitioning issues, pronoun selection, and referral to other agencies that provide these services.

Iowa: A proposed bill prohibits curriculum provided to a student from including instruction relating to gender identity unless the school district or accredited nonpublic school obtains the prior written consent of the student’s parent or guardian. If a parent or guardian does not provide written consent, a student may opt out of instruction relating to gender identity. Another bill would require schools to give a week’s notice to parents before educators ask students which pronoun they prefer or before administering a survey on pronoun use and to send them the response upon request.

Louisiana: A proposed bill would prohibit classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in kindegarten through eighth grade and prohibit teachers, school employees, and presenters from discussing their sexual orientation or gender identity with students. 

Missouri: A proposed bill would prevent public schools from requiring students to engage in gender or sexual diversity training. 

North Carolina: A proposed bill would require any state employee to report to parents if a minor has exhibited symptoms of gender dysphoria, gender nonconformity, or otherwise demonstrates a desire to be treated in a manner incongruent with their biological sex.

Ohio: A proposed bill would prevent, teach, use, or provide any curriculum or instructional materials on sexual orientation or gender identity from kindergarten through third grade, and prohibits students in grades four through 12 from being taught or having to use curriculum or instructional materials on sexual orientation or gender identity in any manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.

Oklahoma: A proposed bill would prohibit public schools or libraries from holding or promoting books that make as their primary subject the study of lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender issues or recreational sexualization.

Rhode Island: A proposed bill would also require children to be addressed by their common names and the pronouns associated with their biological gender unless parent permission is given to change them.

South Carolina: A proposed bill would prevent any state-funded entity from subjecting minors under the age of 18 to instruction, presentations, discussions, counseling, or materials in any medium that involve a number of “controversial and age-inappropriate topics,” including gender identity. The state has also proposed a bill that says a student, administrator, teacher, staff member, other school or district employee, or volunteer may not be required to engage in any form of mandatory gender or sexual diversity training or counseling.

Tennessee: A proposed bill would prohibit the state board from approving textbooks and instructional materials or supplemental instructional materials that promotes, normalizes, supports, or addresses lesbian, gay, bi-sexual, or transgender (LGBT) issues or lifestyles.

Wisconsin: The governor vetoed broad-based parent’s rights legislation that included a right to determine the names and pronouns used for the child while at school.

The ERLC’s advocacy against the Equality Act extends into 2022
By / Dec 20

The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission knew coming into 2021 that the completely misnamed Equality Act would be a priority for some segments of the culture, and as the year comes to a close, the bill remains a top legislative priority for our organization. 

This legislation represents one of the most significant threats to religious liberty we have ever encountered. If passed, the bill would punish faith-based charities for their core religious beliefs about human dignity and marriage, undermine decades of civil rights protections for women and girls, and substantially harm religious liberty protections in the United States.

We believe it is essential that a solution in the public square be crafted that protects and upholds the dignity of all people, while ensuring that religiously motivated individuals and institutions are free to live and act according to their deeply held convictions. The ERLC opposes this problematic bill and has sought to bring attention to its alarming implications through a variety of means. 

Beginning with our 2021 Public Policy Agenda laying out our policy goals at the federal level, numerous explainers equipping Christians with information about the bill and how it will change our society, and witness testimony on Capitol Hill in March, this has been our consistent focus. 

In February 2021, H.R. 5, the Equality Act, passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 224-206, and in March, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the Equality Act. This bill has rightly garnered significant coverage and controversy as it seeks to expand the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” (SOGI) and would revise every title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add these categories as new protected classes in the federal code.

Key to the ERLC’s message in opposing the legislation is that America has long been a place where people with different views and beliefs have been able to live at peace with one other. This bill would undermine fundamental protections that allow Americans of good will to disagree with one another without penalizing those with dissenting beliefs.

Interestingly, this sweeping bill was voted on in the House without a hearing at the House Judiciary Committee. The bill first passed the House in the 116th Congress, but did not receive a hearing or floor vote in the Senate under a Republican majority. Currently in the Senate, Leader Schumer (D–N.Y.) used a Senate tool entitled “Rule 14” to be able to bring the bill to the floor at any time, but thus far he has not yet done so. Many analysts believe that the efforts of the ERLC and other conservative peer groups to bring attention to the disturbing aspects of the Act have stalled momentum for the legislation in the short term.

The ERLC is actively engaging lawmakers on the harms of the Equality Act as well as countering attempts to pass components of the bill’s desired policies in other legislation and will remain committed to this advocacy in the year ahead. 

Key Resources on Equality Act 

How to show Christlike care for a student who struggles with same-sex attraction
By / Aug 11

Sandra grew up in a Christian home. She was a good girl in church — read the Bible, prayed, did her quiet time. She was homeschooled by solid parents. She never snuck out or did anything crazy. She’d never even been to a high school prom. On the outside, it looked like Sandra had a sheltered and safe Christian childhood, but on the inside, there was a lot more going on.

During her freshman year of college, Sandra met June, a girl who quickly became her best friend. They spent hours each day together, and, over time, their worlds began to revolve around each other. Their emotional closeness became codependent and inappropriately physical. One day it happened, and they freaked out. They cried and prayed and asked God to help nothing like that happen again. But it did. And Sandra and June never told anyone. They even promised one another they’d never tell their future husbands.

A kid like Sandra should feel safe confessing her sins to Christian parents and her church community. But there’s understandable shame for a kid confessing same-sex attraction or transgender feelings, especially if that child has grown up around coarse gay jokes or politically charged opinions about the LGBTQ movement. It’s understandable for a kid who grows up in that context to fear losing friendships if they allow their struggles to become public knowledge.

What can a parent or a church leader do in the face of such shame? What does it look like to show love and compassion for a child who experiences the discord of gender confusion or same-sex attraction?

First, cultivate empathy. If we’re honest, we know kids’ fears about confessing disordered desires are not unfounded. Many parents don’t react well. Some parents’ first instincts are to run from the situation and ignore it. Some become overwhelmed emotionally and get angry, whether with God or with their child: “How can this be happening? You were raised better than this!” These kinds of responses only create more distance between parents and their children. Like the Pharisees, many Christian communities sometimes teach true doctrine all the while judging and marginalizing those who publicly confess sin that makes us particularly uncomfortable or is socially unacceptable (Luke 18:9–14). We must remember that those who experience gender confusion or same-sex attraction are not unique in battling brokenness or sinful desires. Cooper Pinson asks:

Can you relate to a student who wants to follow Christ, but finds strong, competing, sinful tendencies within himself that moves him in destructive directions?1Cooper Pinson, Helping Students with Same-Sex Attraction: Guidance for Parents and Youth Leaders, (Greensboro: New Growth, 2017), 8.

If so, you’re more like your child than you may have originally thought. When we acknowledge what we have in common and move toward kids who struggle rather than away from them, we reflect the kind of love with which Jesus loved us (1 John 4:19).

Second, acknowledge the courage it took to be honest.2Adapted from Tim Geiger, Your Child Says, “I’m Gay,” (Greensboro: New Growth, 2013), 8–9. Even if your child’s confession is hard to hear, thank them for being honest enough to tell you the truth. Acknowledge how hard it must have been for your child to speak this secret and get it out in the open. Thank them for trusting you, reaffirm your love for them, and assure them that your relationship will not end because of this confession. Affirming your love for your child and expressing gratitude for their truthfulness will help you cultivate an ongoing relationship that is built on authenticity.

Third, listen before you speak or act. If your child begins the conversation, respect their initiative by allowing the dialogue to be about what you can learn from them and not what you feel they need to hear from you. When seeking to understand, the most important thing is to ask comfortable open-ended questions.3Brian Hambrick, “Talking to My Boys after the Transgender Talk at Their Public School” (May 16, 2016), accessed online at http://bradhambrick.com/talking-to-my-boys-after-the-transgender-talk-at-their-public-school/. If your child says, “I’m gay,” “lesbian,” or “I want to transition,” for instance, it’s important to understand what they mean by that. Ask your child how they came to this understanding, how long they have been considering this, how certain they feel it is true, and why. Ask whether or not your child is content with this expressed identity, or if this is something they don’t want. Don’t assume your child or their friends understand these terms in the same way you do. 

It may be that your child is confessing a sinful experiment with a new gender identity or same-sex sexual intimacy in the same way a cheating husband who wants to turn away from unfaithfulness confesses, “I’m an adulterer.” When a Christian owns his or her identity as a sinner in this way, it should never be discouraged (1 Tim. 1:15). Your child is most likely describing an ongoing battle in which they feel oppressed and helpless. As Tim Geiger observes, “He might really be saying, ‘I’ve been struggling with these feelings for years, and the only reasonable conclusion I can draw is that I must be gay.’”4Geiger, Your Child Says, “I’m Gay,” 21.

Fourth, acknowledge your child’s suffering. Kids who struggle with gender confusion or same-sex attraction may have heard many times from the church that homosexuality is wrong. But rarely have we acknowledged their unique form of suffering and intense temptations. Students who experience same-sex attraction “often contend with intense loneliness, confusion, fear, and even despair as they wrestle with something that seems as if it’s an essential part of who they are.”5Pinson, Helping Students with Same-Sex Attraction, 14. The same is true for kids who experience gender dysphoria.

Having disordered desires, whether these desires consist in same-sex sexual lust or gender confusion, is not the same thing as giving in to these sinful desires, that is, dwelling on those desires and acting upon them. Both are sinful, but the kind of repentance required and the kind of change we can expect is different. We must turn from all sinful behavior. But where we can repent and refrain from sinful actions related to sexual temptation, disordered desires — while they should be resisted, confessed, and put to death — may nevertheless remain throughout our lives. Sharing your own struggles — how you may not always feel at home or comfortable in your own body, or, as appropriate, your own ongoing battles with lust and temptation — will demonstrate that brokenness and sexual sin is not unique to your child.

Fifth, pray for your child. We can educate our children as much as we want, have conversations, and teach them the biblical point of view. But in the end, their hearts must be in submission to God or these words will fall on deaf ears. A child’s repentance ultimately depends on the Holy Spirit’s work in their heart and not on a parent’s actions. Some things only come out by prayer (Mark 9:29). So, as parents, we must appeal to God to act on behalf of our children. 

The parents of Sandra or June may be in for a long journey. Sometimes it seems that we do and say all the right things, but our hearts break because our children continue to choose the wrong path. In these times, one of the best ways to care for our children is to advocate for them while on our knees.

Finally, gently communicate what it looks like to follow Jesus. By adopting an empathetic posture and listening carefully, you set the stage for speaking redemptive truth. If your child is determined to pursue an intimate same-gender, sexual relationship or transition their gender, there may be no way of avoiding defensiveness on their part. Remember that it’s God’s kindness that leads us to repentance (Rom. 2:4). Your child needs kindness too. It’s doubtful that arguments will convince your child their perspective is wrong. But if they are open to dialogue, share sensitively a biblical and compassionate perspective on suffering with sexual brokenness. We can encourage a child who experiences besetting and persistent trials with the truth that all Christians are called to suffer. As Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone wants to follow after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life because of me will find it” (Matt. 16:24–25).

Following Christ while enduring gender dysphoria or same-sex attraction will involve taking up crosses. It will mean rejecting impulses that run counter to God’s created design. It may mean that your child remains single and celibate into adulthood or resists temptation while their psychological distress increases. You should never gloss over or minimize these hard realities, but you can remind your children that they have a high priest who can sympathize with them in their weaknesses (Heb. 4:15). As Andrew Walker observes, “No one ever experienced greater dysphoria than the perfect Son of God being treated as a sinner.”6Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 89. “He himself bore our sins in his body on the cross so that we might die to sin and live to righteousness” (1 Pet. 2:24).

As you encourage your child to persevere, keep in mind that this most likely will be a long journey. Change is slow. A girl like Sandra, whose story I told above, may gain confidence to confess her sins and grow both to live a life in obedience to the Bible’s commands and even to disciple others who experience same-sex attraction. But that same girl may still struggle to discern whether or not missing one of her girlfriends who is out of town is just a normal part of friendship or evidence that she’s still battling a sinful pull toward codependence. As Chris Torchia writes:

We all appreciate the success stories of someone coming to Christ and experiencing complete freedom from ingrained sin patterns, but God doesn’t always work that way. A more accurate picture of repentance is a gradual process of turning away from sin and turning to God more and more, usually with many bumps along the way.Chris Torchia, “Coming Out as Gay or Transgender: Five things parents must do—part 4,” The Student Outreach, (Sept. 21, 2017), accessed online at http://thestudentoutreach.org/2017/09/21/coming-gay-transgender-five-things-parents-must-part-4/.

Parents, you should find the kind of support network that will stick with you through the long haul. Don’t hide your weakness from your Christian friends. And don’t be afraid to reach out for help from your pastors and biblical counselors like those at Harvest USA (www.harvestusa.org).

We can be confident that Christ is ready, willing, and waiting to meet us even where brokenness seems profound and irreparable. We can persevere with faith, knowing that we share in Christ’s sufferings so we may also share in his glory (Rom. 8:17). For those who do not shrink back, God has prepared a great reward. We do not belong to those who shrink back to destruction but to those who persevere and are saved (Heb. 10:36-39).

This article was adapted from A Parent’s Guide to Teaching Your Children About Gender: Helping Kids Navigate a Confusing Culture.

  • 1
    Cooper Pinson, Helping Students with Same-Sex Attraction: Guidance for Parents and Youth Leaders, (Greensboro: New Growth, 2017), 8.
  • 2
    Adapted from Tim Geiger, Your Child Says, “I’m Gay,” (Greensboro: New Growth, 2013), 8–9.
  • 3
    Brian Hambrick, “Talking to My Boys after the Transgender Talk at Their Public School” (May 16, 2016), accessed online at http://bradhambrick.com/talking-to-my-boys-after-the-transgender-talk-at-their-public-school/.
  • 4
    Geiger, Your Child Says, “I’m Gay,” 21.
  • 5
    Pinson, Helping Students with Same-Sex Attraction, 14.
  • 6
    Walker, God and the Transgender Debate, 89.

Explainer: HHS reverses enforcement policy on sexual orientation and gender identity
By / May 12

This week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced that the Office for Civil Rights (OCR) will interpret and enforce the Affordable Care Act and Title IX’s nondiscrimination provision and expand the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity.” 

Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) is the nondiscrimination provision of the ACA prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability under any federally funded health program or activity, executive agency, or entity under Title I of the ACA. 

How have other administrations interpreted Section 1557?

Under the Obama administration, new regulations were issued that expanded the scope of section 1557’s nondiscrimination by redefining “sex” to include sexual orientation and gender identity. The regulations raised a number of significant religious liberty and pro-life issues. For instance, physicians would be required to provide gender reassignment surgeries and administer hormones to facilitate gender reassignment, including to children. They even required medical professionals to perform abortions in violation of the consciences. 

In response to the issuance of these new regulations, on Aug. 23, 2016, five states and three private health care providers filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas challenging the final rules in the case Franciscan Alliance v. Burwell. The District Court held that HHS erroneously interpreted “sex” under Title IX, that the final rule was arbitrary and capricious when Title IX “unambiguously refers to the biological and anatomical differences between male and female students as determined at their birth.” The District Court further ruled that the Final Rule’s failure to include religious exemptions likely violated the Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA) and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

In 2020, the Trump Administration finalized a rule reversing the Obama administration’s regulations on Section 1557, and narrowed the definition of “sex.” Days after the Trump Administration finalized their rule, in a 6-3 ruling authored by Justice Gorsuch and styled Bostock v. Clayton County, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” for the purposes of employment discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Office of Civil Rights used the Bostock decision as a justification for it’s redefinition of “sex.”

What’s next?

The HHS Office of Civil Rights could begin bringing enforcement actions based on this new interpretation of Section 1557 at any time. While the notice states that HHS will comply with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and all applicable court orders that have been issued in litigation involving the Section 1557 regulations, it is unclear what this means for religious healthcare providers and professionals. Medical professionals and providers who serve everyone would be forced to administer gender reassignment treatments if they provide the same underlying treatments for other conditions. That is, if a physician performs hysterectomies for cancer patients or hormone therapy for patients with hormone imbalances, HHS may force her to administer those same treatments for patients seeking gender reassignments.

The ERLC will continue promoting and defending the human dignity and religious liberty of all people and religious organizations with the Administration, on Capitol Hill, and throughout the public square.

Explainer: Removal of EEOC general counsel creates concern for religious liberty protections
By / Mar 9

On Friday, President Joe Biden removed the general counsel of the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), an action seen by many as controversial. Sharon Gustafson was appointed by President Donald Trump in 2018 to serve as the agency’s top litigator through 2023. She recently sent a letter to President Biden on March 5 declining his request to resign. 

“I have confidently given this advice to countless embattled clients over the last 25 years: hold your head high, do your best work, and do not resign under pressure,” Gustafson wrote in her letter to the president. “In solidarity with them, I will follow that advice.”

The administration previously fired the general counsel of the National Labor Relations Board General Counsel (NRLB), another Trump appointee, who also refused to resign. President Biden’s decision to fire Gustafson may have significant implications for religious liberty protections, which would be deeply concerning for Christians.

What is the EEOC?

The EEOC is the federal agency responsible for enforcing federal laws that make it illegal to discriminate against a job applicant or an employee because of the person’s race, color, religion, national origin, age (40 or older), disability or genetic information. This also applies to sex, which includes pregnancy, sexual orientation, and transgender status.

EEOC laws apply to most employers with at least 15 employees and 20 employees in age discrimination cases. Most labor unions and employment agencies are also covered. The laws apply to all types of work situations, including hiring, firing, promotions, harassment, training, wages, and benefits.

The EEOC has such powers as the ability to litigate discrimination cases and issue regulations interpreting the law. The agency can also accepts charges of discrimination from employees, investigates those charges, and attempts to mediate settlements between employees and employers.

Can’t the president fire anyone in his administration?

It’s unclear whether the president has the authority to fire officials at the EEOC. Within the executive branch of the federal government there are certain agencies, such as the EEOC and NRLB, which are supposed to operate as independent agencies. 

The 1935 case of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States ruled that the Constitution had never given “illimitable power of removal” to the president, and that President Hoover could not remove William E. Humphrey as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC). It is possible that this firing will lead to further litigation that expands on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Seila Law v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, which dealt with the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

In any case, it is safe to say that the Biden Administration’s action is without legal precedent and may be overturned.

What is the EEOC’s role in implementing Bostock v. Clayton County?

In June of 2020, the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 ruling in a consolidated group of cases styled Bostock v. Clayton County. With the Bostock decision, the Supreme Court expanded the definition of “sex” to include “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

Bostock was a sweeping decision that fundamentally redefined the legal definition of “sex” and threatened, substantially, the conscience freedoms of religious employers in the United States. Because the EEOC is tasked with enforcing federal laws against discrimination, the commission will play a critical role in implementing Bostock and investigating claims of workplace discrimination. To a large extent, the leadership of the EEOC will determine whether or not the commission wields the weight of the federal government to threaten companies with dissenting views about human sexuality. Further, should the Equality Act become law, the EEOC will also pay a significant role in the implementation of this troubling legislation.

What is the role of the general counsel?

According to the EEOC, the General Counsel is responsible for managing, coordinating, and directing the Commission’s enforcement litigation program. As the agency’s counsel, they also provide overall guidance and management to all the components of the Office of General Counsel, including field office legal units.

The General Counsel is also responsible for developing litigation strategies designed to attain maximum compliance with federal laws prohibiting discrimination in employment. 

Why did Biden fire Gustafson?

The Biden administration has not stated its official reasoning for wanting to remove Gustafson as general counsel. However, after her nomination, several LGBTQ activist groups opposed her appointment to the EEOC. They opposed her, in part, because of the “evasive and non-committal” answers she gave “regarding the rights of LGBT workers.” 

In her letter declining to resign, Gustafson noted that after Biden’s inauguration, information on her efforts to promote religious freedom were removed from the EEOC website.

What is Gustafon’s record on religious liberty for employers?

Gustafson had been seen as an advocate for religious freedom. As she pointed out in her letter to President Biden, she focused on religious discrimination in the workplace throughout her time at the EEOC. She noted that during her tenure, “a Religious Discrimination Work Group” was established “that hosted a series of Listening Sessions in which a diverse group of religious representatives — including Christians, Hindus, Jews, Muslims, and Sikhs — recommended ways the EEOC could  improve its response to employees who experience religious discrimination.” 

Additionally, rather than penalizing those with religious views, Gustafson prioritized balancing religious liberty concerns with competing claims of discrimination.

What does this mean?

Because the administration has refused to provide its rationale for seeking Gustafson’s resignation, it is unclear exactly why these actions were taken. However, there is reason to believe that this effort to interfere with an independent government agency is being done in service to the LGBT lobby. In any case, this action violates the EEOC’s autonomy and may portend further hostility toward Americans who dissent from the radical sexual orthodoxy of the progressive movement. The effort to replace Gustafson sends troubling signs about the future on these issues.

The Equality Act: A dangerous law with a clever name
By / Feb 25

If you were looking for the very best way to get Americans to accept a radical piece of legislation, giving the bill a clever name would be near the top of the list. This is exactly the case with the so-called “Equality Act,” officially known as H.R. 5. Judging by its name alone, it seems like the kind of legislation that almost anyone would support. After all, what kind of person is opposed to equality? Even more, the bill is supposedly an effort to combat discrimination. And what kind of monster would think discrimination is good? 

But here’s the real issue: it takes more than a clever name to make a good law. And once you move past its name, the serious issues with H.R. 5 are both obvious and alarming.

The Equality Act

The truth is, the Equality Act is not just a bad bill; it’s a dangerous one. (See our explainer and one-pager). It does not represent a good faith effort to protect LGBT Americans from discrimination. It is, in fact, an effort to codify into law the progressive orthodoxy of the sexual revolution and to legally silence those who dissent. 

H.R. 5 would “expand the definition of ‘sex’ to include ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’ (SOGI) and would revise every title of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to add these categories as new protected classes in the federal code.” Should it be enacted, it would imperil religious freedom, substantially harm women and girls, and cement a false conception of the human person into our nation’s laws and consciousness. Not to mention the fact that it would effectively destroy the clear (biologically determined) distinctions between males and females in our society and laws.

And for these reasons, it is paramount that H.R. 5 is defeated.

Addressing discrimination

Christians should oppose discrimination and stand up for human dignity. Of all people, followers of Jesus should recognize the inherent value of every person, regardless of their age, race, ability, religion, or any other details or features that define them, including their sexual orientation and sense of gender identity. Every person is created by God and made in his image (Gen. 1:26-27). That is why every person matters. Regardless of who they are, what they believe, or what they’ve done, no one can separate themselves from the image of God. Being stamped with God’s image means that each person possesses intrinsic dignity and deserves to be treated with respect.

There is no doubt that people in the LGBT community sometimes experience discrimination. But as Ryan T. Anderson points out, “Rather than finding common-sense, narrowly tailored ways to shield LGBT-identifying Americans from truly unjust discrimination, [H.R. 5] would act as a sword — to persecute those who don’t embrace newfangled gender ideologies.”

Anderson is correct. If the Equality Act were merely attempting to eliminate unjust discrimination, it would likely enjoy enthusiastic and bipartisan support. But it isn’t. 

Instead, in the name of “antidiscrimination” H.R. 5 would see Christians and others forced to deny their sincerely held beliefs or suffer untold consequences at the hands of the state. It would see women and girls forced to share private spaces with biological males. It would see pro-life conscience protections stripped away from healthcare professionals. And it would threaten the very existence of countless faith-based charities and nonprofits. 

Disagreement isn’t discrimination

We live in an age where disagreement on issues of sexuality is construed as violence. Christians and others who hold to traditional understandings of gender and sexuality are frequently slandered as zealots and bigots. But in most cases, such charges are baseless.

H.R. 5 would punish people who, whether on the basis of the Bible or biology, hold fast to their beliefs that there are only two sexes (male and female), that gender is tied to biology, and that both of these realities are permanent and fixed. 

Christians should have enormous compassion for people struggling with their sexual identities and for people who believe there is some kind of misalignment between their biological sex and their internal sense of gender. But that compassion doesn’t negate our convictions about God’s intentional design for men and women. Nor does it undermine the importance of biological realities.

Men and women are different. Public policy shouldn’t punish people for adhering to facts supported by science, reason, and faith. Moreover, women and girls shouldn’t be forced to share changing facilities and restrooms with biological males or to compete against them in athletic competitions. Faith-based nonprofits shouldn’t be forced to choose between maintaining their beliefs about human sexuality or ceasing operations. Healthcare professionals shouldn’t be forced to violate their consciences (and medical training) in order to remain licensed and employed.

Opposing the Equality Act

Legislation that would punish people for recognizing distinctions written into our DNA is not a serious way to advance equality. It is, however, a clear demonstration of the strength of the LGBT lobby. People of faith, and all Americans of goodwill, should reject H.R. 5 for exactly what it is, reckless government overreach. 

This bill would eradicate safeguards, destroy civil liberties, and obliterate freedom of conscience. It would also erase women and girls and supplant biological facts with subjective experiences. Supporting H.R. 5 is no way to advance equality.