Staff Reports
Colorado’s state legislature has ignited a firestorm of controversy with the advancement of the so-called “Kelly Loving Act,” a bill that would allow courts to consider a parent’s refusal to use a child’s chosen gender pronouns or name—commonly referred to as “misgendering” or “deadnaming”—as a form of “coercive control” in custody disputes. This means that parents who, out of conviction or concern, decline to affirm a child’s new gender identity could see their parental rights diminished or even lose custody altogether. The bill, which recently passed the Democrat-controlled House, is now headed to the Senate, where it is expected to face further debate.
This legislation represents a dramatic escalation in the ongoing battle over parental rights and the role of government in family life. By inserting the state into deeply personal family decisions, Colorado lawmakers are sending a chilling message: parents who hold traditional views on gender, or who simply wish to exercise caution before affirming a child’s new identity, may be deemed unfit. The bill’s language is broad, classifying misgendering as a form of “abuse” or “coercive control,” a move that many see as a dangerous precedent for government overreach into the home.
The implications of this bill are profound. It effectively weaponizes the family court system to enforce a radical gender ideology, punishing parents who dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy. Rather than respecting the rights of mothers and fathers to guide their children through complex issues, the state is now poised to override parental judgment in favor of activist-driven policies. This is not just a slippery slope—it is a direct assault on the foundational principle that parents, not bureaucrats or judges, know what is best for their children.
Critics of the bill have drawn historical parallels to regimes that sought to undermine the family unit to consolidate power. When the state positions itself as the ultimate arbiter of a child’s well-being, even in matters as intimate as names and pronouns, it erodes the trust and authority that families depend on. The bill’s supporters claim it is about protecting vulnerable children, but in reality, it risks alienating parents, sowing division within families, and subjecting children to irreversible decisions without the benefit of parental wisdom and care.
For those who value family autonomy, religious liberty, and the right to raise children according to one’s beliefs, Colorado’s legislative push should serve as a wake-up call. It underscores the urgent need to elect leaders who will defend parental rights and push back against the encroachment of government into the private sphere. As more parents consider alternatives like homeschooling and school choice to safeguard their values, this episode in Colorado is a stark reminder of what is at stake in the broader cultural battle over the future of the American family.
