Who Owns Your Children?

In this 34-minute video, Peter Demos confronts the rising legal and spiritual threats to parental rights — focusing on a new bill that’s been proposed in Colorado called the Kelly Loving Act. While named after a shooting victim, the bill, according to Demos, has less to do with justice and more to do with redefining how the government views parenting — especially when it comes to families who hold to biblical truths about gender and identity.

Peter Demos is the author of On the Duty of Christian Civil Disobedience and the host of Uncommon Sense in Current Times. A Christian business leader from Tennessee, Demos uses his biblical perspective and insight gained from his own struggles to lead others to truth and authenticity in a broken world. To learn more, visit peterdemos.org.

Editor’s Note: The transcript that follows was automatically generated and lightly edited, so please be aware there could be typos or other small errors. The Stream is working toward a transcription service that does fast, accurate, and reliable work; thank you in advance for your patience!

00:00:00:17 – 00:00:26:22
Revolution of common sense. Revolution of common sense. A revolution of common sense. Truth was once common sense, but today truth is uncommon. Explore biblical truth. Surround faith. Business and politics with Peter Thomas. Uncommon sense in current times.

00:00:26:24 – 00:00:45:26
Hey, folks. Welcome to Uncommon Sense. In current times, I’m Peter Demas. Today we’re going to talk about a question that seems to be popping up everywhere, but no one’s really asking the question the way I’m about to ask it. Which is this? Who owns your children? I mean, right now people could sit there and say there’s most of them out there, is that no one really owns them.

00:00:45:26 – 00:01:06:00
They should be free and independent. No one really owns them. I’m not talking about own them like property. I’m not talking about own them like the way you would own a pet or your refrigerator or something of that nature. I’m saying own your children. Bear the responsibility for the authority in the air and be accountable for their actions.

00:01:06:07 – 00:01:31:07
Who is responsible for raising them? Who is responsible for teaching them the moral? The morality and and teaching them what is right and wrong, teaching them just about how life should be. And right now you know, the answer ought to be pretty obvious, especially if those who are raised Christian the answer is should be the parents.

00:01:31:09 – 00:01:51:07
I mean, Deuteronomy, tells us that, you know, that we should teach our children, you know, teach them the laws, that was given down. This has been an Old Testament thing. Proverbs says it several times. Ephesians tells us that when we when we raise our children, we shouldn’t provoke them. It is just kind of one of those things is just assumed that it is our job to raise them.

00:01:51:07 – 00:02:13:01
Now, that does not mean that we are the only people that can, that they can influence our children or have this obviously, the community at large is responsible for. But the ultimate responsibility comes down to the parents. The parents are the ones ultimately responsible. So it seems like that should be a pretty simple answer. But unfortunately, I don’t think it is any more.

00:02:13:04 – 00:02:34:04
And because there’s a second group of people out there who says it should be the state, that the state should be the one that, that that should raise your children. It can be the schools, which is part of the state. But I think there’s other parts of it as well. You know, and now, unfortunately, I think parents are abdicating this responsible to the state for many different reasons.

00:02:34:04 – 00:02:51:00
It could be comfort. It could be ease. I don’t want to have to tell my children. No. So let’s allow it for somebody else. I don’t want to have to teach them this, because sometimes it’s difficult. Because, frankly, those are your parents. Know this parenting is not for the the it’s not for the light at heart. It is not something that is easy to do.

00:02:51:00 – 00:03:13:04
Parenting is very difficult to do, but we are entrusted with the responsibility of doing so. So right now, I think we are facing a both a legal and a spiritual crisis. And it’s not just this is not just a theoretical or a policy, type debate. There’s something that is big is happening. And right now I want to talk about two legal examples that are happening.

00:03:13:04 – 00:03:38:14
One is before the Supreme Court is the Supreme Court. They just heard the oral arguments recently, from Maryland. One is from the Supreme Court. It’s in the Supreme Court that is happening currently in Maryland, Maryland and 2022. The Montgomery County Public School System in Maryland introduced LGBTQ plus whatever all the initials happen to be, inclusive storybooks into its elementary schools.

00:03:38:16 – 00:04:02:06
And originally, they said they’re going to allow an opt out, option. So in other words, if I do not want my children to go and listen to a drag queen go through storytime to tell my children that they are a, that my my son is really a girl or could be, and that the doctor could have made a mistake at birth.

00:04:02:08 – 00:04:33:20
Again, same people that say trust the science. But nevertheless, if I didn’t want that to happen, I could opt out and say, I do not want my children to participate in in such a way. But however, in March of 2023 that Montgomery Public School System, said we’re going to remove that opt out principles, they cited administrative challenges and concerns about, stigmatizing LGBT, students.

00:04:33:20 – 00:05:05:02
So the policy prompted a lawsuit. And, and in rare situations, the Jewish community, the Christian community, the Muslim community all got together. And in that they, said, look, this mandatory inclusion is against our religious beliefs. It prohibits the free exercise, that is guaranteed under the First Amendment of our Constitution. And so they said that the, that they objected to not allowing the opt out part, and they didn’t want to have anything to do with the books that are in there.

00:05:05:04 – 00:05:24:21
I think one of the books that was discussed in front of the Supreme Court was a book called pride a puppy. One I have not read. Don’t plan on having that in my Q anytime soon, but nevertheless, it is one of the topics that was being discussed in there. Well, the lower courts ruled in favor of the Montgomery Public school system.

00:05:24:21 – 00:05:49:05
That’s not really surprised. We’re seeing the, the the lower courts across the United States now, have a huge amount of judicial activism, ones we haven’t seen in a long time. So it’s not really a surprise. And now the Supreme Court has heard the case, they’ve heard the oral arguments on the case. And they’re really looking at the opt out provisions, in there for for children that they want to do.

00:05:49:05 – 00:06:08:23
So, you know, the, the, the impact that it could have and the, the potential impact that it could have on our parenting rights is this is that if we can’t opt out, if we can’t do so, then the state is limiting again, our ability to be able to raise our children. The state is saying, you can’t do this.

00:06:08:23 – 00:06:32:19
The state is saying that that you don’t have the ability to make these decisions on your own. And we know better. And again, they are now taking more of an ownership, part of your children. Liberal justices have expressed concerns about the potential implications of of allowing opt out, saying that it’s going to hurt the, the the inclusive educational goals.

00:06:32:19 – 00:07:08:07
So I’m not quite sure why education the goals sort of becoming inclusive activity instead of having some things such as, you know, the fact that education might be the most important part of the education system, not being inclusive of it. But they, they are wondering and they kind of hint at, this, this, that, that exposures to diverse perspectives, that it what it does is, is a violation of our rights and, without doing so is, coercion, on it.

00:07:08:10 – 00:07:32:25
So that leads into the next, not not case, but we’re, that’s out there right now, but the next law that’s being proposed and it’s in Colorado and that’s Colorado. HB 25 Dash 1312, it is called the Kelly Loving Act. Now Kelly Loving was a, transgendered person. Again, I don’t know whether or not it was a man pretending to be a woman or a woman pretending to be a man.

00:07:33:01 – 00:07:56:20
But they were they were somebody who was transgender. They were at a club. It was called club Q there was a shooting in Colorado, and the shooter was motivated by by a hate crime, was intentionally targeting transgendered people, tending, targeting people, the LGBT community. And I believe the number was about five people were killed. But one of the people killed was someone who was named Kelly Loving.

00:07:56:21 – 00:08:16:18
You know, you hear something and you say, wow, there’s going to be a law. You know, about the Calvert Kelly loving act. It must deal with shootings. It must deal with hate crimes. You know, on the surface, it doesn’t seem terrible. I think anybody that goes into any place and shoots people because of, of, of any reason is wrong, no matter what.

00:08:16:18 – 00:08:34:06
I mean, the Bible’s very clear on it. Thou shalt not kill the the the rules against murder, the rules against hate. All of that is pretty clear in the Bible that we should not be engaging in that. Now, you know, a lot of people say, well, we should not be arguing, you know, we should not be legislating that type of morality.

00:08:34:06 – 00:08:54:15
But reality is, is almost all criminal laws is some level of legislating morality. And I it would be very difficult for you to kind of show otherwise, because otherwise there would not have to be a necessary piece of that law. So there needs to be some type of balance to it. But on the surface, it seems like that might not be a terrible thing.

00:08:54:15 – 00:09:15:01
However, and here’s where the problem falls in the Kelly loving act has nothing to do with shootings, has nothing to do with hate crimes, has nothing to do with any of this. The Kelly loving act has to do with parenting. It has to do with custody issues. Now, why all of a sudden we want to call it Kelly loving when it deals with custody issues.

00:09:15:03 – 00:09:41:23
I’m not really clear on that. I hadn’t been able to find anything on it outside of the fact they just want to give this trans person a, you know, some, some type of spotlight. But my opinion is, is like most of the things that we’re seeing out there is if we kind of redefine and we kind of add some names to it and make you feel like there is something a little bit more, that that’s not necessarily related, to, to the issue at hand.

00:09:41:23 – 00:10:13:22
It’s easier to pass. You go back to the Biden inflation, act, whatever that that he called back then, that had nothing to do with inflation, had everything to do with all of his other policies and liberal policies that they wanted to pass. Regardless, this is very similar. What this says and what this law says it is that emotional abuse includes certain kind of non affirming behavior by parents toward transgender identifying children.

00:10:13:24 – 00:10:38:03
I mean, I’m going to I’m going to repeat this one. It asserts that emotional abuse includes certain kind of non affirming behavior by parents toward transgender, identifying children, getting nothing to do with Kelly loving. But this is what it’s really about. Specifically, the bill tells courts that when determining custody, they must consider whether a parent has engaged in what’s called coercive control.

00:10:38:08 – 00:11:08:04
And I want to make certain I’m getting this correctly because because I think this is very important for us to see it, because there is such larger ramifications that are going to be coming from this. So here’s how they define coercive control. Now, coercive control in this context. And they say this in the bill itself. And I’m going to read portions of the slide something I would read the whole bill, here that that’s being proposed because I think it’s important, first is dead naming that’s using the child’s birth name rather than their new identity name.

00:11:08:09 – 00:11:26:19
Now, again, parents give them their name. This is not something that God gives them. There’s at rare circumstances that God has given people names, parents given their names. The the school does not get to pick and choose whether to change the child’s name. The parents can choose to change the child’s name. For example, my son’s name is James.

00:11:26:19 – 00:11:46:17
We call him Jamie. We’ve done that since he was born. There are many times, one of my friends growing up, his name was Bo. His originally was Robert, you know, and so. But again, this comes from parents. This might come from friends. Sometimes people will change their own names on it. But this is not something that the state is allowed to do.

00:11:46:19 – 00:12:03:14
The state is not sitting there saying, we want to rename you because we now are going to say that you are now, you were a boy. The doctor calls you a boy. Your genes say that you’re a boy. Your DNA says you’re a boy. Your muscle mass says you’re a boy. But on the other hand, we want to say that you’re a girl.

00:12:03:15 – 00:12:25:02
Because we notice that you seem to like this book over here, and you seem to be a target for it and convince you that this is where you are to fight the parents responsibility for it. That’s done. Naming another one that’s in the group of coercive control is misgendering. Misgendering refers to a child with pronouns or descriptions that are aligned with their biological sex, instead of their gender identity.

00:12:25:05 – 00:12:45:28
Now this one here I have a unique problem with because God defines gender. God tells you who you are. He tells it through all those other ways. In other words, once as soon as I start saying your pronouns and start seeing your pronouns and have to change your pronouns, I have to automatic say that God, you’re wrong. You made a mistake when you gave them this DNA.

00:12:45:28 – 00:13:18:10
You made a mistake. When you gave them this muscle mass. You gave them this mistake. When you gave them this genitalia. This is what is happening right now. And so you’re asking me to tell God that he’s wrong. Otherwise I can lose my, authority as a parent in these type of custody cases. The other one that is set in here is threatening to expose or about a child’s gender identity or medical treatment to others without their consent.

00:13:18:12 – 00:13:46:08
In other words, if if I tell them, hey, you need to, if if you don’t start, beginning to behave as a boy when you were born a boy. And you want to be called a girl now? And if you don’t, then I’m going to make certain I tell your grandparents or tell your chil, your sisters, or whatever the situation happens to be, that can be considered coercive control.

00:13:46:10 – 00:14:19:09
Now, to be clear, this bill does not make these actions criminal offenses. This is deals with custody cases. And that’s where it is. Parents are not going to be arrested for misgendering their child or dead naming their child well. Yet when you see the way the bill is written and you see the other bills that are in place, it’s not going to be a stretch for them to start going down this path and start attacking parents from a criminal case, from a, from a in a civil penalty case, in addition to custody cases.

00:14:19:12 – 00:14:40:06
We’re going to start seeing this come because logically and I’m going to show you this, that logically, this Colorado bill that’s being proposed will lead to greater problems than not only just custody problems, which in and of itself is terrible, but they’re going to be leading to something else. So I’m going to read you this bill because I think it’s extremely important on it from here.

00:14:40:11 – 00:15:10:04
So section one of the bill is called the Kelly Loving Act. Section two provides that when making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of the child for purposes of parenting time, a court should consider the naming, misgendering, or threatened to publish material related to an individual’s gender affirming health care services. As types of coercive control, a court should consider reports of concern, coercive control when determining the allocation of parental responsibilities in accordance with the best interest of the child.

00:15:10:06 – 00:15:29:21
Section three prohibits a Colorado court from applying or giving any force or effect to another state’s law that authorizes a state agency to remove a child from the child’s parent or guardian, because the parent or guardian allows the child to receive gender affirming health care services, it prohibits a Colorado court from applying or giving force to another state’s law.

00:15:29:27 – 00:15:51:22
Of course, that’s also against the Constitution. Now, again, one of the ways that when they dealt with the gay marriage situation is the whole issue was is once they did it in one state, then the other states have to acknowledge and affirm what those other states did, and therefore that’s how is able to spread. So fast, even in red states that were around.

00:15:51:28 – 00:16:17:11
Section four provides that if a local education provider, an educator, or a contractor chooses to enact or enforce a policy related to chosen names, that policy must be made, must be to make the policy inclusive of all reasons that a student might adopt a chosen name that differs from the student legal name. In other words, a school can do this, an educator can do this, a contractor can do this.

00:16:17:11 – 00:16:41:18
Interesting. They don’t define contractor in this situation. Now granted this is dealing with custody cases. So I’m not quite sure who all encompasses an A contractor. But that seems to be a pretty large group of people that can also make this someone that you’re having a contract with of some fashion, someone who is a third party, third party person who could be making these, decisions as well.

00:16:41:18 – 00:16:59:02
Section five and six. Now a couple has been struck out, so I’m only going to read the part that is the most current one that’s up there. Section five and six provides that a dress code adopted or implemented by a local education provider, allow each student to choose from any of the options provided in the dress code.

00:16:59:04 – 00:17:12:16
So originally it was they cannot enforce any rules based off of gender, but now it just says that they can pick and choose whatever dress code they want. So today I want to be a boy. I get to pick the boys dress code. If tomorrow I want to be a girl, I get to pick from the girls dress code.

00:17:12:19 – 00:17:34:15
It is completely irrelevant on what my gender is based off of what dress code I have. And they said that there’s school cannot do anything about it. Sections seven and eight says that they define that naming as gender is and this is important. This is extremely important. I want to list I want to see this define dead naming and mass gender as discriminatory acts.

00:17:34:21 – 00:17:59:15
And the Colorado Anti-Discrimination act, and prohibit these discriminatory acts in public places or in places of public accommodation. That’s very important part, because now what we’re doing is we’re now saying that not only does it deal with custody issues, this now deals with the Colorado Anti-Discrimination act. So now what they’ve done is they’ve gone a little back door to some other laws that are out there that we need to pay attention to and look at.

00:17:59:18 – 00:18:19:20
But section seven and eight doesn’t finish here. It says also, the bill does not prevent a public entity from using an individual’s legal name when required to do so by law, to ensure the identity of the individual can be verified or the other legal or the other information pertaining to the individual that is needed for legal or other legitimate public purposes can be obtained.

00:18:19:23 – 00:18:41:06
In other words, the state can still use a legal name, but the parent cannot. I can name my child whatever I want to name my child. I can name my child John Smith. The child says, no, I want to be called Jane Smith. And the state says, no parent. You have to call them Jane Smith. If you don’t, you can lose custody of your child if you don’t do so.

00:18:41:09 – 00:19:06:27
But for our purposes, we’re still going to call them John Smith for identification purposes. How does that make any sense? What is exactly is that saying that is saying right off the bat what that is saying is that the state thinks that they are the ones that own your child, that they have authority over your child, that they are exempt from the rules that they’re going to be placing on you.

00:19:06:29 – 00:19:25:10
The reason why is because they recognize the confusion. They recognize the problems that can come with it. They don’t care about it from the sense of a morality perspective, because the state has no moral, essence about it. It’s all deals with the people and the morality of the people who run the state. But the state in and of itself is an amoral institution.

00:19:25:13 – 00:19:45:10
But what they are saying is they do recognize that there is actually a need for having your real name. Now, oddly, there are provisions within the state to be able to change your name legally. So if I send my child wants to be Jane Doe and they want to change their name when they turn 18, then guess what?

00:19:45:10 – 00:20:12:21
They can go and legally changed their name for identification purposes. Women do this all the time. When they get married, they change their name and for identification purposes to their married name. And sometimes when they get a divorce, they can change it back. There are couples that both men and women that change your name to hyphen names. And so there is there are all of these different reasons and explanations on why names can be changed.

00:20:12:26 – 00:20:32:05
However, that is not what the state is saying. The state is saying that not we’re not going to require you to change the name. You have to call them by that name, the name that you gave them, the name that was important to you. The names have meaning and importance, but it doesn’t matter to them. They only want it for identification purposes.

00:20:32:07 – 00:20:56:08
So this whole thing deals with on this idea of what is coercive control. Now, coercive control is a pattern of behaviors aimed at dominating and limiting another’s freedom. Now I want to read that again, a pattern of behaviors aimed at dominating and limiting another’s freedom. Now, originally this is recognized as domestic violence law, you know, but but includes isolation, micromanagement, threats, humiliation.

00:20:56:12 – 00:21:23:12
And now it moves to emotional disagreement. Now other states are doing this too. They’re watching it. Their trend somewhere in California, Hawaii, New York, Washington. But what we are seeing is that traditional discipline, curfews, restrictive media, theological conversations could now be reinterpreted as coercion. This can now move beyond just dead naming. This could be move beyond just gender.

00:21:23:12 – 00:21:56:10
This can move beyond, the the ideal, the the the the the LGBT religion that is here, this now actually can move somewhere else. Because if you notice, the state can still dead name. So it has to be something else. The state is opening the door for other things by saying this is a emotional disagreement. This is a means of of any type of control over somebody’s belief system that a parent has over the child that could be now determined in custody battles.

00:21:56:12 – 00:22:22:02
There’s no clear guardrails on this. Counselors in school, workers or social workers, report that that that trigger faith based languages are seen as harmful. The faith based languages are triggering this. This is a breakdown of the family autonomy the parent is presumed now harmful. The presumed harmful unless they affirm the child’s feelings. But what’s happens next?

00:22:22:06 – 00:22:40:16
As I said earlier, I don’t think this is a this is not criminal. But again, section seven and eight falls under the Antidiscrimination Act. Well, the antidote Termination act as a very large act within the state of Colorado. It’s a very important act that came out of the civil rights, error. It’s part of, but it’s in part of section 24.

00:22:40:18 – 00:23:14:00
And in section 24, it talks about a discriminatory practice, and you go down to section two, subsection A, which is, you know, and three, which is a civil penalty for it. And under a, under A3, it says that a statutory fine for every violation of the Anti-Discrimination act, there’s a statutory fine, a statutory fine of $3,500 payable to each plaintiff, to each person who’s complaining for each violation, for every violation.

00:23:14:00 – 00:23:35:17
So every time that I call my child by the name that I choose to give them, now is a problem. So you can call your child the name you chose them at birth three times a day for a month. When he wakes up, when he comes home from school, and when he goes to bed, talking about bed at night, all those three terms is this is only three times that doesn’t count.

00:23:35:17 – 00:23:56:03
The other times you might accidentally say, let’s just say three times for one month when you total up each violation over that 30 day period, that’s the $310,000 fine that you’re oh, that you’re looking at facing. That’s the possibility of it because it’s moving to the Anti-Discrimination act. But there’s also more. There is there is bias motivated crimes.

00:23:56:05 – 00:24:21:11
It is a misdemeanor class one misdemeanor that a person commits a bias motivated crime if they knowingly cause damage to or destruction of property of another person, or place another person in fear of imminent lawless action directed at the person or property, and they do so because of a person’s actual perceived race, color, religion, ancestry, national origin, physical or mental disability, or sexual orientation.

00:24:21:11 – 00:24:47:10
In other words, if I damage that the my son’s dress by throwing it out based off the person’s actual perceived sexual orientation, then all of a sudden now I’ve now moved into a class one misdemeanor here. Now I put the person in fear of imminent lawless action. Now remember again what is lawless action? Dead naming now becomes a lawless action.

00:24:47:10 – 00:25:09:27
Misgendering now becomes a lawless action. Now, once I do that, and once I actually do such a thing now, at this point in time it becomes a class one misdemeanor. Again, it’s not a stretch. No, the Kelly loving act does not say it’s a criminal act, but the Kelly loving act changes the definitions of things so that now a by this becomes a bias motivated crime.

00:25:09:27 – 00:25:48:05
And it can this is not a large stretch. This is in their law. I’m using literally the new law Kelly loving act. A new law is being proposed, the Kelly loving act with an existing law on the books one for civil penalty. And I’m taking directly from the Kelly loving act to their law bias motivated crimes. This is something that is absolutely critical that when we’re looking at because the potential that can happen to parents that that believe that the God raises the God gave their children to the parents to raise, that they believe that God created two genders because it’s true.

00:25:48:08 – 00:26:11:14
Now all of a sudden they face consequences that they had no idea that was that they it’s even there. And I guarantee that some of these parents don’t believe that. Now, here’s the thing that’s interesting. When a parent chooses to misgender or change the child’s identity, that’s okay. Even though all of this indicates that that’s a level of coercive control.

00:26:11:14 – 00:26:32:02
That’s also something that could be anti-discrimination. What do you believe that the state is going to do in that situation when the parent gets involved? And that’s not unusual either. On my show, months back, you can go back and look it up. I’ve interviewed Jeff Younger. Jeff Younger had twins. His wife wanted to change the gender of one of his boys.

00:26:32:04 – 00:26:52:01
He had to fight it in the red state of Texas and lost custody in the red state of Texas over this. Then she moved to California, where the fight has been harder. He’s had to work on changing laws. He’s had to expose a lot of of of public policy problems. He’s been battling this for years to protect his children, and he’s lost custody of his children because of it.

00:26:52:04 – 00:27:17:00
So we’re not looking at something that is that is theoretical, this is real, and this is something that is happening. Faith based objections are viewed as harmful out of date. And to to into child welfare, particularly in progressive jurisdictions. Now we say, well, we have a constitution to protect us. How good was that Constitution in 2020? We saw them go straight through it.

00:27:17:00 – 00:27:34:06
Now, granted, it’s not something they don’t enforce themselves. We have to do something with it. And there’s some amazing organizations. And again, you can listen to past shows. You can hear where I’ve talked to many lawyers and many groups. There’s ATF, there’s Pacific Justice Institute, there’s the Liberty Council. These are incredible organizations that will help defend you for free.

00:27:34:08 – 00:27:58:17
However, you will also see that that that it takes a really long time. This is not something that happens overnight. Meanwhile, your child that is being influenced, that’s away from you during this fight and during this battle is being more and more brainwashed to be able to do so. Parents, without protections, all of a sudden become guardians of the state’s truth and not God’s truth.

00:27:58:22 – 00:28:21:00
Otherwise they lose their children. We have to be pushing forward and harder for these constitutional protections. Now, where’s the church and all this? You know, the church. There’s there’s there’s the progressive church, which is now saying, well, love is affirming that that love is love. And Jesus loved everybody. And therefore we have to affirm the child. But the reality is, is that’s not the case.

00:28:21:07 – 00:28:38:12
We we we see that where the church has has failed in this area is we have not spoke out for God’s truth more. We see that Christians want to see the church. I’m not talking about the buildings. I’m talking about the individuals. I’m talking about those who who said they’re giving their life to Christ. I’m talking about Christians.

00:28:38:12 – 00:29:02:00
I’m talking about you. I’m talking about me. We stood by silently while we’ve allowed this to happen in the name of being loving. But in reality is is that’s not loving at all. Look, you know, the Bible’s very clear about sexual immorality. Sexual immorality. It leads you to hell. But what we’re always trying to define what sexual morality is so that we can justify sometimes our own behavior or justify someone else that we love’s behavior.

00:29:02:00 – 00:29:25:05
But reality is, we should be looking at what sexual immorality is. We should be looking at what sexual morality is. That’s where we’re focused on when we define sexual morality, then it’s everything outside of that fence is that way. For example, in my yard, everything that’s inside my fence is inside my yard. If I go outside my fence, then I’m outside of my yard.

00:29:25:05 – 00:29:45:17
It belongs to somebody else. Everything that God defines as a fence that is around, that is the sexual morality. If I go outside of God’s fence of sexual morality, then it is immoral. And so we have to look at it. And sexual morality is very simple. It’s a man and a wife, man and a woman who are married that can have sexual relations with each other.

00:29:45:19 – 00:30:06:06
That simple. Everything outside of that is immoral. Now we can try to justify it. We can try to explain it. But reality is, is that’s where it falls. But the problem is, is that again, the the church is being silent. The church is being silent while we watch porn addictions go up. The church is being silent while we watch the these schools convince our children otherwise.

00:30:06:06 – 00:30:25:16
The church is being silent as we listen to the state, to find what morality is to us instead of us defining what morality is to the state. Urgency for the church leadership now is beyond. Beyond. It’s too late, but we have to get involved now to slow it down. We have to get involved now to start pushing it back.

00:30:25:20 – 00:30:43:24
I’m not saying that it can’t be stopped, but I am saying that right now. These children that have already been influenced, these children who have taken the who’ve been forced to have these surgeries or who taken these drugs have long consequences that are irreversible for them. It’s too late, but it’s not for the next generation. We have to get involved.

00:30:43:24 – 00:31:00:27
We have to speak up. We have to change our leadership that is there. The church has to reclaim its voice as the funder people. So how do we do this? It’s very simple. We have to say no. We have to know when to engage in saying no. Now to me it says there’s a three part test is a simple three part test.

00:31:00:29 – 00:31:17:01
How do we know when, as Christians we say no and not from a political ideological perspective? Number one, when the government is asking us to commit evil. We saw this in the 1930s in Nazi Germany. The government asked them to commit evil. When the government asks you to do something, it is against God’s will. Again, we talked about pronouns.

00:31:17:01 – 00:31:33:09
We talked about misgendering. That is something that is there. Or three when God asks you to get involved. The last one we unfortunately we don’t know. But a when when that happens or we know when it happens to us, we don’t know what happens is somebody else. Great example again is Harriet Tubman, who freed the slaves because she heard God tell her to do so.

00:31:33:13 – 00:31:49:13
These are situations where we engage in saying no. Now the other problem is this is we are going to have to accept the consequences for it. That may mean we have to lose our children. And if we’re not willing to stand up for God on behalf of our children, then that means we’ve made our children an idol and we need to repent from that.

00:31:49:15 – 00:32:17:02
We have to say and recognize they’re God’s children. We need to do what we can to protect them. We may need to do what we can to move them out. We may need to take them to homeschooling. We may need to do something that is extreme, but it is still our job, our responsibility. We have to be able to risk losing our freedom and going to jail, just like the first church risked it, you know, in acts 529, you know, when, when, when the apostles were were before the Sanhedrin, they said, we have to obey God and not man.

00:32:17:04 – 00:32:40:15
Where are you obeying? What are you doing? How are we allowing this to happen? Where’s the church? Colorado. Where are you at? Why are you not influencing the culture in the community? Why are you not being the moral leader? Where are you at? This isn’t about protesting. This is about saying, I’m not going to follow this law because this law violates God’s truth.

00:32:40:15 – 00:33:05:21
The government, according to the Bible, is designed to do good. The government is designed for justice. But this is neither good nor it is just. And again, it is not man’s justice is not man’s good. It’s God’s good. It’s God’s justice. It’s God’s truth. There is truth and once we start believing the Bible is true because it is, we will start seeing change.

00:33:05:21 – 00:33:23:19
We will start seeing a revival. We will start seeing practical applications of the Bible. We will start seeing the power that comes from it. But until we do so, we’re going to see nothing, and we’re going to see the state slowly take it away. We’re going to see the wolf coming in and start eating the sheep that are on the outside the week.

00:33:23:22 – 00:33:43:00
We’re going to start seeing it slowly go in, until finally we just invite the wolf into the middle and give up a sheep. A day in order to protect us from the other wolves. And that’s exactly what’s going on. We have to step up. We have to speak out. We got to do something about it. But the Church of Colorado, the church.

00:33:43:03 – 00:33:59:19
You need to step up. You need to do something about this. But regardless, we also have to recognize that there could be consequences for it. But these consequences are worth it. 100 years from now. We need to be on the 100 year plan and not on the next year. Plan. So thank you so much for listening to this show.

00:33:59:24 – 00:34:09:22
And please get out, get involved, think and listen and speak out. Stop being quiet. Once again, thank you so much.