Once, Colorado was a sane state, populated with people tied to reality, the Constitution, and the rule of law. That Colorado is a distant memory now, although I’m sometimes shocked by the speed with which the change happened. The latest example of Colorado’s lapse into insanity (although insanity with a really sinister purpose) is a proposed bill that is essentially a blasphemy bill, calling for government punishment for those who dare to deny the trans cult. HB25-1312, aka the “Legal Protections for Transgender Individuals” bill, is a power grab, not only over parenting but over speech, thought, and religion.
The bill’s title makes it sound as if so-called “transgender” people (actually, people with the mental illness of gender dysphoria or just plain sexual perverts) are subject to violent attacks and discrimination. That’s not the case, of course.
Instead, the bill’s purpose is to impose speech codes on Coloradans, who will, in the future, be banned from speaking the truth about the fake men and women wandering the streets and, worse, the schools of Colorado. Even more sinisterly, the bill mandates that a parent who fails to acknowledge a mentally ill child’s “gender identity” will almost certainly lose custody to the parent fomenting this mental illness. While this isn’t really unexpected in a state that’s spent years persecuting a baker for refusing to create artistic cakes celebrating a sexual mental illness, it’s still a new salvo in the ongoing war on reality.
Image (edited) by Freepik AI.
The Colorado Assembly’s official summary is illuminating about what’s going on here. The first substantive section (Section 2) threatens parents’ custody rights if they don’t “affirm” a child’s mental illness:
Section 2 provides that, when making child custody decisions and determining the best interests of a child for purposes of parenting time, a court shall consider deadnaming, misgendering, or threatening to publish material related to an individual's gender-affirming health-care services as types of coercive control. A court shall consider reports of coercive control when determining the allocation of parental responsibilities in accordance with the best interests of the child.
Section 3 is would allow parents who take a child from a that protects against the abuse of so-called “gender-affirming” care. No matter what that other state says, the parent who makes it to Colorado can give a child toxic chemicals and subject the child to surgical mutilation:
Section 3 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 allowed the child to receive gender-affirming health-care services.
The problem with both of those provisions is that states have significant power to protect children. For centuries, that was understood to mean protecting them from physical abuse (beatings, starvation, etc.). Now, though, in the topsy-turvey world of leftism, protecting a child means affirming mental illness and destroying the child’s body.
The remainder of the act shades into the blasphemy part of the law, for it imposes thought, speech, and religious restrictions.
Under Section 4, any “local education provider,” “educator,” or “contractor” that has a “policy related to chosen names” is required “to make the policy inclusive of all reasons that a student might adopt a chosen name that differs from the student’s legal name.” In practice, this means that a Catholic school that allows children to use nicknames (for example, “Katherine” might ask to be called “Kate” or “Kathy”) must also allow “Jason” to be called “Justine.”
This will likely withstand scrutiny, though, because there are workarounds. Thus, traditional schools can circumvent this rule by banning all nicknames. Perhaps the schools might even go to the old British public school tradition of calling students by their last names.
Deeper in the act, though, the coercion grows stronger. In sections 5 and 6, school dress codes must conform not to students’ biological sex but to their self-identified sex. And this is where the real blasphemy rule begins because traditional faiths, whether Jewish, Christian, or Muslim, recognize only biological sex. Cross-dressing is an offense against all traditional religions. Forcing institutions to pretend that a boy is a girl for the purpose of uniforms is a direct state attack on religion. (I’m spitballing here, but I’m betting no one in Colorado will ever try to enforce this law against a Muslim school.)
Section 7 takes a brief pause for mere bureaucratic madness: State forms must have space for a chosen gender name that may be different from the legal name. Once that space is filled, for all future government records, that name—the one picked out of thin air for reasons of mental illness or sexual perversion—becomes the name of record.
This section wouldn’t violate the First Amendment, but it will disconnect the government from reality and from good record-keeping. Under the federal rules of evidence and under most state rules, government records are protected from hearsay objections because they’re presumed to be reliable. No longer... Birth certificates make up sex as they go along, and if the Colorado assembly goes full delusional, all records will be a sea of ever-changing identities as mentally ill or fetishistic people keep switching it up.
And finally—and this is the real First Amendment kicker—Sections 8 and 9 say that calling a person by his or her real name and gender violates Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act”:
Sections 8 and 9 define deadnaming and misgendering as discriminatory acts in the "Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act", and prohibit these discriminatory acts in places of public accommodation.
The penalties for violating Colorado’s anti-discrimination act are substantial, including everything from alleged damages to flat monetary penalties to attorneys’ fees and costs. This is coerced speech and, moreover, speech that slams right into the First Amendment’s protection against a state religion, for transgenderism is a complete refutation of the Biblical notion that God created only two sexes.
A friend of mine always says, so-called transgenderism and climate change are both endgame stuff. Regarding the latter, if you can control CO2, you control the economy completely, along with controlling people’s freedom of movement and even their lives within their homes. Smart energy meters, for example, will turn off allegedly “abusive” use of electricity, so an elderly person in a cold climate who’s been using too much heat may literally find himself frozen out.
When you get to transgender madness, it goes beyond controlling behavior and gets to the core issues of speech, thought, and religious liberty. The Colorado statute is an example of how the ideology allows leftist governments to control speech, thought, religion, parenting, and even the nature of reality itself.
In other words, what’s happening in Colorado isn’t merely crazy (and it is crazy); it’s also crazy like a fox because it’s a straight path to total government control, all through the prism of mental illness and sexual fetishes.