The pipeline from 'gay marriage' to radical trans ideology



This is part of an ongoing series on the relationship between the campaign for redefining marriage and trans activism.

"The greater acceptance of trans people is a huge step forward for all of us," writes prominent gay marriage advocate Andrew Sullivan in a recent New York Times opinion piece. "But abolishing the sex binary for the entire society? That’s a whole other thing entirely. And madness, I believe."

So no, Mr. Sullivan: Despite your rosy-colored memories of an earlier, more civil era of gay activism, you have no right to be surprised by the excesses of the trans rights lobby.

Sullivan is hardly alone among fellow LGBT activists in thinking that the movement with which he once identified has gone too far.

But the trans radicals are not so different from the “mainstream” that now disavows them. In fact, these trans radicals use tactics pioneered and perfected during the fight to redefine marriage.

Imposed tolerance

As one who defended (and continue to defend) marriage between a man and a woman as good public policy, I can only say this: We tried to tell you.

Mr. Sullivan's 1996 book "Virtually Normal" presented gay marriage as a modest demand for "formal public equality" before the law, while rejecting the "political imposition of tolerance" and "the regulation of people's minds and actions."

Ten years after Obergefell finally made this "equality" the law of the land, Sullivan is scandalized to find that the newly ascendent trans wing has no intentions of stopping there:

Dissenters from gender ideology are routinely unfriended, shunned, and shamed. Almost all of the gay men, trans people, and lesbians who have confided in me that … they think that J.K. Rowling or Martina Navratilova have some good points, have said so sotto voce lest anyone overhear. That’s the extremely intolerant and illiberal atmosphere that now exists in the gay, lesbian, and transgender space. This little community used to champion all manner of expression or argument or speech, eccentrics and visionaries. Now it’s fearful, self-censored, and extremely uptight.

Sullivan may be surprised that people in the “LGBT space” suppress dissent within their own ranks, but I'm not.

A history of harassment

Remember Brendan Eich, who donated $1,000 to the pro-marriage Proposition 8 campaign in 2008? Gay activists did not have a rational conversation with him. They harassed him so much that he had to resign from the company that he founded.

“Marriage equality” activists published interactive maps showing names and addresses of Prop 8 donors so they could be systematically doxxed. Anti-Prop 8 protesters surrounded the Mormon temple in Los Angeles and beat people to the ground. In the years since Prop 8, many people have become fearful for their jobs if they say anything that could be construed as “hateful.”

Welcome to our world, Mr. Sullivan. Some of us have felt “fearful, self-censored, and extremely uptight” for some time.

Free speech foes

We share Sullivan's alarm at ACLU lawyer and trans activist Chase Strangio's reaction to a book criticizing childhood transition: “Stopping the circulation of this book and these ideas is 100% a hill I will die on.”

But he loses us when he goes on to portray the gay rights movement as First Amendment champions. "If censorship was in the air, gay men and lesbians were the first to oppose it.”

That’s not how I remember it, Mr. Sullivan. Didn’t you know that gay activists pressured Amazon to remove books by authors like ex-gays Joe Dallas and therapist Joseph Nicolosi?

Maybe you forgot the time when the Log Cabin Republicans insisted that the pro-family group Mass Resistance be banned from a Conservative Political Action Conference meeting in 2018 because of its book “The Health Hazards of Homosexuality"?

I haven't forgotten. I wrote an article about the book and the controversy it sparked when it first came out in 2017. Amid the ubiquitous outcry, not one critic bothered to offer evidence countering even a single claim in the 600-page, meticulously footnoted book.

In 2020, gay activists succeeded in getting the book banned from Amazon, where it remains unavailable.

And so it is that much harder for people with same-sex attraction to access a resource providing accurate, albeit unpleasant, information about the medical and psychological risks associated with acting on those attractions. Is removing this book from the biggest book distributor in the world really a way of “treasuring” free speech?

RELATED: Gay marriage has a hidden cost — and children are paying the price

  Valerii Evlakhov/iStock/Getty Images

Live and let live?

Mr. Sullivan writes, “The gay rights movement, especially in the marriage years, had long asked for simple liberal equality and mutual respect — live and let live . ...We will leave you alone."

Baker Jack Phillips would dispute the “live and let live” claim. He did not challenge the legal right of same-sex couples to wed; he just didn't want to bake a cake celebrating that union. So in 2012, activists dragged him to court.

When the Supreme Court ruled in his favor, another activist dragged him back into court for not baking a cake to celebrate his "transition." Phillips' nightmare didn’t come to an end until 2024.

A new version of 'homophobic'

Despite his misgivings about the radical trans agenda, in his article, Mr. Sullivan uses the word "transphobic" without a hint of irony. It is a word meant to cast any disagreement with trans ideology as "hate."

It is the direct successor to the word "homophobic," which similarly attempted to discredit our objections to gay marriage. We learned that “hate” was the only possible reason anyone would disagree with such obviously correct views.

I should know. I ended up on the Southern Poverty Law Center’s hate list for my unacceptable, intolerant views that prioritize children’s rights to their parents over adults’ rights to feel good about themselves.

And who invented the term “heteronormative,” the (supposedly erroneous) belief that heterosexuality is normal? (News flash: Heterosexuality is normal, in all mammal species.) Perhaps the same person who later came up with “gender affirming care” as a euphemism for drugs and surgeries performed on perfectly healthy, though confused, young people.

So no, Mr. Sullivan: Despite your rosy-colored memories of an earlier, more civil era of gay activism, you have no right to be surprised by the excesses of the trans rights lobby.

I implore you to rethink your presumptions. Your tactics laid the groundwork for the trans movement. If you are sincerely appalled by their tactics (and I hope you are), I would appreciate an apology. I bet Brendan Eich, Jack Phillips, and the Mormon Church would, too.

But I’m just getting started. My next column will describe how “gay-friendly” policies set the stage for “trans-friendly” policies.

Tragic: Chip and Joanna Gaines' new show exploits 'forced motherlessness'



Chip and Joanna Gaines have been beloved by their Christian fans for years, but now they’re facing backlash for featuring a gay couple and their surrogacy-born sons on their new reality show “Back to the Frontier.”

The gay couple explained in an interview that they applied for the show in order to “normalize same-sex relationships,” but BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey believes it's much more than that.

“Their mission is to normalize forced motherlessness, which is the forcing of a child to live without their mother, and that is what is going on here, of course, and so they wanted to glorify that, they wanted to expand their platform so that more people could see this kind of relationship and more people could think, ‘OK, maybe a mom is unnecessary,’” Stuckey explains.

“‘Maybe a husband can become a wife, and maybe a dad can become a mom.’ I mean, it is functional transgenderism,” she continues. “Even if people aren’t actually identifying as the opposite sex, they are certainly identifying as the opposite gender role.”


The gay couple also claimed in the same interview that part of the reason they applied to be on the show was because they saw a flyer for the show with a gay couple in it.

“So that means, from the get-go, Magnolia Network along with HBO, they were trying to attract a gay couple. It's not one of those things where, ‘OK, they weren’t looking for that.’ They just stumbled upon this, you know, exceptionally charismatic couple, and they just said, ‘OK, we have to go with them,’” Stuckey says.

“That’s what they were looking for. And if you don’t think that Chip and Joanna had a say in that, or at least knowledge of that and confirmed that, then you’re crazy. Or maybe you just don’t understand the level of influence they have as the executive producers of this show,” she continues.

Stuckey not only takes issue with forced motherlessness but sees deep moral issues with surrogacy itself.

“You’re discarding all kinds of embryos, all so two men can do what God created them not to be able to do and that is have biological children without a mother that is raising them,” she says.

“This is a social experiment in which we are laying the well-being of children on the altar of adult desire, and there is nothing more disordered than that,” she continues, adding, “Demanding children who cannot consent to this motherlessness to sacrifice their innate needs, their biological longing for their mother in services to the disordered desires of adults.”

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Chip Gaines tells us not to judge — but we won’t pretend any more



Chip and Joanna Gaines are in hot water — not with the left, but with the same Christian conservative audience that made them household names. Why? Because their new reality show features a gay couple with two “adopted” children — portrayed in the warm, country-home aesthetic that defines the Gaines brand. They pronounce that this is family time well spent.

When backlash inevitably began, Chip Gaines took to social media to cool things down. His message varied from urging critics to “listen” and “learn” to censuring fellow Christians for “judg[ing] 1st, understand later/never,” lamenting how Christians are simply purveyors of “hate and vitriol.” Ultimately, he finally settled on being a victim.

Chip Gaines laments on social media that Christians are quick to judge and slow to listen — then immediately judges them as mean-spirited.

While the full social media drama is still unfolding, one thing Gaines notably did not say was, “I share your view on marriage and agree that normalizing a gay couple as a moral and healthy family structure is a problem." Instead, he criticized Christians for being “hateful,” boiling the Christian life down to one oversimplified command: “Don’t judge.”

Ah yes, that verse — the favorite verse of every smug libertine who treats quoting Matthew 7:1 as a theological mic drop.

“Don’t judge,” they proclaim, believing they’ve just checkmated their Christian sparring partner. But whenever someone pulls that verse out of his back pocket, it’s rarely after a rigorous exegesis. Usually, he's just dodging a moral reckoning.

Framing is never neutral

The issue here isn’t simply the presence of a gay couple on a TV show. It's the framing — a term woke professors love, so let’s indulge them.

If it truly isn't a big deal, Chip, then why intentionally feature a gay couple at all? Reality TV isn't a livestream of raw America; it’s carefully scripted and edited to send a particular message. In this case, the message isn’t neutral. It deliberately normalizes a version of family life where two men can “have” children and live as if their union mirrors traditional marriage.

But it doesn’t. And it can’t.

The liberal academics at a university like Baylor — which, not coincidentally, recently passed on a major LGBTQ+ grant after it got exposed in the press — will ask, “What’s wrong with visibility? We can’t pretend gay couples don’t exist.” But no one is pretending that. The real question is whether we must affirm, celebrate, and gloss over the serious consequences of a lifestyle in the name of diversity and inclusion.

LGBTQ advocates’ double standard

At the heart of the matter is the glaring contradiction in the LGBTQ worldview: the idea that nothing in nature is normative. LGBTQ advocates argue explicitly that just because every human is born from a male-female union doesn't mean society must follow this model. Yet in the next breath, they assert that their own sexual attractions are natural and thus morally compelling.

RELATED: Baptist college rescinds LGBTQIA+ grant after backlash; calls it inconsistent with views on human sexuality

  Dani VG via iStock/Getty Images

So nature is normative — when it suits their desires. But when nature reveals the fundamental design of human reproduction and family structure — one man, one woman, and children from that union — they claim it’s irrelevant..

You can’t have it both ways. Either nature reveals something about how we ought to live, or it doesn’t. This inconsistency shows that the LGBTQ worldview isn't a coherent moral philosophy. It boils down to the hedonistic mantra: “Do what thou wilt.”

The inner libertarian in all of us may be tempted to say, “Do what you want. It’s your life. You’ll live with the consequences.” But the moment you demand that society join your moral hallucination — to smile, applaud, and redefine reality — the stakes change.

And when children become involved, the stakes rise exponentially.

Commodifying children

Consider these children. We’re told they’re “just like any other family.” But are they? Were they adopted as orphans in need of care, or were they purchased, intentionally separated from their biological mother so that two men could simulate parenthood?

That’s what is being asked of us — not just acceptance of two men in love, but approval of a system where human beings become commodities, accessories for adults who want to “play family.” This moral sleight of hand rebrands child commodification as compassionate parenting. Ironically, the old-timely leftist professor would easily get three protests and a sit-in scheduled over this commercialization of human trafficking.

The kicker is that we can diagnose the problem without even cracking open a Bible. We don’t need to quote Romans 1 or Genesis 2 (though we should) to recognize that something is deeply wrong when society demands that we pretend children can have two dads and no mom, that what these men do to each other’s bodies is love, and that this is equal to God’s intended design.

Judgment is unavoidable

Christians voicing concern are told, “Don’t judge.” But judgment is unavoidable. The moment you choose which stories to tell, which couples to feature, and how to portray them, you’re making a judgment.

The real question is: Whose judgment are you endorsing?

Chip Gaines laments on social media that Christians are quick to judge and slow to listen — then immediately judges them as mean-spirited. But Jesus never said, “Don’t judge, period.” He instructed, “Judge rightly.” That requires discernment, courage, and a moral compass rooted in something deeper than social media applause.

Regardless of how this particular show unfolds, American Christians don't have to indulge another person's immorality or rebellion against nature and God. It’s the story of people exchanging the truth of God for a lie — and demanding that everyone else smile while they do it.

We’re not going to smile any more. And we’re certainly not going to pretend.

Gay marriage has a hidden cost — and children are paying the price



Ten years ago, a great injustice was done to children.

In Obergefell vs. Hodges, the Supreme Court equated two things that for children will never be equal: Same-sex and opposite-sex marriages. One pairing unites children with two people to whom they have a natural right. The other separates children from one — or both.

Gay marriage hasn’t led to greater love for LGBTQ adults but rather harm to children.

As many of us predicted, gay marriage eroded children’s right to their mother and father. It turns out, when you make husbands and wives legally optional in marriage, mothers and fathers become legally optional in parenthood.

Family redefined, kids sidelined

Since 2015, activists have been arguing state by state that equality requires making parenthood gender-neutral and elevating “social parents” (unrelated adults in the home who have not undergone background checks). Fathers have been legally erased from birth certificates to accommodate “two moms” and vice versa. Activists have insisted on requiring insurance or the government to fund the creation of fatherless and motherless children. Biology and adoption are bypassed in favor of “intent-based” parenthood. Giving same-sex couples equal access to the marital “constellation of benefits” denied children equal access to their own mother and father.

Politicians have followed suit.

RELATED: Rainbow rebellion: How Christians can take back what Pride Month stole

When was the last time you heard a lawmaker say that children need a mom and dad? Odds are, it's been about 10 years. In 2013-14, the phrase “every child deserves a mother and father” appeared in over 30 congressional speeches. By 2023-24, it surfaced fewer than five times.

The message is clear: Redefining marriage redefined the family. Dissent is now discrimination.

Culture followed the court

But it isn't just law and politics. The Supreme Court's decision had a massive impact on culture, especially on kids.

The education establishment went all in on the Court-appointed family makeover. Before 2015, the National Education Association still referred to “mothers” and “fathers” in lesson plans and holiday activities. But after the ruling, it began purging traditional language.

Its 2020 “Checklist to Support LGBTQ Students” advised teachers to replace “mom and dad” with “family” or “caring adult.” GLSEN’s 2016 re-release of Ready, Set, Respect! toolkit conditioned kindergartners and first- and second-graders to believe that a mom and dad, two moms, two dads, or no mom or dad, all are perfectly normal.

What the Court de-gendered in law, teachers now de-gender in the classroom.

Publishers followed the court’s lead — and the money.

In 2021, Americans bought nearly five million LGBTQ-themed fiction books. By 2023, that figure had topped six million, a 173% increase since 2019. Many aimed to normalize motherless and fatherless families to children such as "Heather Has Two Mommies" and "My Two Dads and Me."

We lied to children, using school curriculum and sweet librarians, about the one thing every child longs for instinctually — to be loved by their mother and father.

The culture shift and the legal restructuring contributed to a booming fertility market. Surrogate pregnancies more than doubled from 2.2% in 2011 to 4.7% in 2020. Fertility clinics often direct gay couples to surrogacy grants in the name of “equitable access to parenthood.”

These children did not lose their mothers to tragedy. They lost their mothers to adult “equality.”

Enough is enough

Many good-hearted Americans, even conservatives, supported gay marriage because they felt it was a way to love their LGBTQ neighbors. Some stammered for a response to the question: “How will my gay marriage harm anyone else?!” Others were bullied into silence by accusations that they were “on the wrong side of history.”

After 10 years, we have seen the results. Gay marriage hasn’t led to greater love for LGBTQ adults but rather harm to children.

The truth is, their “marriage” redefined all families, and children across the nation are paying the price. That so-called “right side of history” has turned out to be the side of child victimization.

RELATED: Is same-sex marriage about to get the Dobbs treatment?

About 50 years ago, the Supreme Court made a devastating decision that victimized children. It denied the biological reality that children in the womb are fully human and worthy of life. It took nearly 50 years to overturn the child-victimizing Roe v. Wade.

Ten years ago, the Supreme Court made another devastating decision that victimized children. It denied the biological reality that children come from a man and woman and have a right to that man and woman. It redefined the institution that every society throughout history has employed to unite children to that man and woman.

We can't wait another 50 years to undo this injustice.

A coalition of child defenders is rising — Christians, conservatives, parents, pro-family leaders, ordinary moms and dads, and the children of LGBT parents themselves. We are committed to reclaiming the institution of marriage on behalf of the most vulnerable in the country: children.

10 Years After Obergefell, It’s Even More Obvious It Should Be Overturned

Obergefell embarked us on yet another vast, untested experiment with marriage — and it is not going well.

Polish Voters Again Reject Liberal ‘Laboratory’ Candidate

The recent Polish election keeps conservative check on leftist prime minister and reflects Poles’ iron will.

‘We’ve seen the depravity’: Support for gay marriage hits an all-time low



A Gallup poll published on May 29 reveals that Republican support for same-sex marriage has hit a historic 30-year low — despite the global push to normalize and celebrate homosexuality.

Gallup began tracking this sentiment 29 years ago, and the data is suggesting that Republican acceptance after the initial court ruling may have been short-lived, as many conservatives have reverted to a traditional, biblical view of marriage.

According to the poll, only 41% of Republicans back same-sex marriage, which is down from 55% in 2021 to 2022. Meanwhile, 88% of Democrats believe gay marriage deserves the same validity as a marriage between a man and a woman.


When asked about moral acceptability, the divide between Democrats and Republicans is similar, with 86% of Democrats viewing same-sex relations as morally acceptable and 38% of Republicans who agree.

Two-thirds of regular church-goers reject same-sex marriage, showing that a majority of professing Christians continue to hold the biblical view that marriage is between a man and a woman.

“It makes so much sense why Republicans have moved the way that we have,” BlazeTV host Allie Beth Stuckey says on “Relatable.” “It doesn’t make sense why Democrats have moved the way that they have, because over the past few years there has been a movement to simply reveal the kind of indoctrination that is going on in schools.”

“We have seen the grossness and depravity of something like drag queen story hour, we have seen the propaganda books in school libraries that not only encourages kids to start thinking about their sexuality at a young age, but to start questioning if they are born in the right body,” she continues.

While the media attempted to portray homosexuality as two people of the same sex who simply wanted to get married to start a family and be able to be in the hospital when their loved one was sick — what we were sold and what we’ve gotten couldn’t be more different.

“We have watched it go from that depiction to men dressed in push-up bras and fishnet tights reading stories to children on the taxpayer dime,” Stuckey says, “and parents getting their children taken out of their custody so the state can allow the child to mutilate their genitals in the name of gender affirming care.”

“That happened really fast, so as we’ve seen the quickness and the destructiveness of the sexual revolution that has its crosshairs on children’s bodies and minds, of course people have started to say, ‘Huh, OK, maybe this whole sexual revolution wasn’t really about what they said it was about,’” she continues.

“So people have started to work their way backwards and see that when we decided that husbands and wives were interchangeable, that led to the idea that boys and girls are interchangeable, and it’s caused all of this confusion,” she adds.

Want more from Allie Beth Stuckey?

To enjoy more of Allie’s upbeat and in-depth coverage of culture, news, and theology from a Christian, conservative perspective, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Support for gay marriage trending downward, with Republican support polling at lowest since 2016



Republican support for gay marriage hit its lowest point in nearly a decade while Democrat support has never been higher.

In a new Gallup poll, Americans were asked if they thought "marriages between same-sex couples" should be recognized by law, with the same rights as traditional marriages. Only 41% of Republicans thought they should be, while a whopping 88% of Democrats said the marriages should be legal.

'Conservativism should begin with upholding God’s view of marriage between a man and a woman.'

The GOP numbers represented the lowest amount of support for same-sex marriage in the poll since 2016 when it was 40%, while in 2015 it was just 30%.

Democrats set a new record for themselves, though, and after losing a few percentage points the last couple of years, they increased the record responses from 2022, when the number was 87%.

The entirety of support among U.S. adults has slowly trended down from its 2022 peak of 71% support to 68% in 2025.

RELATED: Labeling you ‘phobic’ is how the left dodges real arguments

  Photo by: Lori Allen/NBC via Getty Images

Americans were also asked for their views on the "moral acceptability of same-sex relations," regardless of legality. Just 38% of Republicans deemed them morally acceptable, while 86% of Democrats polled agreed. Overall, 64% of U.S. adults deemed same-sex relations morally acceptable.

"If conservatives want to win, it’s time for them to start conserving," reporter Natasha Biase told Blaze News. "Conservativism should begin with upholding God’s view of marriage between a man and a woman."

Far more Republicans agreed with Biase 30 years ago than they do today, according to Gallup's historical polling. Data dating back to 1996 shows Republican support for the idea did not exceed one-in-five until 2010. Since then, it has steadily increased, including its peak support of 55% — the only majority — from 2021 to 2022. It has trended down since then.

RELATED: The sexual revolution enslaved us — here's how we break free

  A Filipino same-sex couple walks down the aisle in the Philippines in 2023. Photo by Ezra Acayan/Getty Images

Democrat support has had a less rocky incline. A majority of the party's voters have supported gay marriage since 2006. It dipped below 50% in 2005, after a majority in 2004, as well.

"I think this is happening because the slippery slope exists," Biase continued. "First, it was gay marriage, and now, it’s literal toddlers taking hormones because they think they are another gender."

Since 2022, Democrats and independents have slowly continued to increase their support, but the downturn for Republicans has been enough to decrease the national average.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Truth bomb: How Pope Leo XIV is exposing the left's greatest fear



Sorry (not sorry), progressives and liberal media: Pope Leo XIV isn't here to rewrite the gospel and edit the Bible to fit your agenda.

When Cardinal Robert Prevost became Pope Leo XIV, progressives exhaled in cautious hope. Maybe — just maybe — Leo would accelerate the Catholic Church's liberal evolution as the heir to Pope Francis' attitude of inclusion.

They want Christians who are obedient to the progressive, globalist overlords — not Christ.

But that hope is quickly turning to frustration as reality sets in: Pope Leo XIV isn't going to oblige liberals.

Take, for example, Pope Leo XIV's views on the LGBTQ agenda. Just hours after Leo became pope, the Guardian raised alarm (i.e., clutched pearls) after finding video of Leo standing against the progressive spirit of the age while endorsing biblical ethics on sexuality and life.

In that video, Pope Leo XIV condemned abortion, euthanasia, and LGBTQ ideology while observing how the mass media push an anti-Christian agenda.

"Western mass media is extraordinarily effective in fostering within the general public enormous sympathy for beliefs and practices that are at odds with the gospel – for example abortion, homosexual lifestyle, euthanasia," Leo said, before blasting the media for creating "sympathy for anti-Christian lifestyles choices" in such a way that "when people hear the Christian message, it often inevitably seems ideological and emotionally cruel."

But this is how the Guardian reported it: "Unearthed comments from new pope alarm LGBTQ+ Catholics."

In other words: A Catholic priest saying Christian things is problematic.

To be fair to progressives and the legacy media, I don't think they're personally upset at Pope Leo XIV (yet). After all, no one yet knows how he will lead the Catholic Church.

Instead, they're upset that Christianity still means something and that faithful Christians refuse to capitulate to their agenda.

They want a church that shifts with the spirit of the age. Christians who bow to cultural pressure. A religion that nods along with whatever the editors at the New York Times or MSNBC decide is morally right in 2025. They want the church to extract itself from its ancient roots. They want Christians who are obedient to the progressive, globalist overlords — not Christ.

Unfortunately for progressives, the Church does not exist to be a mirror of the age. It is a countersign pointing all to King Jesus, who sits at the right hand of the Father. It does not exist to affirm but to transform.

Not only are progressives upset because faithful Christians refuse to conform, but they're upset because the truth is a light that illuminates their lies.

Pope Leo XIV, then, is exposing the left's true enemy — God's truth — and their greatest fear: the disinfectant that wipes away their lies.

Take, for example, Pope Leo XIV's comments about gender ideology.

"It seeks to create genders that don’t exist, since God created men and women, and trying to confuse the ideas of nature will only harm families and individuals," he said in 2016. "This campaign, apparently, is going to create a lot of confusion and do a lot of harm. We mustn’t confuse the importance of family and marriage with what others want to create, as if it were a right to do something that isn’t."

In the era of cancel culture and progressive-enforced speech codes, these comments are not just controversial — they amount to dangerous "hate speech."

While Pope Leo XIV has not yet faced the full wrath of the progressive mob, his fidelity to traditional Christian ethics is a clear and present threat to the new religion of woke "inclusivity" in which dissension is branded as bigotry and hate.

The great irony, of course, is that as a faithful Christian leader, Pope Leo XIV is neither a bigot nor hate-filled. He preaches the gospel of Jesus Christ, which is rooted in biblical love — the only love that brings peace to our chaotic world.

But to a world that demands affirmation and acceptance of radically anti-Christian ideals, the love of Jesus Christ — which requires obedience and allegiance to his teachings — looks like hate. In this culture, truth sounds like violence and, as Pope Leo XIV himself said, conviction is rebranded as cruelty.

Perhaps, then, this will be Pope Leo XIV's greatest cultural transgression: He refuses to lie.

He doesn't pretend that men can become women. He doesn't endorse the idea that marriage can be anything but a faithful union between one man and one woman. He rejects abortion and the progressive erosion of the family unit. Under Pope Leo XIV's leadership, the cross will not be replaced with a rainbow flag.

Pope Leo XIV is a shepherd of God's truth, like it or not.

All Christians should be thankful. Because in an age when so many leaders bend to the whims of the culture wars or equivocate truth, Pope Leo XIV will do something truly countercultural: He'll stand on God's word.

Progressives wanted a puppet. Instead, they got a pope.

Trump’s enemies don’t campaign — they legislate from the bench



You’re watching nothing less than a judicial coup take place against Donald Trump’s administration and, by extension, the voters who supported him. To suppress a populist movement like those that won at the ballot box in 2016 and 2024, political operatives rely on institutions not directly accountable to the people.

During Trump’s first term, unelected intelligence officials, long-serving bureaucrats, and nanny-staters with decades-old security clearances became conduits for leaks between the special counsel’s office and the media.

Trump’s presidency is once again on the line. And here we are, stuck on the same ride. Anyone ready to get off?

When Attorney General Bill Barr moved to shut down the Russia collusion hoax, a new group stepped in. Unelected public health “experts” took the lead in shoving COVID-19 down our throats as the kept media amplified their every word.

Caving to that narrative ultimately led to Trump’s defeat in 2020. Now, another wave of unelected bureaucrats appear to be working to derail his triumphant second term — this time using a familiar line from the left: “The courts have spoken.”

For years, Republican leaders have largely accepted such proclamations without pushback. One example of this passive approach is the removal of prayer from public schools — a significant moment in the broader trend. But how did that happen?

It wasn’t the result of a policy from the Department of Education, which didn’t exist for another two decades. Instead, the shift began with the Supreme Court’s 1962 decision in Engel v. Vitale. The ruling applied what later became known as the Lemon test, which broadly interpreted the establishment clause of the First Amendment. According to the spirit of the age, that meant nearly any expression of religion not rooted in secularism faced constitutional challenges.

No American generation before ours would have signed off on these rulings at the ballot box. But once the courts handed them down, the public was expected to fall in line. In 1973, the Supreme Court delivered Roe v. Wade, effectively legalizing abortion nationwide — without a single vote cast by the people. It was a sweeping mandate, imposed from the bench.

In 1982, the court went farther. In Plyler v. Doe, justices declared that states must use taxpayer money to fund public education for children of illegal immigrants. Again, no vote, no debate — just a ruling.

Then came 2005. In Kelo v. New London, the court ruled that the government could seize private homes and farms, not for public roads or schools, but to hand over to private developers in the name of “economic development.” Would voters have approved that kind of land-grab? Of course not. That’s why the court stepped in and did it for them.

For decades, the courts laid the groundwork. Then came the breaking point: same-sex marriage. In United States v. Windsor (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges (2015), the Supreme Court overruled the will of tens of millions of voters. I was involved in those battles before Windsor — and I remember them clearly. We won 31 consecutive state referendums defining marriage as between a man and a woman. In California alone, over 8 million voters backed biblical marriage — on the same day Barack Obama won 60% of the statewide vote.

But the courts didn’t care. They stepped in and handed Democrats legal victories they could never have achieved through Congress or at the ballot box. Again and again, the judiciary gave Democratic causes the stamp of legitimacy, even as public support wavered.

If Democrats had been forced to legislate these changes, they would have paid the price. In fact, they did. After ramming through Obamacare, Democrats lost more than 1,000 federal, state, and local elections over the next three cycles.

Remember, the GOP controlled both chambers of Congress and the White House after the 2016 election — yet Obamacare survived untouched. Why? Because some on the political right prefer having issues to campaign on rather than solving them. It’s easier to grift off outrage than to govern with principle.

Which brings us to today: Trump’s presidency is once again on the line. And here we are, stuck on the same ride. Anyone ready to get off?

With a feckless, do-nothing Congress, real change will only come from Trump and his administration. Like it or not, he’s become our Abraham Lincoln — whether or not you want to see him on Mount Rushmore. And just as Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation, Trump may need to deliver his own version to free the public from the judicial class that continues to rule without consent.

Venezuelan drug lords have more of a right to step on the soil of America than an unborn baby right now. We cannot sustain a civilization like that, nor do we deserve to.