parenting

Court Upholds Florida Law Protecting Children From ‘Adult’ Performances — Including Drag

A federal court restored enforcement of a Florida law protecting children from “adult live performances,” shows or presentations that depict nudity, sexual conduct or specific sexual activities. 

Hamburger Mary’s, a drag-themed restaurant chain, challenged the state’s Protection of Children Act, saying it violated its freedom of speech. A district court enjoined the law, keeping the state from enforcing it while the suit was going through the trial process. 

A three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit upheld that decision, but the full court then reheard the case and overturned the universal, state-wide injunction in an 8-5 decision. 

Florida’s SB 1438 was signed into law by Governor Ron DeSantis in 2023. The legislation made it a first-degree misdemeanor for hotels or restaurants to admit a child to an adult live performance. Establishments that did so could receive fines or have their licenses revoked or suspended. 

The law defined “adult live performances” as “any show, exhibition, or other presentation in front of a live audience which, in whole or in part, depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or specific sexual activities … lewd conduct, or the lewd exposure of prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts.” 

The Protection of Children Act defined a performance as out of bounds for children when it: 

1. Predominantly appeals to a prurient, shameful, or morbid interest. 

2. Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community of this state as a whole with respect to what is suitable material or conduct for the age of the child present. 

3. Taken as a whole, is without serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for the age of the child present.

Hamburger Mary’s complaint said the restaurant “has presented drag performances at its venue since 2008,” explaining that it offered “family friendly” performances on Sundays. The lawsuit said:  

There is no lewd activity, sexually explicit shows, disorderly conduct, public exposure, obscene exhibition, or anything inappropriate for a child to see.

Even though its “family friendly” drag shows were so tame, the chain “advised its customers that children would not be permitted to attend any drag shows,” out of fear they would be prosecuted under the act. Hamburger Mary’s said the statute had “a chilling effect” on their protected speech. 

Why change policies if your performances are suitable for children? 

The restaurant said the act violated its First Amendment rights, arguing that “the statute is not content-neutral” and “is view-point discriminatory because it targets drag queens.” The suit pointed out that Florida’s SB 1438 was passed after the DeSantis administration began investigating and speaking out against children attending drag shows with inappropriate content. 

But the law targeted any venue that allows children to view adult live performances that depict lewd sexual conduct – not just drag shows. The word “drag” does not appear in SB 1438.

In asking for an injunction against the law, the restaurant chain also argued that the law’s use of the term “lewd” and the phrase “the age of the child present” made it “unconstitutionally overbroad and vague.”

The 11th Circuit majority ruled that the district court erred in blocking any enforcement of the law for two reasons:  

First, the district court lacked authority to impose a universal injunction that prevented the enforcement of the Act against everyone in Florida.

The court pointed to the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Trump v. CASA, where the Court said federal district judges can’t universally enjoin the enforcement of an executive or legislative policy against all people and parties. The 11th Circuit said the case didn’t just apply to nationwide injunctions, adding that “there is no statewide exception to CASA.” 

The opinion then explained: 

Second, Hamburger Mary’s was not entitled to even a more limited preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of the Act because its claims do not have a substantial likelihood of success on the merits.
The Supreme Court of Florida’s definition of “lewd” eliminates any overbreadth, and the use of the phrase “age of the child present” does not render the Act unconstitutionally vague.

Hamburger Mary’s v. Florida moves back to the federal district court, though the restaurant can appeal the circuit court’s decision to the Supreme Court. 

Meanwhile, the state can protect children by enforcing the law. 

Related articles and resources: 

Children in Drag

Christopher Rufo Explains the Real, Dark Intentions Behind Drag Queen Story Hour

Commonsense Tennessee Law Protecting Children is Upheld

Drag Queen at Seven Years Old — The Sobering Reality of Children in Drag

Drag Queen Story Hour Admits To Grooming Your Kids

Florida Governor Weighs Ordering Investigation Into Parents Who Take Children to Drag Shows

Judge Blocks Montana Law Protecting Children From Drag Shows

Kentucky Senate Passes Bill Protecting Children From Sexually Explicit Adult Performances – Including Drag Shows

No, You Shouldn’t Take Your Children to an LGBT Pride Parade

Tennessee Passes Bill Banning Drag Shows in Presence of Minors

Children Are the Future of Every City

Back in 2012, Kathy Keller – now the widow of the beloved Dr. Tim Keller, author and founder of Redeemer Presbyterian Church in New York City – wrote a popular article for the Gospel Coalition with a counterintuitive headline: 

“Why the City is a Wonderful Place to Raise Children.”

Here’s how she began the piece:

In 1988 when Tim first mentioned the idea of us going to Manhattan to plant a church, I reacted by laughing. Take our three wild boys (the victims of below-average parenting, as well as indwelling sin) to the center of a big city? Expose them to varieties of sin that I hoped they wouldn’t hear about until, say, their mid-30s? My list of answers to “What is wrong with this picture?” was a long, long one.

Kathy went on to tell the Kellers’ happy story of not only surviving the move and the subsequent years in Gotham, but actually loving and thriving as a Christian family amid the darkness and light of an urban area.

But Monday’s Wall Street Journal, points to a developing trend suggesting families are fleeing cities in record numbers.

A Journal analysis of U.S. Census data has found that the total number of children in America’s largest cities is down 6% over the past decade, but especially so when it comes to families with boys and girls under the age of five. The number of toddlers is down 15% in cities, compared with a nationwide decline of 7% among children overall.

“In all, the number of children declined in about two-thirds of the 38 U.S. cities with more than 500,000 residents,” reports the Journal.

Given the overall declining birthrate in America, you’d expect fewer children everywhere, but mothers and fathers are giving up on cities for a variety of reasons and some for very specific ones.

The cities suffering the most significant loss include San Jose, Calif. (-20%), Los Angeles, Calif. (-16%), Albuquerque, N.M. (-15%) and Portland, Ore. and San Diego (-14%). 

Of course, mothers and fathers with children have to go somewhere, and you can probably surmise where many of those wanting to remain in urban areas apparently have relocated – cities in “red” states. Of the top ten cities that gained children, nine of them have more conservative representation. Fort Worth, Tex., and Jacksonville, Fla. (+11%) top the charts.

Other cities in “red” states enjoying modest growth include Columbus, Ohio, Charlotte, N.C., Kansas City, Mo., and Oklahoma City.

Parents fleeing big cities often cite the high cost of living. Despite Kathy Keller’s ringing endorsement of raising children in New York City, I knew someone who once quipped it was great to do likewise, but a whole lot easier if you had someone following you with a wheelbarrow full of cash. It’s easy to see why. Rent for a three-bedroom apartment in Manhattan can be as high as $10,000 a month.

The decline of children from major metropolitan areas is triggering devastating consequences. Fewer children lead to lower tax revenue and an aging population that increasingly draws on government benefits while fewer workers are paying into the system. This spiral has caused New York City’s socialist mayor, Zohran Mamdani, to call for “free” childcare as an incentive to keep younger families with children in the five boroughs. 

But the fallout isn’t just financial. 

Fewer children lead to a less dynamic and energized environment and a far more selfish and self-centered population. Children elicit wonder and creativity. Without lots of children, churches and organizations become stale and lose vitality. Traditions fade and the entire vibe of the city shifts. Instead of seeing couples walking with children, you see singles and couples walking their dogs. 

Kathy Keller concluded her essay in 2012 by highlighting a laundry list of reasons to love city living. She prefaced it by stating:

My sons loved the city growing up, and love it even more now, not just New York, but all cities. London, Hong Kong, Berlin, Singapore all excite them, whereas a quiet, empty suburb bores them to tears. They love the density of people, the diversity of culture, even the sounds and bustle. While they have an appreciation for mountains and the sea, for camping and hiking, they always want to return to the city, with its needs (one son is a pastor) and its possibilities (one is an urban planner). Having them nearby is just a bonus.

Whether you have chosen to raise children in a city, suburb, or rural setting, we can all be in agreement that every area desperately needs young people – and that the Lord has a perfect plan for each one regardless of where they may live.

3 Ways to Pass Faith on to Your Children

Recently distilled and released research confirms what generations of mothers and fathers have discovered to be true: parents remain the strongest influence on the current and long-term faith of their children.

Earlier this summer, our friends at the Institute for Family Studies (IFS) pored over mountains of data and came to the following conclusions:

• Religious practice in childhood is highly predictive of religious practice in adulthood

• Higher parent–child relationship quality in childhood is associated with stronger retention of religious belief and practice in adulthood

• Higher parental marital quality is associated with greater faith transmission

• Congregational involvement on the part of both parents and adolescents is linked to higher levels of faith commitment when children reach adulthood

In short, our children are watching and taking mental notes. How mothers and fathers behave today has a lasting impact on how their children live and what they believe tomorrow.

It was belief in this fundamental and foundational principle that drove Focus on the Family founder Dr. James Dobson to begin the ministry in 1977. He talked and wrote often about the influence his parents, especially his father, had on him personally as he grew in his Christian faith. In fact, it was in a Sunday evening church service that his pastor dad was preaching when he was just three years old that he walked the aisle and committed his life to Jesus.

Here’s how he recalled that pivotal incident:

[My father] invited those who wished to do so to come forward, and I joined them. I recall crying and asking Jesus to forgive my sins. It is overwhelming for me now to imagine the King of the universe caring about an insignificant kid barely out of toddlerhood!

Not all children will heed a call to faith that early or dramatically, of course—nor should they be expected to. Yet it is important to note that my own conversion at that young age was possible because of my parents’ example. From my first days, I saw them on their knees, praying and talking to the Lord. They later told me that I attempted to pray before I learned to talk, imitating the sounds I had heard.

If you set a faithful example beginning with the day your sons and daughters are born, they will never forget what they have seen and heard. Even if they reject God later, the remnant of those early memories will be with them for the rest of their lives—and may well bring them back to the fold. As parents, this is our privilege and duty as outlined in Scripture: “Bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Ephesians 6:4, KJV).

That conversion occurred nearly 90 years ago, and its impact continues to shape Focus on the Family today. Without James and Myrtle Dobsons’ example, would their son have served the Lord and years later launched a global ministry? 

Team members here share a magnificent obsession that was seeded in that small church service—to encourage and equip mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, to pass on their faith to the next generation. It’s the most important task of parenting, and it would be impossible for us to overemphasize its importance.

IFS concludes their report with practical recommendations for mothers and fathers on how best to pass on their faith in Jesus Christ to their children:

1. Be your children’s role model for faith: If you’re not serving the Lord, don’t expect your children to behave any differently.

2. Prioritize a strong marriage and parent-child relationship: Be certain your children know how much you love your spouse and make sure you’re not putting work or social events ahead of time with your sons and daughters.

3. Make faith formation a joint effort and build it into everyday family life, including making it a regular topic of family conversation: The Christian walk is not simply a Sunday exercise but instead a seven-day-a-week adventure. 

IFS didn’t invoke the wisdom of the Bible, but Moses’ admonition in the book of Deuteronomy applies here:

And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise (Deut. 6:6-7, ESV).

Focus on the Family considers it a privilege to serve mothers and fathers and families by equipping and cheering them on when it comes to passing the baton of faith on to the next generation.

Guy Benson: Can We Celebrate His Baby News?

Guy Benson, a Fox News political analyst, recently announced he and his “husband,” Adam Wise, are bringing home a newborn baby girl to join the boy they acquired through surrogacy in 2023.

Benson’s celebratory Instagram post shows him and Wise bottle-feeding the newborn, each of them doing so on a hospital bed. The first child, Conrad, was acquired through the two men hiring a surrogate. It is assumed this second child was created and born the same way.

Because neither man is interested in women or motherhood, they had to hire a womb to get the babies they desired. They also paid the child’s mother to relinquish her natural maternal rights. There is no glossing over that blunt fact.

This means both children are being intentionally denied their natural mothers, assuming the biological and gestational mothers are two different women, which they likely are. That is how messed up things get when we redefine what family and parentage are because of the legality of same-sex marriage. Same-sex relationships are human cul-de-sacs. That is not a judgement. It is a fact. They don’t lead anywhere humanly by themselves. They are naturally sterile, non-life-producing.

So, when two (or three+) men want babies, they must go knocking at the door of heterosexuality to obtain the necessary eggs and wombs from women. They pay the woman to relinquish her natural maternal rights to her own child. This is what Guy Benson and Adam Wise did. Lesbians must do the same, further obliterating the importance of fatherhood.

As a result, the children born to such arrangements lose their natural mother or father.  All because some adults want kids in wholly unnatural and problematic ways. Intentionally creating children to deny them their natural mother and father is never ethical. It is never loving. It is never progressive, but regressive. It can never be celebrated or congratulated. Yet, it is now increasingly done to satisfy adult wishes.

This is why no one should ever congratulate any family form that mechanically manufactures children and separates them from the father or mother whose DNA they came from and share. The adults deeply desire a biological connection to their child and spend a small fortune to create that. Yet, they casually deny their child the same. They say biology doesn’t matter … until it does.

Benson, in his announcing Instagram post this week, said, 

She’s here, and she’s perfect. We are blessed and overjoyed to welcome Madison Halsey into the world and into our family. Our hearts are filled to the brim. A baby girl. We are just so thankful.

No doubt she is perfect. All life is worth celebrating. 

But not all human configurations are worthy of the same celebration. Madison is perfect, but she will grow up without a mother. There is nothing “perfect” about that. And she will because two men want it that way. The word for that is “selfish.”

Madison will have no mother to bond with in that special, wholly unique motherly way. Guy can’t do that. Adam cannot. All of the love, care and material resources in the world cannot make either of them a mother. Grandma won’t be able to fully fill that role. Madison is a girl, and she will always wonder who her female parent is. Why? Because seeing one’s similar and distinct image in one’s mother and father is literally one of the most natural human developmental experiences in the world. Benson and Wise have taken that away from Madison and that is nothing to congratulate.

The legalization of same-sex marriage by Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2015 created this by radically redefining the family and parentage. The legal innovation of Obergefell v. Hodges de-sexed the family by removing the essential quality of male or female. If the Benson-Wise “family” is just as laudable as the natural male-female family, then the feminine in humanity simply becomes optional, merely preferential like vanilla or chocolate ice cream. It also says designing intentionally motherless and fatherless children is something to celebrate.

Do not miss that the argument for same-sex “marriage” created the de-sexed “same-sex family.” Both are human impossibilities and violations of what it means to be human.

No amount of congratulatory happy talk can mask this fact: Madison is denied her mother because two wealthy men want it that way.

Could Taylor’s Marriage Spark a Global Swiftie Baby Boom?

So Taylor and Travis are married, finally. What took them so long?

The mega-famous power couple wed in a sweltering blaze on July 3 in Madison Square Garden, just to make sure there was enough room at their star-studded celebration. She walked down the aisle to an instrumental version of her own song “Love Story.” Adam Sandler officiated the ceremony. Kansas City Chiefs coach Andy Reid said Sandler’s best advice to the couple was “keep kissing.”

So now they settle into family life. Will a baby be coming soon?

At the news of their engagement last August, American Enterprise Institute fellow Timothy Carney posted on X, “Pregnancy is contagious. Familism and Natalism are conveyed culturally.”

He added, “If Kelce and Swift have kids and quickly, this could trigger a Baby Boom.”

We should all hope it will because the world’s most pressing long-term need is many more babies being born today so that we have a tomorrow. Two-thirds to nearly three-fourths of humanity live in a nation well below replacement level which translates into what one leading global analyst called “mass extinction numbers.”

So, the question is certainly worth considering: Could impending news of a little Swiftie in the oven trigger a baby boom, or at least a bump? Possibly. 

First, it is important to recognize that Carney is correct. Pregnancy is indeed contagious. Academic studies here, here, here and here demonstrate that pregnancies happening within a woman’s personal network can stimulate her entry into motherhood. The decision to have a baby is less individualistic than most assume. The behaviors of others affect our own.

In an interview with the Daily Citizen, Carney contends, “Pregnancy is contagious on a local level, among extended family circles and on a cultural level.” How does this happen? Carney explains, “People are motivated by what fills their imagination, what they see, what they are exposed to.” He notes, “If you were the CIA and you wanted to drive up birthrates, you would simply expose people to the rewarding experiences of lots of families with lots of kids.”

So yes, familism and natalism are conveyed culturally. Carney told Daily Citizen, “What I articulated in my X post was a hope, not a prediction, not an expectation.”

But he admitted, “I think celebrities having kids, especially married celebrities having kids, raising them in a happy family, enjoying life together — that is analogous to actually seeing kids running around on your street.” He confessed, “It is not as good as that, but certainly analogous.”

As Veronica Clarke noted over at First Things last August, Taylor’s “engagement signals to Swifties and lovelorn women worldwide that finding love in the twenty-first century is not a fairy tale.” If she and Travis welcome a wedding baby, that news could have the same effect.

Lyman Stone, director of the Institute for Family Studies’ Pronatalism Initiative, also sat for an interview with Daily Citizen. He told us, “I definitely share the perspective that major celebrity figures, social influencers, role models, whatever, they absolutely have an effect on people’s family decisions.” Stone adds an important angle though,

When elites, people in positions of great social influence on others, not only have kids, but have kids in a way that seems happy and attainable, that can be predictive.

He adds the larger population must see those things as attainable for themselves. Buying a new plane or an expensive second home in Italy does not have the same effect. But something that is clearly in reach for most young adults, like marriage and parenthood, can be driven by the influence of others.

Stone notes, “So to the extent that Swifties look at Taylor and say, ‘Well, if the woman who did four break-up albums can find love with the football star, maybe I can find love too.’” He observes, “Maybe that could happen with motherhood too, if she gets pregnant soon enough.”

What if Taylor outsources her mommy wish and gestational labor to a surrogate? The motivation to keep her famous starlet body and her more than ample financial resources make this a very real possibility. But this makes her pathway to motherhood unattainable (and hopefully undesirable) for most Swifties, thus having no baby bump effect.

But it also matters how Tay Tay talks about motherhood, if that time comes. Stone explained, “If we get Taylor Swift’s Lullaby Album for her beloved baby, we’re there, on the path to a prenatal culture.” He counters though, “But if we get her ‘Honest Reflections on the Difficulties of Motherhood’ i.e., negative comments about motherhood, that’s unlikely to go in a great direction.” Stone concludes, “If Taylor talks about her family life in a way that is encouraging of others, then I think we could get a Swiftie baby bump.”

As Carney noted in the Washington Examiner, the day after his X post went viral: “If someone who is constantly watched by millions of people starts living a married life and a mother life, then the idea of being married and a mother becomes more imaginable – even if her life is inaccessible in so many other ways.”

Such is the power of modern, mediated entertainment culture. Sometimes its upside possibilities are worth hoping for.

Let’s hope for a baby boom.