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.

MLB star reclaims the rainbow — then shatters a core leftist lie



It took only one Bible passage to expose the myth of leftist "tolerance."

On June 13, the Los Angeles Dodgers hosted their annual "Pride Night," a celebration of LGBTQ ideology and activism. As part of the special night, Dodgers players wore special-edition team caps featuring the Dodgers logo overlaid with rainbow colors.

Christians believe that Jesus is Lord of all creation — including over culture, identity, and sexuality.

Enter Clayton Kershaw, the teams's 10-time All-Star pitcher and committed Christian. He decided to add his own special touch to his cap. Inscribed next to the rainbow-colored team logo, Kershaw wrote: Gen. 9:12-16.

It was a subtle yet powerful reminder that the LGBTQ lobby does not own the rainbow — but God does.

Bible basics

The passage that Kershaw referenced on his cap points to one of the most famous stories in the Bible.

After God destroyed the earth with the flood, God made a covenant with his servant Noah and all creation in which he promised never again to destroy creation with the chaos waters. The sign of that covenant, God explained, is the rainbow.

Genesis 9:12–16:

And God said, “This is the sign of the covenant I am making between me and you and every living creature with you, a covenant for all future generations: I have placed my bow in the clouds, and it will be a sign of the covenant between me and the earth. Whenever I form clouds over the earth and the bow appears in the clouds, I will remember my covenant between me and you and all the living creatures: water will never again become a flood to destroy every creature. The bow will be in the clouds, and I will look at it and remember the permanent covenant between God and all the living creatures on earth.”

The Hebrew word for "bow" in Genesis 9 is the same Hebrew word that means a bow used in war and hunting. Interestingly, nearly every usage of the word in the Old Testament refers to the weapon, the only exceptions being in Genesis 9 and Ezekiel 1:28.

The meaning of the rainbow is significant: It's a sign of God's power, his promises, and his mercy — not personal pride in sin and anti-God ideologies.

Leftist (in)tolerance

Like clockwork, leftists (ironically) unable to coexist with people who disagree with them blasted Kershaw. One viral X post summed up their outrage.

"Clayton Kershaw will always be a Dodger great, but it’s things like this that make him a lot less likable. Just wear the hat. Be a tolerant Christian and accept that there are others who believe differently than you," the post reads.

The message behind the post is obvious: Submit. Shut up. Keep your Christianity to yourself.

This is the kind of "tolerance" leftists demand. It no longer means disagreeing respectfully or giving people space to live by their own reasonable convictions. In the leftist worldview, "tolerance" is a one-way street — and there's no room for any views but theirs.

Ironically, the demand for "tolerance" pretends that a double standard doesn't exist. While leftists want Christians to be tolerant of the LGBTQ agenda, they're simultaneously demonstrating intolerance for Christianity. Leftist "tolerance" is a core lie of the liberal agenda, and it's how you know the demand for "tolerance" from everyone else is not genuine.

Truth untamed

To modern leftists, "tolerance" is silence, compliance, affirmation, and total surrender — or else. The problem is that Christianity doesn't operate on these terms.

Faith in Jesus is not a hobby. It's an all-encompassing truth claim that changes literally everything. Christians believe that Jesus is Lord of all creation — including over culture, identity, and sexuality.

To be "tolerant" in the way that leftists demand — such as embracing, promoting, and affirming anti-God ideologies — would require Christians to reject the lordship of Jesus Christ. This "tolerance" guts Christianity of its moral clarity and truth claims, and it reduces Jesus to a private guru who never makes demands of us. And the "tolerant" Jesus that leftists imagine certainly never contradicts LGBTQ ideology.

But the real Jesus doesn't bend to the leftist agenda. Real Christianity bears witness to truth, speaks with conviction, and refuses to be muzzled. When God's truth is weaponized and his symbols are co-opted for anti-God ideologies, Christians must stand up and speak out with conviction, wisdom, and clarity.

That's exactly what Kershaw did. Leftists hate this because biblical truth spoken by bold Christians is both a light that illuminates leftist lies and a disinfectant that wipes them away.

Reclaim the rainbow

In this cultural moment, Christians live under constant pressure to compromise. Leftists love Christians who stay quiet, keep their heads down, and privatize their faith, but despise Christians who dare challenge the leftist agenda and stand up for biblical truth.

But Kershaw didn't back down. His simple protest reclaimed the true meaning of the rainbow, exposed the leftist double standard on "tolerance," and reminded Christians how to act courageously in a culture that looks down on biblical truth.

Let us follow Kershaw's lead.

Reclaim the rainbow. Boldly stand on God's truth. And never cower to leftist demands for "tolerance."

Did Christianity birth the trans craze? Exposing the left's shocking historical hit job



Every so often, an academic wrapped in the robes of theory decides to rewrite history — not to correct it, but to commandeer it.

The latest example comes from the Conversation, in which a University of Iowa scholar, Sarah Barringer, claims that Christianity has a “transgender” heritage. You heard that right: Saints who renounced the world to live in chastity and devotion are now being posthumously enlisted in a modern identity crusade they never chose.

The modern obsession with identity — splintering the self into ever-narrower categories — is antithetical to the Christian ethos.

Let's acknowledge the truth up front: There is no such thing as a “transgender saint.” There are saints who disguised themselves, fled arranged marriages, and shaved their heads and donned robes to live among men in monasteries because that was the only place they could escape danger, obligation, or temptation.

But calling this “transness” is like calling Joan of Arc gender-fluid because she wore armor. It’s historical trespassing and spiritual identity theft dressed up as scholarship.

Faith, not fluidity

Consider St. Eugenia, St. Euphrosyne, and St. Marinos.

They weren’t confused teenagers raised on TikTok and identity slogans but were devout individuals who, in a brutal and hierarchical world, did what they had to do to escape danger, avoid forced marriage, or pursue a life of monastic devotion. Dressing as a man wasn’t some statement about “true gender” or an inner identity waiting to be expressed. Rather, it was strategy and self-preservation.

More than anything, they chose the path of intense spiritual focus in a world that gave women few choices.

They weren’t rewriting Genesis or making statements about biology. They were rejecting the noise of their time — power, status, family expectations — to live lives of sacrifice and submission to God.

These saints didn’t “identify” as anything — but only with Christ.

Leftists can't comprehend it

To retrofit their stories into modern trans narratives isn’t just ahistorical — it’s grotesque. It’s a desecration of the very virtues they lived for: humility, chastity, obedience, and detachment from self. They weren’t looking inward to define themselves. They were looking upward to lose themselves.

That is the difference. That is what today’s leftist ideologues can’t comprehend, and it's why they have no right to co-opt these lives for their own agendas.

The argument hinges on a dishonest conflation. Barringer admits these stories were “morality tales,” symbolic journeys about rejecting the world and embracing God. Yet somehow rejecting arranged marriage becomes an early form of identity politics and running from Roman militarism becomes evidence of internalized gender non-conformity.

It’s the theological equivalent of reading "The Iliad" and diagnosing Achilles with toxic masculinity.

The saints in question lived in monastic communities that demanded celibacy and asceticism. They weren’t changing genders; they were erasing self — not affirming identity, but crucifying it. Their bodies were temples, not canvases for self-expression.

To call this "transgender" is to confuse spiritual transformation with a social rebrand. One seeks union with God, but the other seeks alignment with self.

Desecrating the dead

Therein lies the real tension. Christianity, at its core, is not about affirming the self. It’s about dying to it.

“I no longer live, but Christ lives in me,” the apostle Paul wrote (Galatians 2:20) — not “I live my truth.”

But the modern obsession with identity — splintering the self into ever-narrower categories — is antithetical to the Christian ethos. You are not your urges. You are not your emotions. You are a soul, and you are called to holiness like Jesus Christ.

The irony is laughable. The same scholars who sneer at scripture’s authority now claim ownership of its saints. They reject Christianity as bigoted and outdated, yet raid its tombs for ideological mascots. It's not a demonstration of reverence for Christianity's ancient saints, but an attempt to rewrite the past to control the present.

Let the saints rest

We can't pretend this is harmless. Redefining religious tradition to fit modern ideologies amounts to spiritual counterfeiting. It muddies doctrine, breeds confusion among believers, and turns the sacred into just another stage for performance politics.

If you want to find affirmation for trans identity, look to modern movements. Don’t twist the lives of ancient saints who had no concept of gender theory and would likely be horrified by what’s being done in their names.

Christianity welcomes the broken, the wounded, the uncertain — but not by sanctifying confusion.

So no, Christianity does not have a transgender heritage. It has a long and rich tradition of souls rejecting worldly labels to pursue something higher than themselves. That’s not a forerunner to modern identity politics. It’s the antidote to it.

Let the saints rest. Let the church speak. And let the past remain sacred.

A child’s ‘secret weapon’ against LGBTQ indoctrination in schools



When BlazeTV host Steve Deace of the "Steve Deace Show" was jokingly asked to write a children’s book mocking the Pride movement, a light bulb flashed in his mind.

“I actually went home that night and kind of wrote out a loose outline and then worked on it for the next few months from there, and what you have now is the finished product, ‘Richie Meets the Rainbow,’” Deace tells BlazeTV host Stu Burguiere on “Stu Does America.”

The book centers on a young boy named Richie, who goes to school to find “the rainbow-fisted teacher with the blue hair and the nose ring who was there to indoctrinate them.”

“Except Richie has a secret weapon,” Deace explains. “He’s got a dad. And so he goes home, and instead of saying, ‘Shut up, son, I’m watching the game,’ Dad says, ‘You know what, I can pause the game, son.’”


That’s when Richie’s dad shows him the Bible and walks him through the true story of the rainbow.

“He wants his son to know that, quote, ‘unrepentant savages’ have co-opted this with the intent of brainwashing him and future generations, and he’s going to do something that also is not very prevalent in today’s culture. His dad’s going to get active and going to be a constant force at the school board meeting to make sure ... that the voiceless have a voice in him, and set the example,” Deace says.

“That’s how Richie is saved from the demonic school system,” he continues.

While it’s written as a children’s book, it’s actually meant for adults to truly understand what is going on within the school system and leftist indoctrination — and how to stand up and stop it.

“If you’re not a communist, they treat you like you’re a fascist, racist, misogynist, xenophobic, homophobic bigot anyway, so you might as well earn their scorn,” he adds.

Deace had unsurprisingly struggled to get the book published.

“There weren’t a lot of people anxious to publish this. I had to actually publish this book on my own for the first time,” Deace explains. “I had to go to Hungary, Stu, to hire an illustrator that would actually draw this book for me.”

“Not a lot of people, even on the right, anxious to tell this story, which probably tells you one of the reasons why we’re in the position on the right we’re currently in,” he adds.

Want more from Stu?

To enjoy more of Stu's lethal wit, wisdom, and mockery, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

USA Today defends Simone Biles in Riley Gaines feud



Former swimmer Riley Gaines has proven herself to be a fierce advocate for women in sports, and her reaction to a Minnesota high school softball team’s championship win sparked a massive debate on social media.

Gaines alleged the transgender pitcher, Marissa Rothenberger, gave the team an unfair advantage.

Olympic gymnast Simone Biles doesn’t share Gaines’ concern.

“@Riley_Gaines_ You’re truly sick, all of this campaigning because you lost a race. Straight-up sore loser,” Biles wrote in a post on X. “You should be uplifting the trans community and perhaps finding a way to make sports inclusive OR creating a new avenue where trans feel safe in sports. Maybe a transgender category IN ALL sports!!”


“But instead ... You bully them ... One thing’s for sure is no one in sports is safe with you around,” she added.

“This is actually so disappointing. It's not my job or the job of any woman to figure out how to include men in our spaces. You can uplift men stealing championships in women's sports with YOUR platform. Men don't belong in women's sports and I say that with my full chest,” Gaines responded.

USA Today appears to be taking Biles' side in the debate, with one of its columnists Nancy Armour defending Biles, claiming in an opinion piece that there’s “no scientific evidence that transgender women athletes have a physical advantage over cisgender women athletes.”

And while the statement appears silly to anyone who understands the very real difference of strength between men and women, very few important voices are willing to die on that hill in the midst of cancel culture.

Which is why it was over a decade ago that Serena Williams publicly admitted to the difference.

“Men’s tennis and women’s tennis are completely almost two separate sports. So like if I were to play Andy Murray, I would lose 6-0, 6-0, in five to six minutes, maybe 10 minutes,” Williams said on the "Late Show with David Letterman" in 2013. “The men are a lot faster, and they serve hotter, they hit harder. It’s just a different game.”

BlazeTV host Pat Gray is shocked to hear it from Williams.

“That is from the number one women’s player in the world,” Gray says on “Pat Gray Unleashed.” “And she knows all of that because she got beat by the 203rd ranked man in the world when she was at the top of her game.”

Want more from Pat Gray?

To enjoy more of Pat's biting analysis and signature wit as he restores common sense to a senseless world, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Don't be fooled: Why the Pride Month 'surrender' is another corporate lie



Something fascinating is happening in corporate America.

According to data from Gravity Research, 39% of corporations are scaling back external Pride Month engagements in 2025, a sharp increase from last year, when only 9% backed off. Only four NFL teams changed their logos to mark Pride this June, with most remaining silent.

Corporations didn’t back away from Pride because of conviction but calculation.

But here’s what makes this particularly interesting: Corporate Pride Month activism isn’t some long-standing American tradition. It’s a very recent phenomenon that represents a dramatic departure from how businesses operated for most of our nation’s history.

Corporate America’s enthusiastic embrace of Pride Month only became widespread in the last decade.

Before 2010, you’d be hard-pressed to find Fortune 500 companies plastering rainbow logos across social media, celebrating drag queens, or embracing “queerness.” This wasn’t because companies opposed LGBTQ individuals — but rather because they understood something fundamental: Corporations exist to provide goods and services, not to take positions on deeply personal matters of sexuality and identity.

The data: Americans want corporate neutrality

Recent polling reveals that corporate Pride Month activism was never as popular as media coverage suggested.

According to the consulting firm Weber Shandwick, 72% of consumers and 71% of employees expect political neutrality in the workplace. In a Pew Research Center survey, 48% said it was either “not too important” or “not at all important” for companies to make public statements on social issues, compared to 41% who thought it was important.

These numbers reveal a fundamental disconnect between corporate behavior and consumer preferences. While companies competed to demonstrate progressive credentials, nearly half of American consumers preferred businesses stay out of social and political issues entirely.

The traditional understanding: Sexuality is a private matter

For most of American history, corporations and society operated under a simple principle: Sexuality is a private matter.

This was based on practical wisdom about what makes for a functioning society and a successful business.

Successful companies in the past focused on product quality, customer service, and employee performance. They didn’t make customers’ private lives part of their brand identity. A bakery sold bread, a bank managed money, and a sports team played games. Personal relationships and sexual behavior weren’t part of the public conversation.

This approach served everyone well. Employees could focus on work without having private lives become matters of public scrutiny. Customers could purchase goods without navigating their provider’s stance on intimate matters.

When sexuality remained private, it retained dignity and personal meaning that gets lost when it becomes part of public performance and corporate branding.

When corporations became activists

The transformation of corporate America into an activist force regarding sexuality represents a fundamental shift. Historically, Fortune 500 companies practiced strategic framing and calculated positioning rather than deep ideological convictions.

By 2020, it seemed almost impossible to find a major corporation that wasn’t actively promoting Pride Month or taking public positions on transgender issues. The pressure for conformity was intense. Companies that didn’t participate risked being labeled discriminatory and being attacked, either online or physically.

But this represented something unprecedented in American business history. Never before had companies so systematically promoted particular views about sexuality, marriage, and gender identity.

This wasn’t about equal treatment under company policy; it was about the active promotion and celebration of specific sexual behaviors and identities.

The hidden costs of corporate activism

Unfortunately, business leaders failed to anticipate the substantial hidden costs of sexual activism. DEI initiatives often grew outside central compliance functions, creating legal risks.

According to employment attorney Michael Elkins, companies face “a catch-22”: uncertainty between “the fear of getting sued for having a program or the fear of getting taken to task by eliminating the program.”

Research shows diversity training programs — a cornerstone of corporate activism — often fail spectacularly.

"The positive effects of diversity training rarely last beyond a day or two, and a number of studies suggest that it can activate bias or spark a backlash," explains the Harvard Business Review.

Yet, companies spend millions on these ineffective programs.

Additional costs include compliance expenses; legal review; employee relations issues when activism conflicts with worker values; management time diverted from core business; and reputational risks.

By contrast, those companies that maintain appropriate boundaries can avoid these costs and focus these and other resources on their mission.

The market backlash

The corporate retreat is also the result of the market finally imposing discipline on misguided activism.

Anheuser-Busch InBev lost a total of $1.4 billion in sales due to the backlash it received over its partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer. In addition, AB InBev’s stock fell 20% and the Mexican-brewed Modelo Especial dethroned Bud Light as America’s top-selling beer, a title that Bud Light had held for over two decades.

Target faced similar financial and reputational consequences and this year has either moved Pride Month products to a less-trafficked area of the store or removed them altogether, citing worker safety concerns.

These weren’t just minor market adjustments — they represented massive consumer rejection of corporate sexual activism.

Why 'but companies have always taken stands' misses the point

Critics argue that companies have always taken social positions, but this misunderstands what’s different about this “celebration.” Historical corporate social engagement focused on broadly supported community issues: education, disaster relief, economic development, and patriotism.

What’s unprecedented here is the systematic promotion of specific views about sexuality and gender identity.

The argument that this retreat is a temporary political positioning misses the deeper dynamics taking place. As Forbes contributor Alicia Gonzalez noted, “The corporate retreat in DEI issues is coming from the same companies that swore five years ago that diversity and inclusion were deeply held values. As soon as the political winds changed, they backtracked.”

This reveals that corporate activism was based on perceived social pressure — not genuine conviction.

Building long-term change

If approached strategically, the corporate retreat creates an opportunity for decency to be restored to civil society.

Consumer action works. Boycotts against Bud Light and Target led eight other companies to abandon DEI policies, including Tractor Supply Co., which lost $2 billion in less than a month.

Consumers should actively support businesses that maintain an appropriate focus on their core mission. In addition, consumers must research companies’ positions before purchasing and choose only those that avoid divisive positions. Customers should extend this action beyond boycotts by providing positive support for businesses operating according to traditional principles.

Business leaders must return to serving customers effectively, rather than advancing social causes. Companies maintaining institutional focus avoid legal, financial, and reputational risks.

Finally, investors should question whether investing according to Environmental, Social, and Governance scores measured by how much divisive social activism the company embraces actually serves shareholder interests. Financial losses at companies like Anheuser-Busch demonstrate that catering to social activist demands will destroy shareholder value rather than create it.

Restoring institutional focus

What’s at stake isn’t just corporate messaging but the nature of the social contract.

The traditional American approach favored institutional focus and neutrality. Schools educated children, businesses provided goods and services, sports leagues entertained fans. These institutions were able to serve everyone, no matter their background or political stance, because their mission and business model didn’t require agreement on controversial personal matters.

When every institution promotes particular views about sexuality and gender, people with traditional values can’t fully participate in public life.

Restoring institutional focus benefits everyone, with LGBTQ individuals judged on performance rather than sexual identity, people with traditional values not forced to choose between convictions and participation, and institutions focused on their core functions.

The opportunity before us

Pride organizations nationwide now face sponsorship challenges. San Francisco Pride has a $200,000 budget gap, Kansas City’s KC Pride lost $200,000 (half its budget), and New York’s Heritage of Pride needs $750,000 after corporate withdrawals.

This suggests that corporate Pride Month activism was never sustainable. Market forces have provided a correction that political pressure couldn’t achieve.

Now, the goal must be to rebuild a culture where institutions serve proper functions — and personal matters remain private.

Success requires market discipline, which means consistently rewarding appropriate focus while imposing costs on divisive activism. Recent conservative boycotts have worked. As Suzanne Bowdey notes, “For once, Americans are making companies think twice about their extreme politics.”

Combined with legal frameworks protecting institutional neutrality, this moment could restore proper relationships between public institutions and private life.

The data suggests that most Americans are ready for change. The question is whether we’ll build something lasting or celebrate temporary victories while ignoring underlying problems. Corporations didn’t back away from Pride because of conviction but calculation. They never had principles, just profits. When the pressure lifts, they’ll go right back to what they did before as if nothing has changed.

If we want lasting change, it has to be built on truth — not trends.

This article is adapted from an essay originally published at Liberty University's Standing for Freedom Center.

Behind the rainbow curtain: Who is funding the trans agenda targeting kids?



It’s been a while since Americans could actually sit back and enjoy June. Now, instead of bumping into rainbows in every aisle and choking on the colored logos of every conceivable brand, there’s some freedom from the suffocating fumes of Pride Month.

In these last two years, the march to pull companies back to neutral has outperformed everyone’s expectations. But in this process of rolling back decades of corporate wokeism, one thing is clear: This isn’t over. No matter how much success conservatives have, not everyone will go quietly.

The biggest mistake any of us can make is believing we’ve won. Because a single dollar in the wrong hands is a weapon.

When it comes to LGBT activism, some businesses are playing for keeps.

While most of this week’s coverage seems to be about who isn’t joining the parade, there’s a proud contingent of CEOs who have no intentions of backing off their radicalism.

To those who would shrug and say, “It’s just a few splashy logos. What’s the big deal?” the reality is much more sinister. This isn’t about slapping a few Progress flags outside headquarters or queering the "Sesame Street" puppets. It’s about financing a dangerous enterprise to keep children in bondage and parents in the dark.

The corporate darling of this year’s celebration, the Trevor Project, isn’t just another rah-rah LGBT crusader. Billed as a youth suicide prevention organization, one look under the hood shows that this group is anything but uncontroversial. And yet sponsors are lining up to finance the group — to the tune of millions of dollars.

The heavy hitters, who are giving more six-figure donations, are mostly familiar names: Macy’s, Petco, Abercrombie & Fitch, Pure Vida, Guess Watches, Kohl’s, Lululemon, MAC Cosmetics, and a collection of lesser-known brands.

A lot of these businesses will ring a bell, simply because they’ve been stubbornly clinging to their LGBT alliances through months of nationwide backlash (along with headstrong lefties at Levi’s, Converse, and Nike).

RELATED: Humbled 'Pride': Target, Apple, and Disney among companies scaling back annual LGBTQ sale-a-bration

Jeffrey Greenberg/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Interestingly, the brands that are listed as year-round Trevor Project partners also happen to rank the highest on the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index. With a few exceptions, almost every company that submitted its information to HRC earned a perfect score — meaning these companies are completely on board with transgender insurance coverage and benefits, gender-neutral restrooms and dress codes, and preferred pronoun usage, as well as LGBTQ hiring quotas, non-discrimination standards, sensitivity trainings, recruitment efforts, community outreach, philanthropic support, and lobbying on local, state, and federal issues.

In other words, the hardest of the hard-core:

  • $1 million: Abercrombie (100%), Lululemon, Macy’s (100%)
  • $500,000: AT&T (100%), Deloitte (100%)
  • $250,000: Coca-Cola (100%), Gen Digital (100%), Gilead (100%), Harry’s, Hot Topic Foundation, Jingle Jam, Sephora (100%), MAC Cosmetics, Procter & Gamble, Rare Beauty, the Game Company
  • $100,000: David Yurman, Delta Air Lines, Delta Dental, Dolce Vita, FedEx (85%), Forever 21, H&M, Humble Bundle, Kate Spade, Kohl’s (100%), Lemonade, Makeship, Maybelline, National Education Association, Native, NFL, OPI, Pair of Thieves, Petco (95%), Saks Fifth Avenue, United Airlines (100%), Wells Fargo (100%), Williams-Sonoma (90%), XBox

And while the Trevor Project claims to be harmlessly dedicated to “advocacy, education, and crisis support for LGBTQ+ young people,” it’s the nature of that advocacy and education that should disturb Americans.

For starters, this is a group that, just three years ago, was exposed for stealthily grooming children online. A suspicious mom, whose daughter struggled with gender dysphoria, logged on to the organization’s TrevorSpace chat room to see what kind of advice she was getting — and was horrified at the graphic and disturbing nature of the site.

She sent the screenshots to National Review. They are a “Pandora’s box” of "sexually perverse content, aggressive gender reassignment referrals, adults encouraging minors to hide their transitions from their parents, and many troubled kids in need of psychological counseling." Like most moms, she said she’d turned to the Trevor Project in “desperation.”

"I thought my child was going to kill herself," she admitted.

“In TrevorSpace,” NRO explains, “she got a bird’s-eye view of the progressive non-profit giant that is claiming to save young lives but is really driving them further into existential rabbit holes, depravity, and potential danger.”

At one point, “Rachel then dove into an abyss of concerning sexual conversation. Some transgender-identifying adults confessed in detail their [fantasies and deviances].” In some cases, “users under 18 spoke with adult users about their sexual preferences, including BDSM, polyamory, and others.”

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

AndreyPopov/iStock/Getty Images Plus

Equally as disturbing, the Trevor Project has its hooks in countless K-12 classrooms across the country with its so-called “resources for educators and school officials, including the Is Your School LGBTQ-Affirming? checklist and Creating Safer Spaces in Schools for LGBTQ Young People, which can help determine whether a school is adequately supporting LGBTQ+ students.”

The website “also offers several educational guides for adults working with LGBTQ+ young people, including the Guide to Being an Ally to Transgender and Nonbinary Youth, How to Support Bisexual Youth, and Preventing Suicide.”

“We’ve increased our efforts in public education,” the project’s website brags — and that’s exactly what parents should be afraid of. The group’s resources include a Model School Policy Booklet that it distributes to “ally” teachers, counselors, and volunteers across the country.

Among other things, it urges educators to hide information about students’ sexual orientation or gender identity from parents:

  • “Information about a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity should be treated as confidential and not disclosed to parents, guardians, or third parties without the student’s permission. In the case of parents who have exhibited rejecting behaviors, great sensitivity needs to be taken in what information is communicated with parents.”
  • “While parents and guardians need to be informed and actively involved in decisions regarding the student’s welfare, the school mental health professional should ensure that the parents’ actions are in the best interest of the student (e.g., when a student is LGBTQ and living in an unaffirming household).”
  • “In the case of parents who have exhibited rejecting behaviors, great sensitivity needs to be taken in what information is communicated with parents. Additionally, when referring students to out-of-school resources, it is important to connect LGBTQ students with LGBTQ-affirming local health and mental health service providers. Affirming service providers are those that adhere to best practices guidelines regarding working with LGBTQ clients as specified by their professional association (e.g., apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/guidelines.aspx).”

These are the kind of anti-parent zealots Macy’s, Abercrombie, Petco, and others are donating your June dollars to. Sometimes it’s 10% of the purchase price. Other times it’s the change you round up.

But whatever the amount, it’s fueling a team of ideologues intent on destroying America’s children — and keeping it a secret while they do.

Don’t get me wrong. This country should be jubilant about all it has accomplished. Robby Starbuck and other activists who have been fighting this war before most people knew we were in one deserve medals. But the biggest mistake any of us can make is believing we’ve won. Because a single dollar in the wrong hands is a weapon.

And the pain, thousands of parents and their young patients will tell you, lasts a lifetime.

This article is adapted from an essay that was first published at the Washington Stand.

The lie that launched a thousand riots



For decades, academic leaders insisted on "neutrality" when it came to life’s most important questions — whether God exists, what defines the highest good, and how to live a virtuous life. But that neutrality was always a ruse. Now the roof is caving in.

In Los Angeles, rioters burn police cars, wave foreign flags, and earn praise from elected officials who call them “peaceful demonstrators.” These aren’t isolated incidents. They reflect the long-term effects of a philosophy cultivated on campus and subsidized by taxpayers.

The neutrality myth has run its course. The wolves are no longer pretending to be sheep.

The recent unrest didn’t appear out of nowhere. It’s the predictable bloom of a poisonous seed — one we let grow under the false belief that the First Amendment demands silence in the face of subversion. It doesn’t. And this strategy from America’s enemies didn’t begin last week. It’s been unfolding for decades.

Attacking the American order

Arizona State University, the nation’s largest public university, offers a snapshot of the broader national crisis. It imports professors from elite graduate programs and churns out activist graduates steeped in a worldview that condemns the United States as irredeemably evil.

Look at the student organizations ASU endorses — like MEChA, whose stated mission reads like a political ultimatum:

“[We] devote ourselves to ending settler colonialism, anti-Black racism, heteronormativity, borders and prisons because our liberation does not exist until these legacies of colonization are abolished.”

In 2024, ASU suspended the campus chapter of the far-left Movimiento Estudiantil Chicano de Aztlán — and only suspended them — after the group declared, “Death to the ‘Israeli’ entity! Death to the ‘American’ entity! Long live Palestine! Long live Turtle Island!”

("Turtle Island" refers to a Native American creation myth that North and Central America rest on the back of a giant turtle.)

Despite the suspension, MEChA remains listed as an active club on campus. The group still enjoys faculty support.

This isn’t about revising reading lists or replacing Shakespeare with indigenous poetry. “Decolonizing the curriculum” masks a much larger goal: revolution. This is a coalition of radicals — communists, LGBTQ+ activists, pro-Mexico nationalists, anti-Semitic “Free Palestine” organizers, land acknowledgment militants, and Islamist groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations — who align not because they share values, but because they share a target: the American constitutional order and its Christian foundations.

And yet naïve liberals and sentimental Christians often fall for the rhetoric. These groups invoke empathy, community, and sacrificial love — virtues rooted in the Christian tradition. But they weaponize those virtues. They wear sheep’s clothing to cloak their wolfish designs.

Rather than reform through representation, they aim to abolish representative government entirely. They don’t seek equality before God; they demand a transfer of power — to a Native tribe, to Mexico, or to some vague utopia where oppression has been deconstructed out of existence and LGBTQ sex litters every street corner.

That may sound absurd. It is. Mexico, after all, functions under cartel rule and bleeds citizens who risk everything to escape. But revolutions don’t require coherence. Absurdity often accelerates them. These movements aren’t governed by logic or principle. They run on resentment — the fury of those who believe life cheated them.

What the moment demands is moral clarity. That begins with rejecting the lie of neutrality.

Neutral education is a lie

A “neutral” education doesn’t exist. Every curriculum is built on a view of the “good life.” Every professor teaches from a vision of what humans are and what we are meant for. When we allowed universities to abandon the pursuit of wisdom and virtue — to stop teaching that God created us and that our rights come from him — we didn’t establish neutrality. We created a vacuum — and radicals rushed in to fill it.

As a professor, I’ve seen firsthand how godless academics wield the First Amendment as both shield and sword. They argue that “free speech” protects those who seek to dismantle the very system that guarantees that right, while insisting those same protections exclude Christian ideas from the classroom.

But the Constitution doesn’t require taxpayers to subsidize sedition. Nothing compels a university to hire professors who publicly call for the abolition of the American republic.

RELATED: Academia fuels the fire that torched Jewish grandmothers in Boulder

Photo by Jacek Boczarski/Anadolu via Getty Images

This isn’t about banning ideas. People can believe whatever they want. But taxpayers shouldn’t be forced to underwrite the education of young Americans in philosophies that teach them their country is an imperial cancer.

If a professor wants to advocate abolishing the United States, let him do it honestly. Declare it on the syllabus. Reject public funding. And stop pretending any of this qualifies as neutral education.

A little truth in advertising would go a long way. Imagine just a few basic reforms.

Preparation: Professors should demonstrate a grasp of foundational truths — about God, goodness, virtue, wisdom, and the greatness of the U.S. Constitution. Anyone who denies these basics has no business teaching at a taxpayer-funded institution. Private universities exist for that. Once upon a time, American universities valued this knowledge, often requiring courses in natural theology for all students.

Transparency: Require state-employed professors to disclose if their courses promote a political or ideological agenda — especially one hostile to the principles on which this country was founded.

Accountability: Tie public funding to standards that reflect the values of the citizens footing the bill. That includes respect for the rule of law, representative government, and the God-given rights enshrined in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

Reform: Restore universities that teach what used to be obvious — that God is our Creator and knowing Him is the highest good of human life. State dollars come with strings. Those strings should include love of God and country.

That last point may sound idealistic, but it’s far more grounded than the utopian fantasies now taught with your tax dollars. It takes human nature seriously. It acknowledges the need for redemption, the pursuit of virtue and wisdom, and the moral order built into creation.

It’s time for students, parents, donors, governors, pastors — and yes, President Donald Trump — to recognize what the Los Angeles riots truly represent: not just political unrest, but philosophical collapse. The neutrality myth has run its course. The wolves are no longer pretending to be sheep. They’re outside your child’s classroom, dressed in regalia, holding a metaphorical Molotov cocktail.

Enough pretending. The time for reform has come.

Pride Month is on the run. Here’s how to finish the job.



For years, the stroke of midnight on June 1 triggered a corporate and bureaucratic avalanche of rainbow flags across America. Logos changed colors overnight. Government agencies raced to outdo each other in their displays of “inclusion.” From Walmart to the Pentagon, one message rang loud: Dissent from the LGBT agenda would not be tolerated.

This year tells a different story.

Conservatives tend to back off once momentum swings their way. They declare victory, let up, and give the left room to regroup. That reflex must end.

Pride Month 2025 has limped into view. The rainbow wave has receded quite a bit. Now is the time to send it packing — permanently.

The evidence lines up. Target, still smarting from last year’s boycott, scaled back its displays. Other major retailers stayed quiet. Their social media teams left June’s usual fanfare on the cutting-room floor. Under the Trump administration, government agencies that once issued rainbow-laced press releases now operate under strict orders to stand down.

The tone of the country has changed. Americans have grown tired of relentless cultural propaganda, and corporations — always sensitive to backlash — have noticed. When the incentives shift, so does the behavior.

This change marks a win. But it also poses a risk.

Conservatives tend to back off once momentum swings their way. They declare victory, let up, and give the left room to regroup. That reflex must end. The left doesn’t retreat — it regathers. Letting up now guarantees a resurgence later. We have Pride Month on the run. We need to chase it out of public life.

Don’t mistake temporary silence for surrender. The left hasn’t abandoned its agenda. School boards still promote radical curricula. Teachers’ unions haven’t backed down. Cultural elites remain committed to enforcing a worldview that blends LGBT ideology with abortion politics — united by their rejection of divine order. They’re wounded, not defeated. And this is the moment to press the advantage.

Victory doesn’t come from symbolic wins. It comes from sustained action.

Step one: We need bold churches. Pastors must speak clearly and unapologetically about what Scripture teaches. Romans 1:26-27 speaks plainly about rebellion against God’s design. The pulpit isn’t a platform for public relations — it’s a battleground for truth. If pastors go silent, congregations scatter.

We need men like Daniel, who stood firm in the midst of a corrupt regime and “resolved that he would not defile himself” (Daniel 1:8). A culture in crisis needs shepherds with spine.

If your pastor never addresses these issues, urge him to do so. The flock needs clarity. The country needs truth.

Step two: Congregations must reject the lie that LGBTQ ideology is normal. It isn’t. From Genesis to Revelation, Scripture defines humanity as male and female and defines marriage as a covenant between one man and one woman. That’s not hate. That’s clarity.

Loving your neighbor doesn’t mean affirming sin. It means telling the truth with compassion — just as Jesus did when he told the woman caught in adultery, “Go, and from now on sin no more” (John 8:11).

Normalizing sin isn’t kindness. It’s cruelty.

Churches must function as sanctuaries of truth, not echo chambers for cultural conformity.

Step three: Take the fight to the institutions.

Run for school board. Run for city council. Run for state legislature. Support candidates who oppose the LGBTQ agenda and the abortion movement without apology. These aren’t separate fights — they’re two limbs of the same ideology. Both elevate the self above Scripture. Both distort what God created.

We need leaders like David, who stood before Goliath and said, “You come to me with a sword ... but I come to you in the name of the Lord” (1 Samuel 17:45). That spirit must guide our political efforts.

RELATED: How Christians can take back what Pride Month stole

Lindsey Nicholson/UCG/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Every seat counts. Every school board, council, and committee sets policy that shapes culture. Leaving them uncontested means surrendering the ground our children stand on.

This is the moment. The left is reeling. Pride Month isn’t gone, but it’s staggering. We hold the high ground. We hold the truth. And we serve the God of whom the psalmist declares, “The Lord is my strength and my shield” (Psalm 28:7).

So hold the line.

Don’t compromise. Don’t wait. Don’t hand back what you’ve reclaimed.

Chase this agenda from our churches, our classrooms, and our public institutions.

Pride Month is on the run.

Finish the job.

No apologies: How Christians can stop the liberal takeover without compromise



At a time when the church needs conviction, Fuller Theological Seminary has chosen compromise.

For over a year, Fuller Theological Seminary deliberated its views on sexuality. The school, one of the largest evangelical seminaries in the U.S., has long affirmed the historical Christian, biblical position on sex and marriage: that marriage is a covenantal union between one man and one woman, that sex is reserved for that one-flesh union, and that sex outside marriage is sin.

Rejecting God's design for sex and marriage ultimately is a rejection of God.

But as school leaders deliberated updating their policy, the Associated Press revealed one proposal that would have opened the door to affirming LGBTQ ideology.

"There are thoughtful Christians and churches that have different interpretations [of allowable sexual activity]," the proposal read. "Therefore, we expect all members of this global, evangelical, and ecumenical seminary student and learner community to live with integrity consistent to the Christian communities to which they belong."

A year after that proposal went public, Fuller Theological Seminary announced that school leaders had decided to reaffirm its traditional, orthodox position.

Good news, right? Well, not so fast.

In a statement, school president David Goatley said the board of trustees had discovered a solution that avoids "ideological polarities." He called it the "Fuller way."

Goatley said:

After several years of consultation, feedback, and dialogue, the Board of Trustees reconfirmed the institution’s commitment to its historic theological understanding of marriage and human sexuality — a union between a man and a woman and sexual intimacy within the context of that union. At the same time, we acknowledge that faithful Christians — through prayerful study, spiritual discernment, and lived experience — have come to affirm other covenantal forms of relationship.

Other covenantal forms of relationship.

In other words, Fuller leaders chose to reaffirm the school's traditional position while extending institutional legitimacy to those who reject the historic Christian position on sexuality and marriage.

Compromise in disguise

Fuller's new position is not grounded in theological or ecumenical generosity. Rather, it's institutional doublespeak.

Fuller wants to affirm biblical truth under its letterhead while virtue-signaling "inclusion" to those who deny the truth. It is a subtle yet dangerous compromise. The new policy views the historic Christian position on sex and marriage as a matter of opinion or community preference — not obedience to God's commands.

The message Fuller sends is clear and alarming.

If Christians can disagree on something as theologically significant as God's design and purpose for marriage, sex, and the human body, then these issues are peripheral, disputable, and secondary to Christianity.

But the Bible does not treat sexual ethics as a negotiable matter. Any assertion otherwise is a lie, one that liberals use as a cudgel to suppress biblical truth.

From Genesis to Revelation, the Bible affirms that God created humanity with two sexes — man and woman — that marriage is a one-flesh covenant between one man and one woman, and that any sexual activity outside that covenant is sin. To depart from God's vision for human flourishing with regard to sex and marriage is not just a matter of hermeneutical differences — it's rebellion against God.

This isn't just about theology, morality, and ethics, but about anthropology and teleology, too.

For what purpose did God create humans? And how can humanity experience the flourishing that God intends for us?

Rejecting God's design for sex and marriage ultimately is a rejection of God. Just ask the apostle Paul, who identifies disordered sexuality as evidence of humanity's rejection of God (Romans 1).

The stakes are high

In our cultural moment, the liberal LGBTQ lobby is catechizing an entire generation with its liturgy of "inclusion." This agenda, cloaked in compassion, demands affirmation of anti-God ideologies.

That's why Fuller's "third way" — to be neither outright condemning nor outright affirming — ultimately fails the smell test. It's soft equivocation that implies the "acceptance" the LGBTQ lobby demands and ends with full-scale capitulation.

Jesus was full of grace and truth — not half measures. Jesus, in fact, famously proclaimed, "Whoever is not with me is against me" (Luke 11:23).

To be with Jesus, therefore, requires total commitment. Complete allegiance. Undying fidelity.

Fuller, on the other hand, is leading Christians down a different path. The school's position — "we believe this is true, but it's perfectly acceptable if you believe something else" — doesn't catechize "faithful Christians." Rather, it forms relativists empowered to elevate themselves to the position of God. Relativists define good and evil in their own eyes and seize for themselves what they deem to be good. They certainly do not lay down their lives and take up a cross.

The historical Christian, biblical teaching on sex and marriage is not arbitrary, and, according to the apostle Paul, it stands at the heart of the gospel. We cannot, therefore, capitulate to a culture that seeks to erase not only our teachings but, ultimately, God.

No middle ground

If Christians compromise, liberals and progressives win. Not only on matters of sexuality and marriage, but liberals will not stop until they have eroded every historical Christian teaching.

Preventing their godless victory requires a commitment not to compromise on biblical truth. Christians reverse the liberal takeover when we combat liberal lies with our truth — and make no apologies for it.

Either marriage is a God-ordained covenant between one man and one woman, or it is not. Either same-sex relationships — any sexual activity outside the marriage union, for that matter — are a departure from God's design, or they are not. Either scripture and the church's historical teaching are our authority, or they are not.

Now is the time to display the courage and boldness of Christ. To speak truth with clarity is not unkind. It is essential. Anything less is a disservice to the church and the world.

There is no virtue in ambiguity. Liberals are evangelizing our culture with "Pride." Christians must respond with biblical truth — not the "Fuller way."