LGBT

Boise and Salt Lake City Adopt Pride Flags as ‘Official’ City Flags

Defying Idaho and Utah laws, Boise and Salt Lake City adopted the LGBT Pride flag as official city flags. Currently, both states ban unofficial flags on government owned properties.

Unlike state and city flags, which represent all legal residents, Pride flags are inherently divisive; they honor a small group of people for no other reason than their sexual attractions, behaviors and identities.

Pride flags also are an affront to people of faith, who believe God’s creation of humanity in His image – male or female – and who believe in His good design for marriage between a husband and wife, which creates the best environment for raising children.

Governor Brad Little (Idaho) signed a law banning non-official flags on April 3, covering state, county, municipal and school properties. But Boise kept a Pride flag flying over the city hall ever since.

The Utah mandate became law March 27, without Governor Spencer Cox’s signature. Cox continued “to have serious concerns with the policy but chose not to reject it because his veto would likely be overridden by the Republican-controlled Legislature,” Associated Press reported.

The move was a coordinated effort by both cities’ mayors, with Boise Mayor Lauren McLean and Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall offering each other support, AP stated.

In a May 6 Boise City Council meeting, as reported by Fox News, McLean said:

On April 28 I signed an official proclamation that retroactively established three flags as official Boise flags: the blue flag, the one we love, with the monochrome image of the Capitol building and the words “Boise, City of Trees”; the rainbow flag, commonly referred to as the Pride flag, and the flag that represents and gives voice to the fact that we are a welcoming city; and a flag representing National Donate Life Month [promoting organ, eye and tissue donations].

One speaker said the Pride flag was related to “diversity, equity and inclusion,” which she called “right and just” and “fundamental to America,” representing “our values sewn in color and cloth.”

While Christians practice kindness and offer grace to all people, the Pride flag certainly doesn’t represent our moral and sexual values.

Mendenhall also pointed to “diversity,” explaining her decision to propose the measure to the city council,

“My sincere intent is not to provoke or cause division. My intent is to represent our city’s values and honor our dear diverse residents who make up this beautiful city and the legacy of pain and progress that they have endured.”

Both mayors don’t understand that Pride flags cause deep discord, promoting a sexualized, socio-political agenda. Idaho Representative Heather Scott, who sponsored the state bill banning non-official flags, explained the purpose behind it, saying “We don’t want government to be promoting division or political ideology or any social movements.”

Idaho’s law does not have an enforcement mechanism, while the Utah law can lead to fines of $500 a day for governmental entities that flout the law.

Related Articles and Resources

Countering The Cultural Confusion: Answering Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality

Five Things for Christians to Remember During ‘LGBT Pride Month’

Focus on the Family: Counseling Consultation and Referrals

Focus on the Family: Transgender Resources

Focus on the Family: Understanding Homosexuality

How the “Trans” and Gender Redefinition Issue Attacks the Family

Navigating ‘LGBT Pride Month’ – How Should Parents Respond?

There is No Pride in Denying Reality or the Image of God in Humanity

What Does the Bible Say About Homosexuality? When Children Encounter ‘LGBT Pride’: Resources for Parents

Pedophilia’s Current Makeover

There is hardly anything the sexual revolution has imagined that has not gained general acceptance by liberally minded folks. The only rule that under girds their sexual ethic is consent. As long as two or more adults fully consent, it gets two-thumbs up from sex revolutionaries. This is what we call a minimalist ethic.

This is why pedophilia is the last hold-out to not have received a cheery green light. Children cannot properly consent. And besides, adults attracted to children are just creepy. But one group is seeking to change that perception.

They held a “professional conference” in an undisclosed location in Ohio just days ago. One of the first things this group did was land on a new name for pedophiles. The old one just had too much bad baggage associated with it for some reason. So, the new make-over is Minor Attracted Persons or MAPs for short.

Never mind that MAPs are nearly all men. “Persons” seems like a broader, more protected class, an essential move in winning favor and protection to your side

The group’s primary stated goals for this recent “Demystifying and Thriving” conference were:

  • Increase competence and cultural humility in providing affirming, compassionate care for MAPs.
  • Recognize the different levels of stigma and bias and their effects on MAPs and providers.
  • Identify and discuss approaches that promote wellness and thriving among MAPs.

This is all an effort to depathologized the pedophilic person, frame them as victims of “stigma” and have the larger society develop some sense of compassion for such people. After all, the organizers explain, “all people should recognize that no one chooses to be attracted to children.” They are just born that way, right? Lady Gaga has already told us all about that. What is more, academic sources tell us pedophilia is “a type of sexual orientation in men.” A “sexual age orientation.” How can you blame someone for something nature gave them, right?

The organization’s leaders claim, “Vilifying [MAPs] for their feelings is unjust and harmful; it forces them into lives of secrecy and prevents them from getting help when needed, ultimately putting children at risk.” Yes, it’s all about the children … and the adults who are sexually attracted to them.

This is not their first effort. The group’s 2019 Workshop in Baltimore was focused on “Compassionate and Informed Approaches for Supporting Minor-Attracted People.”

If all this seems like they are borrowing a page from the rhetorical and political successes of the movement to mainstream homosexuality and transgenderism, it is not your imagination.

A scholarly review from 2024 examining the creation and use of the term “Minor Attracted Persons” notes similarities borrowed from homosexuality’s playbook: “MAPs scholarship presents pedophiles as an oppressed sexual minority subject to undue discrimination and oppression.” The review notes unapprovingly, “This framing draws, implicitly and explicitly, on controversial comparisons between pedophilia and same-sex attraction.”

The Australian scholars authoring this review also warn of “strong claims in the MAPs literature that the stigmatization of sexual interest in children is the primary driver of child sexual abuse, and thus sexual interest in children should be socially and culturally normalized.”

Be warned. These authors explain, “‘MAPs’ is part of the nomenclature of contemporary pro-pedophile movements seeking social and legal rights for those with a sexual interest in children and is not a neutral or scientific synonym for pedophile.”

Christina Buttons, an investigative reporter for the Manhattan Institute, wrote recently on this slippery makeover of those sexually attracted to our children. She warns that progressive activists like this “are recasting pedophilic attraction as something to be accepted rather than contained.” She adds, “In doing so, they risk collapsing critical moral distinctions and shifting the focus away from the safety and well-being of children – the population most in need of protection.”

Buttons is correct. This is a very deceptive and disturbing effort that everyone who cares for children and social safety should be mindful of and never fall for.

Related Articles and Resources

Focus on the Family Counseling Consultation Line
If you need someone to talk to, Focus on the Family offers a free phone counseling consultation with a licensed or pastoral counselor. Call 1-855-771-HELP (4357), Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (MT).

HHS Releases Report on Harms of ‘Transgender’ Medical Interventions for Minors

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released an important evaluation of the evidence for how best to treat children and adolescents with “gender dysphoria.”

Not surprisingly, the comprehensive review, Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria Review of Evidence and Best Practices, showed serious problems with treating minors with “gender-affirming care,” which can include body damaging, experimental and risky puberty suppressants, hormones and surgeries.

A news release from HHS clearly explained the troubling paucity of evidence and grave risks for confused children who receive these medical interventions:

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.

Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria is 409 pages long and covers everything from the history of transgender medicine to current treatment practices to the effects of harmful medical interventions on minors. It’s release was accompanied by a 173-page appendix which explained the methodology and gave a synthesis of the evidence.

Director of the National Institutes of Health Dr. Jay Bhattacharya emphasized the primary goal in treating children with sexual identity confusion should be to safeguard their health.

He said, “Our duty is to protect our nation’s children – not expose them to unproven and irreversible medical interventions. We must follow the gold standard of science, not activist agendas.”

The report explains that activist agenda comes from groups like the Endocrine Society, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). These groups have labeled their treatment “gender-affirming care,” which means affirming a child’s sexual identity confusion and allowing the child to try to live as the opposite sex, or a combination of the two sexes, or no sex, or some self-defined, pseudo “gender.”

These minors are then encouraged to use dangerous and powerful puberty blockers, proceed to body-damaging opposite sex hormones, and then undergo irreversible surgeries. An executive summary of the literature review states the seriousness of these treatments for children who have nothing wrong with their brains or bodies:

Nevertheless, the “gender-affirming” model of care includes irreversible endocrine and surgical interventions on minors with no physical pathology.

These interventions carry risk of significant harms including infertility/sterility, sexual dysfunction, impaired bone density accrual, adverse cognitive impacts, cardiovascular disease and metabolic disorders, psychiatric disorders, surgical complications, and regret.

The executive summary explains that there is little evidence that “gender-affirming” care is even helpful.

“Meanwhile, systematic reviews of the evidence have revealed deep uncertainty about the purported benefits of these interventions.”

One section of the extensive report details the “International Retreat from the ‘Gender-Affirming’ Model,” known as the Dutch Protocol, first published in 2006, which advocated for “gender-affirming care.” This medicalized approach initially expanded, based on two flawed, unreplicated studies with “serious limitations.”

In 2015, the meta-analysis explains, the number of youth identifying as “transgender” surged dramatically, “first gradually, then suddenly,” with a large number of female adolescents wanting to live as boys.

Given its shaky foundation researchers in different countries began conducting their own studies of “gender-affirming care,” and the report details the growing international movement away from using medical interventions to modify children’s bodies:

Finland subsequently became the first country to revise its national guidelines, sharply limiting medical interventions based on the findings of an SR [systematic review]. In the years that followed, other countries began conducting their own evaluations of the evidence and arrived at similar conclusions.

A global trend has since emerged, away from use of PBs [puberty blockers], CSH [cross-sex hormones], and surgeries in youth with GD [gender dysphoria].

Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria describes England’s review of “pediatric gender medicine” that began in 2020, with the final report, The Cass Review released in 2024. This led to the closing of the country’s Gender Identity Development Service and a move away from puberty blockers, hormones and surgeries for children.

The new HHS report lists other countries that have stopped or limited these harmful, disfiguring treatments, including Denmark, Sweden, and Norway, adding,

“Most recently, hormonal interventions have been restricted in Brazil, Chile, the province of Alberta in Canada, and the state of Queensland in Australia.”

The meta-analysis makes clear that it is not a clinical practice guideline, while emphasizing it “describes the very low-quality evidence underpinning treatment approaches in pediatric gender medicine” and “contains an extensive description of potential or plausible harms associated with certain treatment options (namely, hormonal interventions and surgeries), some of which are significant.”

It concludes that current transgender medical interventions for children and adolescents “are inconsistent with widely endorsed principles of medical ethics.”

There’s much more in Treatment for Pediatric Gender Dysphoria Review of Evidence and Best Practices, and the Daily Citizen will detail these findings in the weeks ahead.

Related Articles and Resources

If you or someone you know is struggling with transgenderism, Focus on the Family offers a one-time complimentary consultation with our ministry’s professionally trained counseling staff. The consultation is free due to generous donor support.

To reach Focus on the Family’s counseling service by phone, call 1-855-771-HELP (4357) weekdays 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. (Mountain Time). Please be prepared to leave your contact information for a counselor to return a call to you as soon as possible. Alternatively, you can fill out our Counseling Consultation Request Form.

Addressing Gender Identity with Honesty and Compassion

Cakegender? Genderfaun? Orbgender?

Colorado Counselor Asks U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Free Speech Case

Counseling for Sexual Identity Concerns: A Measured, Careful, and Compassionate Approach.

The Journey Back to My True Identity

New Video Equips Parents and Counselors to Help ‘Gender Dysphoric’ Children

Questioning Drugs, Hormones and Surgery for Youth Confused about Their Sexual Identity

The Shifting Ground of ‘Gender-Affirming Care’

Transgenderism and Minors: What Does the Research Really Show?

UK Bans Puberty Blockers for ‘Transgender’ Minors

U.K.’s Review of Child Gender Policy Reveals Profound Failures That U.S. Still Defends

What is ‘Gender Identity’

Even ‘Opting Out’ Option is a Cop Out and Steals Children’s Innocence

Tuesday’s oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court over controversial LGBT books in Montgomery County, Maryland schools contained numerous spirited exchanges between the justices and lawyers arguing the case.

The conservative majority appears poised to rule in favor of the parents and against the radical school administrators.

Mahmoud v. Taylor centers around the Maryland school district’s insistence on including homosexual propaganda in preschool through 12th grade language arts reading and instructional materials.

It should be noted they deliberately inserted the books into the language arts curriculum and not health and sexuality teachings because “opt-outs” are allowed in the latter.

Storybooks at the center of the dispute include “Pride Puppy,” “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” and “Prince and Knight.” In that last book, the prince “falls in love” with the knight and not the princess.

Eric Baxter, a lawyer representing the Christian and Muslim parents objecting to the school’s overreach, was blunt when expressing his objection. “You have children of an extremely young age being indoctrinated in a topic that’s known to be sensitive,” he said.

Justice Kavanaugh questioned why school officials wouldn’t allow for students and parents to “opt-out” of the teaching.

“The whole goal, I think, of some of our religion precedents, is to look for the win-win,” he said, “to look for the situation where you can respect the religious beliefs and accommodate the religious beliefs while the state or city or whatever it may be can pursue its goals.”

An attorney for the school district claimed making exceptions for some is a recipe for chaos, and a policy that is next to impossible to manage given limited time and space inside schools.

According to the Oxford-English Dictionary, the use of the term “opt-out” dates to 1962. It means to choose not to do something – as in moms and dads and students choosing not to listen to or read a children’s book that deliberately works to tell them what to think about the acceptability of same-sex relationships and marriages.

The deterioration of public schools is evidenced in the fact that parents in Maryland are not fighting anymore to not have this propaganda in their schools – but rather simply for the right to not have their children partake in the indoctrination.

Given the proliferation of progressives and mainstream acceptance of homosexuality, the “opt-out” route might be the most feasible and winnable way to win the battle – but it’s still a lousy ceding of morality and taxpayer rights.

Moms and dads shouldn’t have to pay for this propaganda, of course, but they also shouldn’t have to explain to their young children why they need to skip a class or book or classroom conversation. In fact, forcing parents to have to “opt-out” is a quiet and subtle win for radical activists. That’s because children talk – and when kids step out of a classroom or stay home, you can be sure they’re being asked or ridiculed by fellow students when they come back.

One of the greatest casualties in this ongoing culture war is the innocence of children. Young boys and girls shouldn’t be thinking about sex or same-sex relationships. They should be thinking about wholesome and inspiring things – like wisdom, kindness, honesty, humility, respect, generosity, and loyalty.

If they learn about puppies, they should be learning about the value and many benefits of dog ownership. If they’re talking about weddings, they should be learning about the importance of it as a sacred union of one man and one women and given examples of couples who have positively changed the world. Want to talk about princes and knights? Teach them about the Middle Ages or the virtues they defended and championed. 

Maryland parents are likely to win their right to “opt-out” by the end of June. Hopefully, the victory will also lead to school board members in Montgomery, Maryland, “opting-out” of running for reelection on the school board.

Supreme Court Sympathetic to Opt-Outs for LGBT Curriculum

On Tuesday, the United States Supreme Court appeared sympathetic to a group of religious Maryland parents asking to opt their children out of a mandated LGBT curricula at school.

The case is Mahmoud v. Taylor, and the plaintiffs are parents from diverse religious backgrounds in Montgomery County, Maryland, including Muslim, Catholic, Ukrainian Orthodox and Jewish families.

The families contend the school district’s policy, which exposes the students to LGBT curriculum without an opt-out provision, infringes on their First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion.

The parents maintain that the curriculum conflicts with their religious teachings on gender and sexuality and are asking the Court to require the school district offer an opt-out.

Background

In 2022, Mongomery County Public Schools in Maryland approved the use of several LGBT children’s books in preschool through 12th grade language arts curricula.

At first, parents were notified and given the option to opt their children out of that material. However, in 2023, the school district revised its policies, eliminating the opt-out option. due to “administrative challenges.”

In response, a multi-faith parent group sued the school board and the superintendent, arguing their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion was being infringed.

The parent group lost in both lower courts, which held that exposure to differing viewpoints in public education does not constitute a violation of religious freedom.

In January, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider the case and consider the following question: “Do public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out?”

Supreme Court Oral Argument

Oral arguments were heard on April 22, 2025. The conservative justices appeared sympathetic to the parents’ position, suggesting the lack of an opt-out provision could infringe on their religious freedom.

Justice Alito questioned whether exposure to storybook narratives burdens religious exercise by sending a clear moral message that some religious parents might find objectionable.

Justice Gorsuch was more narrowly focused on whether the school board’s actions demonstrated discrimination towards religious beliefs. He questioned if the lack of an opt-out provision indicated hostility towards religious parents.

Justice Kavanaugh was concerned about the importance of accommodating religious beliefs in education. He mentioned that the goal of the Court’s religious precedents is to look for a win/win situation where religious beliefs are respected and accommodated while the school district pursues its goals.

Justice Thomas questioned whether the books were merely in the room or being used as a teaching tool that would burden religious exercise by compelling student participation.

Justice Barrett’s questions focused on whether the material constitutes exposure or coercion, and Chief Justice Roberts emphasized the importance of neutrality and fairness, questioning whether the policy change shows a lack of respect for religious diversity.

The more liberal justices expressed concern that granting opt-outs might lead to widespread exemptions from the curriculum and undermine the district’s education efforts.

Implications

A ruling in favor of parents could set precedent for broader religious exemptions and expand parental rights in public schools. It could also establish precedent preventing districts from incorporating LGBT materials into subjects like ELA, which don’t usually include opt-out provisions

Alternatively, if a parent’s right to opt their children out of LGBT material is not required by the Court for language arts classes, it’s possible LGBT activists will expand their scope and influence through curricula in that subject nationwide.

The Supreme Court is expected to rule in this case by July 2025.

Image from Getty.