LGBT

Baptist Baylor University Accepts Large Donation for LGBT Inclusion

Note: Baylor has since rescinded the grant that raised the following concerns. Daily Citizen has updated it’s reporting on that reversed policy.

On June 30, Baylor University announced its Center for Church and Community Impact (C3I) in its School of Social Work was awarded a substantial $643,401 grant from the Eula Mae and John Baugh Foundation to help “better understand the disenfranchisement and exclusion of LGBTQIA+ individuals and women within congregations to nurture institutional courage and foster change.” Baylor’s official statement explains this is an academic research grant to “foster inclusion and belonging in the church.”

These dollars will fund a major study entitled, “Courage from the Margins: Inclusion and Belonging Practices for LGBTQIA+ and Women in Congregations.”Baylor’s explanation of this project is deeply concerning, as they state the project “prioritizes [LGBT] voices, giving them a safe space to share their experiences and guide positive change within faith communities.” The Baylor statement adds, “Information gleaned will directly inform trauma-sensitive training resources that C3I will develop for congregational use, providing guidance on inclusivity and institutional courage.”

As the Church Lady says, “Well, isn’t that special?” Developments like this will result in greater pressure on biblically-based church communities and individual believers to weaken their belief in and practice of God’s design for what it means to be human as male and female and for His good design for marriage, sexuality and family.

However, Dr. Graynor Yancey, Baylor’s C3I director and an endowed professor, explained in Baylor’s press release announcing the grant, “We are always so grateful for the support and encouragement of the Eula Mae and John Baugh Foundation for our ongoing research in assisting congregations in ministering to marginalized populations.” He explained this money will help them study “inclusionary practices of congregations with people who are marginalized in numerous ways.”

Good Faith Media, in their report on this development, explains, “As a university founded by and still associated with Texas Baptists – and one that has made strides toward becoming one of the nation’s top research institutions – Baylor has a long history of navigating issues related to LGBTQ+ inclusion.”

In 2021, Baylor started recognizing LGBT groups on campus, while simultaneously affirming that marriage is between a man and a woman. Those involved on various sides of this decision agreed that Baylor was sending mixed messages with these seemingly conflicting stances. In 2022, the university officially chartered Prism, a Baylor “LGBTQ+ and allies student organization.”

Baylor’s official mission statement proclaims, “The mission of Baylor University is to educate men and women for worldwide leadership and service by integrating academic excellence and Christian commitment within a caring community.” Baylor also boldly asserts on their website that their work “is founded on the belief that God’s nature is made known through both revealed and discovered truth.” They add, “Thus, the University derives its understanding of God, humanity, and nature from many sources: the person and work of Jesus Christ, the biblical record, and Christian history and tradition, as well as scholarly and artistic endeavors.”

It seems evident that the work this new large grant will fund is in clear conflict with each of Baylor’s stated sources of knowledge of God, save for the last one. We can pray that Baylor leadership will review its own mission statement and core values and reconsider this grant and very concerning research project.

Image from Shutterstock.

Public Libraries Promote ‘LGBT’ Books to Children and Teens – Year Round

(Caution: Includes disturbing content and links to book reviews with graphic content.)

Public libraries across the nation celebrated “LGBT pride month” by promoting sexually confusing books with homosexual and “transgender” themes to children and teens.

But it’s not just June when LGBT identities and behaviors are pushed on children, as many libraries promote age-inappropriate books throughout the year.

This is especially the case as the American Library Association has become more radical and promotes sexualized books for children. But it’s also because LGBT folks and their allies claim more days, weeks and months to celebrate various sexual proclivities – from Bisexual Health Awareness Month in March to Transgender History Month in August, and from Aromantic Spectrum Awareness Week in February to Transgender Awareness Week in November.

Libraries also promote inappropriate material during so-called Banned Books Week, in October each year.

Parents should be aware that this happens across the country – even in conservative communities.

In North Carolina, John Murawski reported at Real Clear Investigations about Raliegh public libraries celebrating LGBT pride month:

Like public libraries across the country, branches in North Carolina’s capital city turn rainbow-hued each June in celebration of Pride Month. Festive book displays featuring “queer-themed” titles written for all ages – from toddlers to teens and adults – are set out for the public as innocently as if the subject in question were cooking, gardening, or personal finance. 

He notes that the books promote a variety of sexual fetishes, including “cross dressing, drag queens, kink, BDSM (bondage, domination, etc.), poppers (recreational drugs used at sex clubs), … [and] polyamory (consensual non-monogamy) … among other delectations of the flesh.”  

While these books are especially featured during LGBT pride, parents should be aware that these books are available to children and teens all year long.

Libraries in Boston offer “We Are Pride Booklists” for children, teens and adults. That’s right, the staff-curated lists lump sexually explicit adult books together with LGBT books intended for children and teens. Hundreds of books are listed, such as: 

  • Who Are You? The Kid’s Guide to Gender Identity. The author is Brook Pessin-Whedbee, “a public school teacher and mama to three little ones who joyfully bend and break the gender boxes.” Written for children ages 5-8, the book introduces children to gender ideology, presenting “clear and direct language for understanding and talking about how we experience gender: our bodies, our expression and our identity.”
  • Transphobia: Deal With It and Be a Gender Transcender, is written by J. Wallace Skelton, “an educator, activist and writer.” Written for children ages 9-15, the book explains “Transphobia is intolerance of any part of the range of gender identity.” Through “information, quizzes, comics and true-to-life scenarios,” Transphobia helps “kids better understand gender identity and determine what they can do to identify and counter transphobia in their schools, homes and communities.”

Colorado Springs, Colorado is a generally conservative city, but libraries offer a list of “LGBTQIA+” books to adolescents and teens. The list, placed in the teen section of the library all year long, includes many unsuitable books:  

  • Cool for the Summer, by Dahlia Adler, is about a teenage girl who “is conflicted about her sexuality while she has romantic relationships with another teenage girl and her long-time boy crush.” One summary of concerns with the book says: “This book contains alternate gender ideologies; profanity [dozens of incidents]; sexual activities; sexual nudity; and alternate sexualities.”
  • Queer: A Graphic History, by Meg John Barker, has chapters like “Interrogating Heteronormativity,” “Open Non-monogamy,” “Polynormativity and Kinknormativity.” Rated Books says, “This book contains alternate sexualities; alternate gender ideologies; and controversial racial and social commentary.”
  • The Black Flamingo, by Dean Atta, a “fierce coming-of-age verse novel about identity and the power of drag,” is about a “mixed-race gay teen growing up in London” who explores sex with men and discovers his identity as a drag performing – the Black Flamingo. According to one review, the book contains: alternate sexualities; inexplicit sexual nudity; sexual activities; drug and alcohol use; alternate gender ideologies; controversy racial commentary; and references to racism.

While many librarians are helpful and hold conservative values, the American Library Association is a radical organization that has promoted unsuitable books for children for decades. The association dishonestly calls any parents’ concerns about sexualized books for children “book banning” and “censorship.”

The American Library Association’s “Library Bill of Rights” includes the following articles, which demonstrate what the group believes about parental involvement in children’s book choices:

  • Libraries should challenge censorship in the fulfillment of their responsibility to provide information and enlightenment.
  • A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.
  • All people, regardless of origin, age, background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use. Libraries should advocate for, educate about, and protect people’s privacy, safeguarding all library use data, including personally identifiable information.

Basically, the association believes children should be able to check out whatever books they want, regardless of age, and that they deserve “privacy and confidentiality” – including from parents – in those decisions.

With libraries across the country promoting LGBT books throughout the year, it’s incumbent upon parents to give children a solid understanding of God’s good design for relationships, identity, sexuality and marriage.

In addition, parents should strive to maintain a healthy, open relationship with their children, so that when they do come across disturbing sexual content, they feel free to talk about these experiences.

Related articles and resources:

American Library Association Chooses Marxist Lesbian as President-Elect

‘Banned Books Week’ – What a Fraud

LGBT Activists, NEA and Librarians Promote Annual ‘Transgender’ Reading Day in Schools

Montana Library Commission Votes to Leave American Library Association Due to Marxist President

National Education and Library Groups Co-Sponsor ‘Transgender’ Reading Day for Elementary School Children

Sexualizing Schoolchildren: Classroom and Library Books

Surprise, Surprise — Planned Parenthood Gave Children Explicit Coloring Books

Three Ways the Media Supports Sexually Explicit, Inappropriate Books for Children

Focus on the Family:

Child or Teen Disturbed by Exposure to Pornography

Counseling Consultation and Referrals

Homosexuality Resources

Parenting Resources

Transgender Resources

Image from Getty.

US Supreme Court Upholds Tennessee Law Protecting Kids From Transgender Mutilation

On June 18, the United States Supreme Court issued a historic 6-3 decision in United States v. Skrmetti, upholding Tennessee’s law banning the “transgender” mutilation of minors. The ruling is a monumental win for children, families and commonsense policy making.

The decision affirms the state’s authority to protect minors from dangerous and experimental transgender medical procedures. It also rejects the argument that children have a constitutional right to access medical interventions like opposite-sex hormones and surgery. The Court’s decision sets significant legal precedent in favor of state sovereignty and the democratic policy making process to determine the controversial issues of the day.

As previously reported by the Daily Citizen,  Tennessee’s Senate Bill 1 prohibits doctors from prescribing puberty-blocking drugs and opposite-sex hormones or performing surgeries to “transition” a minor. The ACLU and LGBT activists challenged the law, claiming that it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment in the U.S. Constitution because it discriminated on the basis of sex.

Chief Justice John Roberts authored the Supreme Court’s majority opinion and was joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Barrett. Justice Alito joined the majority opinion in part.

Roberts explained that the law does not discriminate against transgender-identified individuals because it applies neutrally to all individuals on the basis of age and medical purpose. The majority applied rational basis review, the lowest level of constitutional scrutiny, because classifying by age and medical purpose does not require a higher level of legal scrutiny. Based on a rational basis review, the Court concluded that Tennessee has a legitimate interest in protecting children from unproven and potentially harmful medical treatments and surgeries.

The majority also opined that it’s not the role of the Court to settle ongoing debates about transgender medical interventions for minors. Roberts wrote:

This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field. … The Court’s role is not ‘to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic’ of the law before us, but only to ensure that the law does not violate equal protection guarantees. … It does not. … Questions regarding the law’s policy are thus appropriately left to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process.

Justice Thomas concurred separately and argued that gender identity should not be extended to sex-based equal protection doctrine and reiterated that rational basis review is “critical to safeguarding” a legitimate government interest.

Justice Barrett also filed a concurrence emphasizing that “courts must give legislatures flexibility to make policy in this area.”

Justice Alito concurred in part and underscored the right of states to regulate these matters and clarified his position that “transgender status does not qualify under our precedents as a suspect or ‘quasi-suspect’ class” that deserves a heightened constitutional review.

The Court’s ruling places the United States (at least in the 26 states that have enacted Help Not Harm laws) in line with several European countries — such as Sweden, Finland, and the United Kingdom — that have restricted the use of these treatments in minors due to safety concerns and a lack of long-term evidence.

Justices Sotomayor, Jackson and Kagan dissented from the majority, arguing that the law discriminates on the basis of sex and transgender status and should have been reviewed with a heightened scrutiny. The dissent also maintained that to deny minors transgender medical intervention is a violation of constitutional protections.

The majority opinion is a decisive win for the idea that the people should resolve controversial medical and moral issues of the day by democratic processes rather than judicial fiat.

This ruling will set a strong precedent for the constitutionality of similar laws nationwide.

Focus on the Family applauds the Court’s decision. This ruling will help families protect their children from radical trans ideology that tries to deny the inherent goodness of God’s design for human sexuality and the value of male and female made in His image. 

Now is the time to call on Congress to pass a federal law to ban experimental trans interventions on minors nationwide. Every child in America deserves to be protected from reckless medical experimentation. Contact your senator and representative today.

Image from Getty.

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles Shuts Down Harmful ‘Center for Transyouth’

Children’s Hospital Los Angeles is shutting down their harmful “Center for Transyouth Health and Development,” one of the oldest and largest children’s “gender clinics” in the country.

Pro-child advocates celebrated the closure, as the center will no longer be irreparably damaging minors with irreversible, experimental puberty blockers, opposite sex hormones and surgeries.

The “transyouth” clinic stated its decision “followed a thorough legal and financial assessment of the increasingly severe impacts of recent administrative actions and proposed policies.”

Those administrative actions included announcements by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation that they would be investigating and prosecuting those responsible for mutilating and sterilizing children with sexual identity confusion.

In announcing its closure, the “transgender” clinic stated:

For more than 30 years, Children’s Hospital Los Angeles has provided high-quality, evidence-based, medically essential care for transgender and gender-diverse youth, young adults, and their families. CHLA is immensely proud of this legacy of caring for young people on the path to achieving their authentic selves.

Despite this deeply held commitment to supporting LA’s gender-diverse community, the hospital has been left with no viable path forward except to close the Center for Transyouth Health and Development, effective July 22, 2025.

It’s important to know that the interventions the clinic refers to as “medically essential care” do not have “high-quality, evidence-based” research behind them. This is a bald-faced lie.

A recent, comprehensive HHS review, Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria Review of Evidence and Best Practices, found a lack of good evidence for using drugs, hormones and surgeries for children suffering from sexual identity confusion.

A news release from HHS clearly explained the troubling paucity of evidence and grave risks for confused children who receive these drugs, hormones and surgeries:

This review, informed by an evidence-based medicine approach, reveals serious concerns about medical interventions, such as puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries, that attempt to transition children and adolescents away from their sex.

The review highlights a growing body of evidence pointing to significant risks – including irreversible harms such as infertility – while finding very weak evidence of benefit. That weakness has been a consistent finding of systematic reviews of evidence around the world.

The HHS report lists other countries that have stopped or limited these damaging, disfiguring treatments, including Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. They all found a lack of scientific evidence for these procedures and noted the serious harms and risks to minors.

In addition to the HHS report, England’s Dr. Hilary Cass spent four years reviewing the evidence about “gender identity” interventions for minors and released a 388-page report with 12 research-based appendices.

Dr. Cass explains that there is little evidence for using drugs, hormones and surgeries for minors:

This is an area of remarkably weak evidence, and yet results of studies are exaggerated or misrepresented by people on all sides of the debate to support their viewpoint. The reality is that we have no good evidence on the long-term outcomes of interventions to manage gender related distress.

Journalist and pro-child activist Brandon Showalter has written extensively about the horrible damage to minors from transgender medicine. He touted the closure of the clinic in a post on X:

Focus on the Family heartily agrees. We are thankful that the closure of this clinic means more children will be protected from these experimental, ineffective, disfiguring procedures.

Related Articles and Resources

To speak with a family help specialist or request resources, please call us at 1-800-A-FAMILY (232-6459).

Counseling Consultation & Referrals

Transgender Resources

God’s Amazing Grace in a Transgendered Person’s Life

Chloe Cole: Gender Reassignment Surgery Regret

Addressing Gender Identity with Honesty and Compassion

Support for Parent Whose Adult Child Identifies as Transgender

Discussing Transgender Issues With Teens

Pam Bondi Directs DOJ Attorneys to Investigate Transgender Procedures for Minors

FBI, DOJ Target Those Mutilating Children with ‘Transgender’ Drugs and Surgeries

Image from Shutterstock.

LGBT Issues and the Church: Problems With a ‘Gay Christian’ Identity

This is part one of an ongoing series on problematic trends in the church regarding LGBT issues.

There’s a movement in Christian circles where those struggling with same-sex attractions identify themselves with terms like “gay Christian” or “gay celibate Christian.”

Others use terms like “sexual minority Christians,” “queer Christian” or even “trans Christian.”

Many who describe themselves this way – but by no means all – say they are embracing chastity or celibacy and pursuing a relationship with Christ. That is, they believe the historic, biblical Christian sexual ethic, that God created humans male and female, and sexual expression is reserved for the marriage relationship of a husband and wife.

A number of Christian writers and ministries have adopted this nomenclature, with some of them training churches and other ministries to follow their lead.

Focus on the Family does not believe these terms are biblical or helpful for same-sex-attracted strugglers. Although these groups and individuals hold to biblical teaching that transgender and homosexual lust and behavior are wrong, they fail to practice Scripture’s teaching on identity – who believers are in Christ.

We are not questioning the faith of individuals who use this language, but we would challenge the wisdom and rationale for calling themselves or others “gay Christians” or similar terms.

There are a number of arguments that people give for using “gay Christian,” including:

  • “Gay” best describes my life experience as different from “heterosexual” folks.
  • I take a “missiological” or “missional” approach, using “gay Christian” as a way of relating to non-Christian LGBT-identified people and reaching them for Christ.
  • It’s polite to practice “pronoun hospitality,” using a person’s “chosen pronouns” and self-described “gender.”  
  • “Gay” is simply a linguistic synonym for “same-sex attracted,” and most people think of “gay” in this manner.
  • Saying, “I’m a gay Christian” doesn’t define me – it’s just like using language like, “I’m American” or “I’m a surfer” or “I am  a mechanic.”

While this article will not answer all these arguments, we’ll answer more in the future and discuss other areas of concern where many in the church have succumbed to harmful LGBT ideology.

For now, here are four reasons why identifying as a “gay Christian” is not biblical, wise or helpful. (N.B.: It’s cumbersome to use all the different LGBT terms throughout this article, so I’ll generally use “gay” as a catch-all for the wide range of “identities” created by LGBT activists.)

1. Dividing up the world into “gays” and “straights” is an unbiblical, false modern construct.

    Humans are either male or female. This is actually a core identity – along with, for believers, the deeper, Christian identity of being a son or daughter of our Father. Both male and female are made in the image of God and both are good and valuable and necessary complements for each other.

    Yet many in the world, and especially LGBT-identified people, see the world divided up into sexual identities: “gay” or “straight”; “transgender” or “cisgender”; “heterosexual” or “homosexual.” These are all modern, man-made identities based on sexual thoughts, feelings, socio-political constructs, behaviors and attractions.

    The terminology lends itself to the idea that “gays” are a different type of people from “straights.” This is not how Scripture identifies people – so why should we?

    2. It’s unbiblical and disconnected from Church history – not to mention nonsensical – to call oneself a “gay Christian.”

    Here’s a simple thought experiment: Can you imagine any of the early believers identifying this way? “Hi, I’m James; I’m the gay apostle.”

    It’s absurd.

    It’s just as much of a problem if you substitute the Greek words commonly translated “homosexual” in the New Testament. First, there’s the word “arsenokotoi,” meaning “men who lie with other men” – which is what many mean by our modern term “gay.” It’s impossible to believe that any man throughout Church history would say, “I’m an arsenokotoi, but also a chaste Christian.”

    It’s oxymoronic.

    Malakoi is another word for homosexuality in Scripture; it means effeminate or soft. No disciple would ever say, “That’s Nicodemus; he’s the effeminate follower of Jesus.”

    No. Adding “gay” to “Christian” is to detach from biblical and historic Christianity. It puts a barrier between a believer and his true identity in Christ.

    3. “Gay Christians” argue that “gay” is the equivalent of “same-sex attractions.” But that’s not really how most people use this language.  

    While people sometimes use “gay” to mean “same-sex attracted,” the term is more often used as if “being gay” were a person’s core identity. People use language like, “I discovered my true self,” or “He’s gay” or “I came out as gay” – as if revealing their central, most authentic self.

    I would argue that most people assume that when someone says, “I’m gay,” it means the person is not only same-sex attracted, but also acting on their desires and pursuing same-sex romantic or sexual relationships. The redefinition of marriage to include “gay marriage” has further cemented this into people’s minds, regardless of whether someone adds the term “celibate” or “single” as a modifier.

    Using “gay Christian” language is even more confusing today because so many churches, denominations and religious colleges affirm LGBT attractions, identities and relationships. Activist groups like the Human Rights Campaign, Q Christian Fellowship, “Side A Christians,” and The Reformation Project actively promote “gay Christianity.”

    The linguistic sleight of hand of those who say, “Well, when I say, ‘gay Christian’ I mean I’m attracted to the same sex,” is not convincing when “gay” is so connected to sexual lust and behavior in the minds of many. Why use language that is so confusing?

    4. Calling oneself “gay” buys into the lie that we define ourselves by our own thoughts, feelings, beliefs, and romantic and sexual attractions.

    In his book Strange New World, Carl Trueman describes our modern culture’s view of “the self,” which he says is characterized by people believing they create or discover their “true identity.”

    “Being gay” is part of a broken world where  “expressive individualism” rules.

    Truman writes, “The priority that the LGBTQ+ movement places on sexual desire and inner feelings relative to personal identity is part of this broader accent on the inner, psychological life of Western people that shapes us all.”

    It’s difficult to see why authentic Jesus followers would buy into this postmodern ideology and see sexual attractions (or “sexual orientation,” a spurious concept invented by psychologists) as a core part of themselves, worthy of being placed in front of being a Christian. This is not a biblical view of personhood. Certainly sex and sexuality are part of who we are, but they aren’t the defining aspect of believers’ lives.

    I’ve read a lot of the arguments from “gay Christians”; far too much ink has been spilled on debating this question. But I have yet to see an argument for this terminology that is rooted in Scripture.

    It’s important for the whole Church to have correct thinking on this issue. The language people use to describe themselves is an important theological consideration, not a matter of preference or self-definition.

    So we do not define people by sexual attractions or sexual behaviors. Rather we see men and women, created in God’s image and deeply loved by Him.

    Related Articles and Resources

    10 Things Everyone Should Know About a Christian View of Homosexuality

    Carl Trueman: Strange New World: How Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual Revolution

    Is ‘Gay Christian’ a Proper Term?

    Joe Dallas: In Other Words, Part One, Two and Three

    Linda Seiler: Becoming the Woman God Made Me to Be; Trans-Formation: A Former Transgender Responds to LGBTQ

    Rosaria Butterfield: Accepting My True Identity in Christ, Part One and Part Two; The Secret Thoughts of an Unlikely Convert; Five Lies of Our Anti-Christian Age

    Image from Shutterstock.