Wednesday, October 8, 2025

Part I

Clearly, It Is a Matter of Free Speech: SCOTUS Hears Oral Arguments on So-Called ‘Conversion Therapy’ Laws

As is so often the case, a major worldview clash took place yesterday at the Supreme Court of the United States. Now, many people look at the Supreme Court and they say, “This is a clash of constitutional views. This is a clash of legal arguments. It’s a clash of political and cultural issues.”

All those things are usually true, but Christians understand it is also often a clash of worldviews. Not always. You can have technical matters of the law that might not invoke giant worldview issues. That wasn’t the case yesterday, because at stake yesterday was whether or not a Christian counselor, a licensed Christian counselor in the state of Colorado, can operate by Christian convictions in talking with persons, minors, in this case, those who are under age 18, about issues of sexual attraction and sexual orientation.

Now, the reason this is before the nation’s highest court is really important, and it’s because the state of Colorado, like about half the states, has adopted some kind of legislation barring so-called conversion therapy. There are huge issues here. We need to unpack them carefully. Let’s just look again at the action of the states. The states have said that what they are attempting to do, particularly with minors, and the legal justification here is that someone needs to protect minors from harm that might come by the misapplication of some kind of medical treatment or medical process. The states have said, those who have passed this legislation, that, “To protect minors, we’re going to protect them from anyone telling them that there might be something wrong with same-sex attraction, that there might be something that could be done to correct or to address the problem of a same-sex attraction.”

And that is because behind this legislation is the clear assertion there is no problem, that the problem is with those who have a problem with same-sex attraction, same-sex behaviors. You can see why the worldview clash was massive yesterday, and at least the initial reports coming out from those who were there for the oral arguments, they stated that it appears that at least a majority of justices on the court were quite suspicious of the Colorado law.

Okay, so let’s back up for a moment, before Colorado passed this law. Let’s just address the issue of conversion therapy. What in the world is it? Well, in the first place, it covers a wide waterfront of issues, some of which I think most Christians would say are absolutely biblical, and some which I think, many Christians, most Christians, I think all right-minded Christians, would say are fundamentally wrong. So under the umbrella of what has been called, either by friends or enemies, conversion therapy, that includes biblical counseling on one side. It also includes therapeutic mechanisms. Some are quite, I think, ill-advised, trying to change or to promise the ability to change sexual orientation, sexual attraction. And without becoming too technical and detailed on these matters, it comes right down to physical response, interest, all the rest. That’s all a part of what is simply bracketed under this law against so-called conversion therapy.

So let’s just begin to say, the Christian worldview is premised upon the fact that Scripture is God’s Word and that it’s absolutely true and that it is sufficient to address these issues. That’s absolutely key to, say, biblical counseling. The Christian, I think, right approach to this, which is to say, “What does God tell us in Scripture about ourselves, about rightly ordered sex, about rightly ordered gender understandings,” if you’re going to call them that, “about male and female.”

These are all issues in which the authority of Scripture is paramount for Christians, which means the authority of God, the Creator, to determine these things. But there are some who have used some very questionable therapeutic mechanisms, including, just to give you one very graphic example I’ve had to confront, and that is that some in the guise of conversion therapy had actually been using, say, heterosexual pornography to try to reprogram young men who were struggling with same-sex attraction. Let’s just say, for Christians, that is not the way to do this. And there could also be different forms of manipulation and other things, and frankly, claims that are untenable that have been made by some but as much as Bible-based Christians doctrinally clear Christians.

So far as we’re thinking about these things, we have to understand that what is outlawed in Colorado is not just that kind of thing. And quite honestly, I think it’d be hard to come up with how exactly to outlaw much of that. The problem is that what the state of Colorado is calling conversion therapy would actually just also include biblical counseling. It would include a Christian saying to a young person, “That is not who God made you to be. This is not who you are. This is not how you are to behave. This is not right. Same-sex attraction comes from sin. Sexual attraction to someone of the same sex is fundamentally wrong. It’s a rejection of creation order. Same-sex sexual activities are fundamentally wrong, sinful, unequivocally addressed in the clarity of Scripture.”

But what you had in Colorado was a Christian counselor who was facing the fact that she had been told that Christian counseling was not acceptable for young people. Kaley Chiles is her name, and she clearly is operating out of a form of Christian counseling that is based upon her biblical convictions, and her claim is that the state of Colorado has violated her freedom of speech by saying she can’t say what she believes to be true and in the best interest of a young person when that child or young person shows up presenting with same-sex attraction. According to the state of Colorado, as a licensed mental health professional, all she can do is say, “There’s no problem with that, but I’m going to help you cope with that or flourish with that.”

And that’s something a Christian, in this situation, committed to the gospel of Christ, bound by Scripture, that’s what a Christian can’t do. So again, let me be clear, not everything that is called conversion therapy is something that biblical Christians would support, like the use of pornography, for example. That’s something we would say is just fundamentally wrong. And as a biblical Christian, I have to say that’s also a radical misunderstanding, a superficial understanding, of the problem. The problem’s far deeper than that. The problem’s a spiritual problem, and the answer to it, by the way, has to be based in the gospel of Jesus Christ and in the authority of Scripture, in the sovereignty of Christ over all things, and in the sanctifying ministry of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the Word of God. Severed from that, quite honestly, any form of therapy becomes very dangerous regardless of the issue presented in terms of that therapy.

Representing the state of Colorado at the Supreme Court yesterday was Shannon W. Stevenson, the state solicitor general. Representing Kaley Chiles, the Christian counselor, was James A. Campbell, who is also a senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom. Representing the Trump administration was Hashim M. Mooppan, who is principal deputy solicitor general in the Department of Justice. So that’s important. The Trump administration came in in support of the plaintiff in this case and over against the state of Colorado. So the scene was set yesterday for a pretty dramatic presentation. And as I say, headline news is directed there for good reason.

And the solicitor general of the state of Colorado issued a very straightforward defense of the law saying that it was within the state’s purview to restrict the application of bad medical practices. So she was trying to make the case that the state of Colorado has the right to limit, indeed eliminate, this practice because it has the right to define appropriate medical practice within the state.

And according to at least most in the media, most observers in the room, it appeared that there was a pretty solid press back from the conservative justices who said, “No, this is a free speech issue.” Justice Samuel Alito said, “It’s a straightforward free speech issue.” The state of Colorado here has violated the free speech of Kaley Chiles by passing this law, because if she says what she believes to be true, and in the best interest of this young person, she can’t say it because of this law insofar as she operates as a licensed counselor, a mental health professional, within the state of Colorado.

And the conservative justices went at the solicitor general of Colorado here pretty hard, and she came back. She steadfastly insisted this is about the state’s right to define medical practice. But it wasn’t just the six conservative justices who were pressing back, it was also Justice Elena Kagan. Justice Kagan, in particular, said that the state of Colorado does not have the right to choose a view on an issue that it declares to be state orthodoxy.

Now, that’s pretty interesting and I think it also points to something, and that is that even though there’s a radical distinction on the sitting justices of the Supreme Court in basic worldview and in basic understanding of how to interpret the Constitution, it is interesting to note that, even in recent years on some key issues, there’ve been unanimous or near unanimous rulings where something as clear as free speech has been at stake. And when you think about all the freedoms that are secured, they don’t come from government, they come from God, but they are legally secured and respected by the government of the United States of America.

The fact is that free speech is often what comes to people first and foremost. And one of the reasons for that is because, even in recent days, we’ve dealt with coming from Europe where, in the name of cutting down hate speech, of opposing hate speech, you have people being arrested for saying things that are accused of being negative towards LGBTQ communities or immigrant communities or others. And so you see in many European nations, and sadly in Great Britain, you see people not only being threatened, but you see people are being arrested for simply saying what they believe about homosexuality, and I would say Christians speaking the truth, speaking the truth in love. This can get you arrested. Famously, cases in Scandinavia, where those arrests and prosecutions have gone forward, in many cases, they have not been met with ultimate legal sanction, but the threat is that it’s there.

And in this case it was very interesting. The attorneys on behalf of Kaley Chiles, and especially the ADF attorney, came back to the fact that she is a Christian whose speech is being censored when she speaks out of her Christian conviction and when she speaks out of what she believes to be best medical practice, a mental health practice, that is, and when she speaks out of what she believes sincerely to be in the best interest of this child or adolescent. And the stakes couldn’t be higher than what we’re looking at here, so let’s consider that for a moment. How bad would it be if this case is decided the wrong way? The answer is devastating.

Christians need to see and see clearly that not only is freedom of speech endangered here, but religious liberty is endangered here. It’s not an accident that Kaley Chiles is a Christian. She is clear about that. That’s fundamental to her case. And so we understand, and this is good biblical theology here, that these rights, and again, let’s remember, government doesn’t grant these rights. It simply has responsibility to respect these rights which are given by God and to secure them. The entire worldview of the framing of the Constitution of the United States, by the way, acknowledged that. Came up in recent debate in the US Senate in a committee hearing that we talked about on The Briefing. The reality is, however, that Christians would be in a very precarious predicament.

There are entire areas of professional life where I think it’s very likely that Christians are going to be pressed out. Just in the course of the last 24 hours, I’ve been in settings to talk to Christian doctors, surgeons, and Christian mental health professionals and Christian attorneys, and they are all facing the fact that the professional organizations, which often have the power of licensure, by the way, recognized by state authorities, in many cases, all of these are pretty aggressive, at least in many of the positions they hold, against biblical Christianity. I think of the LGBTQ array of issues held as non-discrimination by groups such as the American Bar Association. And when it comes to the AMA, that’s the American Medical Association, and also the largest association of pediatricians, I mean, they clearly take positions that are not medical, that they are moral and fully in support of the LGBTQ revolution.

And that just tells you about institutional capture. One of the ways that the left works at changing policy, changing law, and even changing minds, changing the media, and all the rest, is through institutional capture. And that means they capture organizations and institutions, and then turn them to their uses. And that’s exactly the threat coming in the professions. It’s exactly the threat that was confronted by Kaley Chiles and other Christian mental health professionals in the state of Colorado and in the other about half of the states that have similar legislation. It would take too much time today to detail where all those states are and exactly what the laws are, but there are also some very interesting twists and turns in this.

New York City adopted a very strict law absolutely incompatible with Christian conviction, but it stepped back from that out of threat of litigation. The state of New York, however, still has a very similar law on the books. And this reminds us that this isn’t just about this one Christian counselor, this isn’t about just this one state. It is about whether or not the entire nation will respect the freedom of speech and, yes, I would say, the freedom of Christians to operate as Christians.

In talk, it was very interesting to see the solicitor general of the state of Colorado try to insist that talk is medical treatment. And this is kind of an interesting thing for us to think about, but if you can define talk as medical treatment, then if you can define what is and isn’t improper medical treatment, you could shut down an entire avenue of speech. It’s a reminder that previous generations of Christians didn’t even see this coming, folks. This wasn’t even seen until lately when it became very clear over the last 20 years that one of the ways that those who are trying to lead a moral revolution in this country would further their aims is by seeking to criminalize even speech that is contrary to where they want the country to go.

All right, now, one final word on this. I’m very thankful for the reports that came out, and honestly, sometimes we as Christians need to be thankful for a process, and this is important. At the Supreme Court, these oral arguments are so important because the main arguments are already presented in written documents, briefs, that are filed with the court. The justices have already read those. They get to press in oral argument sessions. They get to press those who have provided those briefs when they’re parties to the case. So there are amicus briefs which external organizations can offer and sign on to, just trying to help the court or influence the court, but it’s the briefs that are from parties in the case that are most important. And the parties in the case show up through their attorneys in these oral arguments, and the justices get to ask them questions.

And that’s also interesting because the justices are making their own positions known, sometimes by the way they ask questions, sometimes by assertions that they make and indications of concerns that they raise. But one final word of reservation here, you don’t know conclusively how the Supreme Court rules until the Supreme Court says this is how it has ruled. And this means that there is also discussion among the justices after the oral arguments are over.

Part II

Another Transgender Connection to an Assassination Plot: Federal Judge Hands Down Egregious Ruling for Justice Kavanaugh’s Would-Be Killer Because the Killer Claims a Transgender Identity

While we’re talking about the Supreme Court, I want to get to another story. This one is also really big, but it’s not about oral arguments. It’s about the attempted assassination of one of the justices, Justice Brett Kavanaugh. You may recall that there was an attempted assassination upon his life, premeditated, plotted. The person, arrested and then tried for that crime was sentenced, and was sentenced to eight years in prison, officially 97 months in prison, rather than the 30 years federal prosecutors had asked for. And the reason why the judge did not hand down a more severe judgment, that turns out to be really, really interesting, and honestly, quite troubling.

The judge in this case is Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the Federal District of Maryland. And here’s the problem. Who is this person? Who is the defendant who sought to kill Justice Brett Kavanaugh? Well, the fact is that he is Nicholas Roske, 29 years old, but the person who was sentenced in that courtroom is Sophie Roske. Okay, so you’ve been told, you’ve heard the fiction all along that trans stuff has nothing to do with any of this, that it’s absolutely wrong. It’s a category error. It’s immoral to say that transgender persons are more likely to be involved in this kind of case. Well, we have them coming now in series. You just look at Minneapolis, Minnesota. Look at the assassination of Charlie Kirk. And in that case, it was a man who had a relationship with a transgender person, actually also a man.

And then you also have now the sentencing. And part of the reason why this judge, this federal district court judge, did not hand down a more lengthy sentence is because of the judge’s stated concern that because the federal prison system is going to receive this person only in an all-male prison, that that endangers this person, and thus the judge cut the sentence shorter.

So again, let’s just understand the facts in this case. A man, Nicholas Roske, attempted to assassinate a sitting Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Found guilty of that crime, the sentencing was far less than federal authorities had asked for. The judge in this case, the federal district court judge, in explaining why, said that one consideration was the fact that this person, Nicholas Roske, who is a man but now claims to be a woman. Name, by the way, not legally changed yet. In this case, Sophie Roske is the name by which Nicholas Roske is now claiming to be known. The fact that Mr. Roske is going to be sent to a male prison, an all-male prison, and let’s hope they have their categories straight in that, that that might endanger his life.

It is very interesting to see the response to this. For example, Matthew Hennessey, writing in the Wall Street Journal, said that this district court judge, “decided to endorse the fiction that Mr. Roske is now a woman named Sophie.” And then Hennessey went on to quote the judge, Judge Boardman, saying in court, saying this right out loud, “I am heartened that this terrible infraction has helped the Roske family accept their daughter for who she is.” 

So here’s a federal court judge who didn’t have to address this issue at all. She chose to address this issue. She chose to assert this argument that it’s a good thing that this family has come to terms with what is described here to “accept their daughter for who she is.”

That’s editorializing. That is moral broadcasting. So at least you know this judge did tell us who she is. Mr. Hennessey also writes, “Without the anti-woke vibe shift of the past year, it’s also likely I wouldn’t draw attention to the legal contrivance of Mr. Roske’s, ‘transition.’ Judge Boardman cited President Trump’s January 20 executive order requiring men to serve their federal prison time in male-only facilities as justification for her sentencing leniency. Prosecutors had asked for 30 years, and they may prevail on appeal, but it seems that playing the trans card will save Mr. Roske two decades behind bars.” 

Now, we understand that ideas have consequences, arguments have consequences, judicial actions and judicial decisions, sentencing decisions, have consequences. The consequence of this is that you have a federal district court judge in Maryland who basically is now an enthusiastic celebrant of the transgender revolution, and to the extent that you even have the newly assumed name, female-indicating name, and the female persona that’s now adopted by Mr. Roske, now endorsed by this judge. I certainly hope that what we have here is not a precedent, but as is so often the case, we say that, but we fear that that’s exactly what this will be.

Now, I want to look at this article made in the Wall Street Journal by Matthew Hennessey because Mr. Hennessey goes on to say something that I think is really important, very candid, and in his position, kind of courageous. And it just shows you, by the way, the importance of the editorial section of the Wall Street Journal, because among major newspapers in this country, it’s one of the very few that would run any article like this. And I say that with appreciation. He says this: “Perhaps experts in psychiatry and criminology will begin exploring the obvious but poorly understood connections among mental illness, radical trans ideology, and the recent upsurge in political violence.”

Okay, I’m going to read that again. It’s so important: “Perhaps experts in psychiatry and criminology will begin exploring the obvious but poorly understood connections among mental illness, radical trans ideology, and the recent upsurge in political violence.” Let’s just say, let’s hope so.

He concludes, “In the meantime, the Trump administration has done a public service by refusing to bow before the liberal consensus that people can change their sex. That has released the rest of us from the obligation to play along.” Now, that’s the only point at which I disagree, because even if the Trump administration was on the wrong side on this, I would hope the biblical Christians would not play along, but I understand what he’s saying. Signals from the White House, policies from the White House, who is sitting in the White House, the convictions of the person sitting in the White House, those have everything to do with public policy as it comes down in a situation like this.

By the way, when someone asks, “Why would that statement from President Trump,” and remember, he made a very clear statement of the fact that his administration would recognize two and only two genders, going all the way back to his inaugural address for his second term in January. He even had to define what that meant. The male means the person with the small reproductive cell, the female means the person with the large reproductive cell. I mean, it’s pathetic that any society would need that kind of clarification, but thanks be to God, there it was. Okay, but if President Trump had not made those statements, quite honestly, we might end up with a very different story here because you might very well have this man, now presenting as a woman, sent by a liberal judge to a woman’s prison, putting at risk the women in that prison.

We just need, continually, to come back to reality. Christians, we have to summon the courage to come back to reality and not apologize for coming back to reality. And I think this is one issue in which even a very confused culture is increasingly, if not walking with us, then at least coming a little bit our way, because you will notice that even some people in the mainstream media now are having to say, “Okay, maybe there is an issue with this transgender connection.” And there are people who are now beginning maybe to say, “Maybe it’s not right to put an anatomical male in a female space, whether it’s a girl’s changing room in a high school or it is a woman’s prison.”

We should be thankful as Christians every time just a little bit of sanity comes back. It might not stay back for long. Let’s press the argument courageously while there is an opening to do so.

Part III

Christians, Pray For Your Leaders: A Reminder That We Must Pray for Political Officials at Every Level

But while we’re thinking about our responsibility as Christians, let’s remember this, to pray for those who are in authority over us. We need to pray for those who hold political office and policy responsibility, judicial responsibility, at every level from the city or the town to the state, all the way up to the federal level.

We need to be reminded of a news story that broke by the Washington Post on Monday evening, and that is that a man has been arrested and is charged with plotting to set something like 200 homemade explosive devices in a Catholic church in Washington, D.C., where the justices are invited to gather for an annual event known as the Red Mass. As Emma Uber of the Washington Post explains, “An annual religious service marking the start of a new Supreme Court term and honoring the judiciary.” 

We’re living in strange times, we’re living in dangerous times. We need to make certain that, for Christians, these are morally clarifying times, and we need to be reminded, as perhaps this headline will help us to do, that we are actually commanded in Scripture to pray for those in authority over us. A good reminder.