HB25-1312 Passed—But the Gender Ideology Behind It Is Still a Threat to Families and Faith

Colorado Governor Jared Polis signed House Bill 1312 into law, which was originally a flamethrower of a bill aiming to penalize “misgendering” and “deadnaming” as discriminatory acts and consider them in custody battles. But after the legislative blender was done with it, the bill was stripped of its most controversial content, including the terms “misgendering” and “deadnaming” themselves. In its final form, the law says you can’t discriminate based on protected classes, allows easier changes to names and gender markers on marriage certificates and driver’s licenses, and lets students pick what to wear from the dress code buffet.

So, in its final form, what does HB25-1312 do?

I. Key Protections and Mandates in the Enacted Bill

1. Name-Change on Marriage/Civil-Union Licenses (Secs 2–5)
   Clerks must reissue marriage or civil-union licenses to reflect a party’s subsequent name change—without marking amendments—treating the new license as the sole official record.
2. Chosen-Name and Dress-Code Policies in Schools (Secs 6–7)
   Local education providers adopting any name-policy “must be inclusive of all reasons” students might choose a name differing from their legal name (§ 22-1-145.5). Dress codes must allow students to “choose from any of the options” in the policy (§ 22-32-109.1(2)(a)(I)(J)).
3. Legal Definitions & Anti-Discrimination (Secs 8–9)
   Expands CADA to define “chosen name” and “gender expression” (including chosen name) as protected, enforceable traits under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) (§ 24-34-300.5 et seq.).
4. Unlimited Gender-Marker Changes on IDs (Secs 10–13)
   Removes the one-time limit on birth-certificate sex amendments (§ 25-2-113.8 repeal) and increases driver’s-license/ID sex changes from one to three (§ 42-2-107, § 42-2-302, § 42-2-505).
5. Severability; Effective Dates (Secs 14–15)
   Standard severability and immediate effectiveness, except ID provisions delayed until October 1, 2026.

II. My Lingering Concerns

1. Parental Authority & the Family’s Moral Stewardship

• Biblical Mandate for Upbringing: Scripture charges parents with “training up” children in the Lord’s ways (Eph 6:4; Prov 22:6). Elevating student “chosen names” based on self-identity — potentially tied to gender ideology — undercuts a parent’s God-ordained role to instruct and affirm their child’s biological reality.
• Judicial Intrusion into Conscience: By protecting chosen-name policies irrespective of parental or religious conviction (§ 22-1-145.5), the state risks overruling parents who object to their child’s adoption of a new name for gender-identity reasons.

2. Religious Liberty & Free Speech

• Forced Affirmation: Churches, faith-based schools, and individuals are compelled to use chosen names and pronouns that may conflict with doctrinal beliefs. Under CADA’s enforcement mechanisms (now expanded to chosen names in § 24-34-300.5), failure to comply could invite civil penalties or discrimination claims.
• Erosion of Conscience Protections: There is no carve-out for religious organizations to refuse participation in name-or gender-related accommodations that contradict their convictions, placing pastors, teachers, and ministry staff at legal risk if they speak or act according to their faith.

3. Redefinition of “Sex” & Biblical Anthropology

• Biological Fact vs. Self-Identification: Allowing up to three sex-designation changes (§ 42-2-107 et seq.) effectively treats gender identity as fluid and legally authoritative—contrary to the biblical understanding that God “created them male and female” (Gen 1:27).
• Slippery Slope in Law: Once self-identification eclipses biological reality, other single-sex spaces (restrooms, locker rooms, sports teams) become vulnerable to challenges, threatening women’s privacy and fair athletic competition.

4. Administrative and Fiscal Burdens

• Unfunded Mandates: Clerks must reissue unmarked marriage/civil-union licenses on demand (§ 14-2-106(3)); DMVs must absorb extra processing for multiple sex-marker changes. These impose recurring costs on local governments and taxpayers without appropriated funding.

5. Cultural and Ethical Implications

• Normalization of Transgender Ideology: Embedding gender ideology into custody, education, and public-accommodation law shifts societal norms, pressuring institutions to conform or face legal consequences.
• Impact on Children’s Well-Being: Conservative Christians often caution against encouraging children to make life-altering decisions before maturity. This statute’s broad protections for chosen names and gender-marker changes may hasten irreversible steps for minors.

I have raised significant concerns and have opposed this bill since its introduction. Thanks to the advocacy of thousands, the final bill is significantly watered down. Regardless, the very mentality that introduced the initial legislation continues to exist in the Colorado General Assembly, and that mentality needs to be rebuked. Evil does not stop, and this type of thought will rear its ugly head in the next legislative session.