By C. J. Garbo | Guest Commentary, Rocky Mountain Voice
On April 6, 2025 the Colorado House of Representatives crossed a line – a Rubicon, as it were – into territory so profane, so fundamentally corrosive to the bedrock of human society, that it demands not just opposition but a thunderous rebuke. House Bill 25-1312 titled Legal Protections for Transgender Individuals, passed with a vote of 36-20, is no mere legislative misstep; it is a deliberate, ideological sledgehammer aimed at shattering the sacred bond between parent and child.
To its proponents, I say this with the full weight of reason and the fire of conviction: you have unleashed a dangerous precedent, one that betrays the very essence of family, liberty, and the proper limits of government. This is not a defense of civil rights; it is a grotesque power grab masquerading as compassion, and it must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.
A Sacred Violation
The relationship between a parent and their child is not a construct of the state – it is a primal, enduring truth woven into the fabric of humanity. Parents are the first guardians, the first teachers, and the first to cradle a child’s fragile hopes and fears. To suggest, as HB25-1312 does, that the state has the authority to sever this bond over a disagreement about ideology is nothing short of sacrilege.
The bill’s language is chillingly clear: it defines “coercive control” – and thus child abuse – to include “deadnaming” (using a child’s birth name) or “misgendering” (refusing to adopt a child’s self-proclaimed gender identity). In doing so, it empowers courts to strip custody from parents who dare to question the orthodoxy of gender ideology. This is not protection; it is a betrayal of the highest order, a dagger thrust into the heart of familial sovereignty.
Imagine a mother, sleepless with worry, who sees her daughter struggling with the tumult of adolescence – a daughter who, perhaps influenced by peers or activist teachers, declares herself a boy. This mother, guided by love, reason, and perhaps a belief in biological reality, seeks to counsel her child through this confusion, to explore the roots of her distress rather than rush to affirm an irreversible path.
Under HB25-1312, this act of maternal care could be branded as abuse. The state could swoop in, wrench the child from her arms, and deliver her to a system that prioritizes ideology over evidence, affirmation over understanding. This is not hypothetical; it is the grim reality this bill invites.
An Ideological Tyranny, Not a Civil Right
Proponents of HB25-1312 – Democrats like Rep. Yara Zokaie, who compared parental rights advocates to the Ku Klux Klan – frame this as a noble fight for the marginalized.
But let us strip away the veneer of righteousness and confront the truth: this is not about civil rights. Civil rights protect individuals from unjust discrimination; they do not mandate the forced adoption of a contested belief system.
Gender ideology, with its rejection of biological sex as a foundational truth, is not a settled science or a universal ethic – it is a philosophy, one that many, including scientists, psychologists, and parents, reject with good reason.
To enshrine it in law, to wield it as a cudgel against dissenting families, is to impose a tyranny of thought, not to advance justice.
The bill’s summary states that courts “shall consider reports of coercive control when determining the allocation of parental responsibilities in accordance with the best interests of the child.”
But who defines “best interests”?
Not the parents, who know their child’s quirks, fears, and dreams better than any bureaucrat.
No, it is the state, armed with a narrow ideological lens, that claims this mantle.
This is a gross perversion of justice, a declaration that the government – not the family – is the ultimate arbiter of a child’s identity.
It is a precedent that opens the door to further intrusions, where any parental choice – be it about religion, education, or health – could be deemed “coercive” if it clashes with the state’s preferred dogma.
The Destruction of Reason and Evidence
Reason demands we ask: Where is the evidence that refusing to affirm a child’s gender identity constitutes harm akin to abuse? Decades of psychological research affirm that children, especially in adolescence, grapple with identity as a natural part of development.
Studies – like those cited by detransitioners who regret early transitions – suggest that affirming a child’s gender confusion without exploration can lead to irreversible harm: sterilization, surgical mutilation, and lifelong medical dependency.
Yet HB25-1312 dismisses such evidence, opting instead for a dogmatic insistence that affirmation is the only path. This is not science; it is faith dressed up as policy, and it endangers the very children it claims to protect.
Consider the absurdity: a parent who calls their son “John” instead of “Jane” could lose custody, while a parent who consents to puberty blockers – drugs known to cause bone density loss and sterility – is lauded as virtuous.
This is not a defense of children’s well-being; it is a reckless experiment on their bodies and minds, sanctioned by a state too arrogant to admit its fallibility.
The bill’s proponents ignore the voices of detransitioners like Colorado’s own, who testified against HB25-1312, warning of the harm inflicted by activist-driven medical interventions.
Their stories – painful, raw, and real – are drowned out by the clamor of ideology.
The Overreach of Government
Government exists to protect liberty, not to dictate belief. The moment it steps between parent and child, claiming the right to enforce a worldview, it ceases to be a servant of the people and becomes their master.
HB25-1312 is a stark overreach, a precedent that threatens the autonomy of every family.
If the state can punish parents for “misgendering,” what stops it from penalizing them for teaching religion, rejecting vaccines, or homeschooling?
The slope is not slippery – it is a cliff, and this bill hurls us over the edge.
To Rep. Zokaie and her allies: your invocation of the Southern Poverty Law Center, a group notorious for smearing dissent as hate, does not cloak your actions in moral authority. It exposes your unwillingness to engage in debate, to face the hard questions about evidence and outcomes.
Silencing parents with Rule 16, as Rep. Jarvis Caldwell noted, only underscores your fear of scrutiny.
You claim to protect children, but you rob them of their first protectors. You claim to champion dignity, but you strip it from families who disagree. This is not progress; it is control, and it will leave a legacy of broken homes and shattered trust.
A Call to Resistance
To every parent and every citizen who cherishes liberty: HB25-1312 is a clarion call. It is a warning that the state, emboldened by ideology, will not hesitate to invade the most intimate corners of our lives.
We must resist – not with anger alone, but with the fierce clarity of reason and the unyielding love of family.
This bill is wrong because it denies parents their natural rights. It is destructive because it sacrifices children to an unproven creed. It is a betrayal because it turns the state against those it should serve.
Colorado has crossed the Rubicon, but the fight is not over.
Let this be our stand: We will not yield our children to the altar of ideology. We will not bow to a government that dares to usurp the sacred. With dignity, with intellect, with every fiber of our being, we say no – emphatically, irrevocably, and forever.
C. J. Garbo, M.Sc. is a Colorado native, political strategist, and public policy thought leader who has managed multiple political campaigns at all levels of government. He is a local community leader who is outspoken on issues like parental rights, constitutional liberty, and limits on government authority. Rooted in his Christian faith and extensive public service, Garbo brings firsthand insight into how state overreach threatens parental authority, moral responsibility, and the foundational role of the family.
Editor’s note: Opinions expressed in commentary pieces are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the management of the Rocky Mountain Voice, but even so we support the constitutional right of the author to express those opinions.