A Response to Jake Meador on the Kelly Loving Act
Well, the Kelly Loving Act passed. On the heels of a new law that forces Coloradans to fund abortion, this bill was passed rapidly by the Colorado House in early April and recently passed by the Senate in amended form. It is one of the most radical, disturbing pieces of legislation in American history. In its original form:
- Section 2 would have amended Colorado Statute §14-10-124, guiding courts on parental responsibilities in custody cases. The revision introduced “coercive control” –a term that comes from domestic abuse law–as a factor, defining it to include any behavior that “strips away the individual’s sense of self.” This allowed the bill to incorporate subjective psychological concepts such as “deadnaming” and “misgendering” as abuse. It empowered family courts to use these definitions in custody decisions, potentially removing children from parents who refuse to affirm a child’s transgender identity.
The original Section 2 would have provided means for terminating parental custody for rejecting a child’s transgender identity. On May 1, thankfully, the Colorado Senate Judiciary Committee removed Section 2 from the proposed bill. Nevertheless, the bill continues to include the following:
- Section 3 prohibits state agencies from enforcing out-of-state laws removing children from parents aiding in gender-affirming care, effectively making Colorado a sanctuary state for gender transitions.
- Sections 4-6 compel schools to use children’s chosen names and dress preferences regardless of parental consent.
- Section 7 mandates that public forms allow and use individuals’ “chosen names.”
- Section 8 amends Colorado Statute § 24-34-301, which regulates the Colorado Civil Rights Division and Commission (CCRC). This Commission investigates complaints of discrimination on the basis of factors like race, sex, disability, and sexual orientation in places of “public accommodation” (e.g., restaurants, stores, hotels, theaters, gyms, hospitals, libraries, schools, parks, public transportation, banks). This Act would direct the CCRC to additionally consider “misgendering” and “deadnaming” as discriminatory acts. individuals could file complaints if a Christian business owner refuses to use their “chosen name” or uses the “wrong” gender pronouns, and the CCRC could then go after this business owner.
It is unlikely this law, especially Section 8, will pass muster under appellate scrutiny. But, as they say, the process is the punishment. Just ask Jack Philips. Inevitable legal challenges will take years to play out.
More forcefully and effectively, the Kelly Loving Act declares to all Christian families, “You are not welcome here, bigots! You are a hate group. You are the KKK!” Lest you think I am being sensationalist, I am merely paraphrasing what the Democratic sponsors of the bill were recorded saying in a committee meeting. Listen for yourself. Has there ever been a more full-throated expression of leftist intolerance and anti-Christian bigotry than this sinister bill and the manifest intent behind it? What other response could such behavior evoke from Christians than lament and action?
In response to this bill, Jake Meador, editor of Mere Orthodoxy and columnist at Jonah Goldberg’s The Dispatch, wrote this article. Meador gets several things right. He understands that the bill is a “nightmare scenario … that [opens] up Christians to serious legal danger for living according to their conscience.” He also makes a persuasive case that the logic that underpins Kelly Loving Act is a fruit of Obergfell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court case that mandating that every state legally recognize same-sex marriage. He argues ultimately that if the state can redefine a natural reality such as marriage, it should be no surprise that it can “say what parenting is, what a family is, what the body is, and so on.” This is all true.
Nevertheless, Meador’s piece reflects a Third Way politics that has failed and is feckless.
Meador’s analysis hinges on a false dichotomy that—whether this was his intention or not—keeps him from having to name the responsible actors for the Kelly Loving Act. After explaining how it is the inevitable product of Obergefell, he writes: “The problem with the Kelly Loving Act, then, is not primarily one of out of control activists, but rather that this bill is, in fact, the natural outgrowth of the redefinition of marriage that took place ten years ago.”
This is not particularly courageous, to say the least. Nobody in the broadly Reformed, conservative evangelical ecosystem to which Meador belongs will face flak for going after Obergefell. That is low-hanging fruit that is unoffensive to the vast majority of Meador’s potential audience, especially since he assumes we cannot overturn it. By the way, why not? We overturned Roe.
Moreover, bills like Kelly Loving do not spring out of the ether. Obergefell is not an amoeba. Activism, real human agency, is behind these things. The rhetorical benefit, however, of pretending otherwise—of appealing to an inevitable trajectory—is that the actors remain nameless and obscure. Naming them risks political polarization; it risks planting a flag in one camp or the other; it risks relative value judgment of the two poles.
Who conjured up Kelly Loving? Colorado Democrats. This was not a bipartisan effort, a fact not at all made clear in Meador’s treatment. Calling out the Democrats for their sinister, sinful, and destructive aims and blasphemy against nature risks offending evangelical leaders and intellectuals who may be sympathetic to Democratic policies to varying degrees.
In Colorado, the Democrats have declared themselves to be the enemies of Christianity, families, and children, plain and simple. It’s not as if the issue at hand is, say, capital gains tax rates. A shrug and a sigh will not do.
Meador also fails to understand that right now is the perfect time to exert political pressure on elected officials. He reasons that “we should expect to see bills like this one” and “recognize that resisting [bills like this] is, in some sense, to rush into the strong headwinds of contemporary American law.” Again, Roe was “contemporary American law,” until it wasn’t. But I digress.
The effect of Meador’s rhetoric is to discourage Christians from political resistance. However, over the last few years, an increasing number of European countries have been banning such “medical care” for minors. Bud Light was destroyed. Donald Trump was elected and has been purging the federal government of transgender ideology. Even Gavin Newsom now says he opposes trans “women” playing in women’s sports. Now is the time to push onward to victory, and yet Meador is defeatist. His only engagement is what Chris Rufo calls the “perpetual discourse.”
Finally, Meador insists on a winsome approach that would have Christians be nice rather than boldly call the magistrates to repentance. After he establishes that political action is not the best way forward, he explains what is: “demonstrating through our lives a still better way—a way defined by the care, mutuality, and love that our neighbors desire, often without even understanding what those things truly are.”
Evangelical Christians are at a crossroads. Jake Meador is hanging on to the “Third Way,” faithful presence political posture. As James Wood puts it, Third Wayists “[have attempted] to avoid tribal partisanship and the toxic culture wars in hopes that more people will give the gospel a fair hearing,” and they have insisted that “if we are to ‘do politics,’ it should be in apologetic mode.” Never mind that though it may direct people to higher ends, politics is fundamentally about justice, not evangelism.
This winsome approach has been taken in several directions. Rebecca McLaughlin exemplifies one of the worst in her book, published by TGC, The Secular Creed, written about the sign that is surely in the yards of many progressives in Colorado: “In this house we believe that: Black lives matter. Love is love. Women’s Rights are Human Rights. We are all immigrants. Diversity makes us stronger.” She advocates that we call our progressive neighbors to Christ by emphasizing that “these truths have come to us from Christianity.” Is this what Meador is arguing when he insists that we should show our progressive neighbors that we show them the “care, mutuality, and love” that “[they] desire”?
This overly cordial—dare I say, empathetic—approach toward leftists is what many evangelicals in Colorado have attempted for years. Colorado is home to many evangelical organizations, including Focus on the Family, and many megachurches, yet it took Chase Davis and a ragtag group of grassroots pastors to build get momentum around opposing this bill. Why?
When Auron MacIntyre, on a recent episode of his podcast, asked Davis why this has been the case, Davis pointed out that in the ‘90s and ‘00s, evangelicals in Colorado–especially Focus on the Family–were very politically active, culminating in voters voting to ban same-sex marriage in 2006. This generated the ire of the LGBTQ+ community, and as Colorado became more progressive over the last two decades, it became a liability for evangelicals. The evangelical scene also came to be dominated by seeker-sensitive megachurches—and being seeker-sensitive in much of Colorado means trying to appeal to progressives.
By 2017, Jim Daly, the head of Focus on the Family, used similar language to what Meador used in his article, telling a journalist that “it might be a good time now for Christians in this pluralistic culture to concentrate on reducing our own divorce rate, getting our own house in order, and living the Christian life well so that others want to be a part of what they see.” In other words, we should preach the gospel with our life rather than take political action–that is what will bear real fruit. However, despite years now of evangelicals in Colorado attempting this strategy that is commended by Meador, McLaughlin, and Daly, the Democratic politicians there still think that they are akin to the KKK. Let that sink in.
We should not be naïve. “We do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the cosmic powers over this present darkness.” Christ’s enemies will not respect us and repent of their malice toward us and our children… simply because we are nice to them and “[demonstrate] through our lives a still better way.” What if our opponents do not desire “care, mutuality, and love,” but instead, what Paul wrote about sinners in Romans 3 is true of them?
“Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive; the venom of asps is under their lips; their mouth is full of curses and bitterness; their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known; there is no fear of God before their eyes.”
God can surely save the worst of sinners—even the politicians who have advocated the Kelly Loving Act–but “how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?” It is our obligation as Christians to be bold and call on these sinners to repent of their sins and trust on the Lord Jesus Christ. If, on the other hand, we keep being nice and non-confrontational, it will not matter how articulately we can describe the way in which Obergefell led to this mess. The leftists in Democratic Party will not stop using whatever levers of power they can to promote transgender wickedness.
Paul wrote in 2 Corinthians 2 that “we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life.” If we intend to be a fragrance from life to life among those who are being saved, we will inevitably be a fragrance from death to death among those who are perishing.
Ultimately, Jake Meador’s proposed way forward is feckless, defeatist, and naive. In contrast, our allegiance to our Lord should compel us to take the risk of publicly defending His honor. Would that we would have the courage to go boldly into the most public places and call the Democrats who are pushing this wickedness to repent of their blasphemous idolatry. As the old hymn says, we must:
“Stand up! Stand up for Jesus!
Ye soldiers of the Cross;
Lift high his royal banner,
It must not suffer loss.
From vict’ry unto vict’ry
His army he shall lead,
Till ev’ry foe is vanquished
And Christ is Lord indeed.”
Image Credit: Unsplash.
