Colorado Trans Bill Called a ‘Legal Requirement to Lie’

Colorado Governor Jared Polis (D) recently signed a bill forcing taxpayers to fund abortion. Now, a bill that classifies the refusal to use a transgender-identifying person’s “preferred name” as discrimination is heading to his desk for signature.

House Bill 25-1312, dubbed the Kelly Loving Act, received final Senate approval on Tuesday with a 20-14 vote. It designates intentional “deadnaming”—using a trans-identifying person’s original name—or misgendering as discriminatory under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. Additionally, it requires school policies on chosen names to be inclusive of “all reasons” a student might use a different name and permits students to follow any dress code variation, regardless of gender.

According to the bill’s text, a “chosen name” refers to a name someone wants to be known by related to “disability, race, creed, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, familial status, national origin, or ancestry, so long as the name does not contain offensive language and the individual is not requesting the name for frivolous purposes.”

Following Senate amendments, the House approved the revised bill, which now heads to Polis. The legislation sparked almost seven hours of heated debate in the Senate on Monday, as Democrats argued the legislation addresses persistent harassment of transgender individuals, while Republicans raised concerns about parental rights and government overreach.

State Senator Chris Kolker (D), a co-sponsor, stated, “This bill’s needed because if transgender residents were never harassed, denied services, or mocked in official settings, additional clarification would be unnecessary. The lived evidence shows that gaps persist.” State Rep. Lorena García (D), another co-sponsor, added, “the continued mischaracterization of these [trans] policies needs to stop. It is a disservice to Coloradans who are really trying to understand what is in this bill, and we should be honest and truthful about what we are agreeing to or disagreeing with without exaggeration.”

On the other hand, state Senate Minority Leader Paul Lundeen (R) argued that the bill, “despite its protective intent, creates a system where schools and state agencies become the arbiter of deeply personal family decisions.” He warned, “By mandating inclusive name policies, enforcing gender neutral dress codes, [and] enlisting the [Colorado Civil Rights Division] to police speech, this bill risks transforming schools and courts into areas where the state overrides parental authority. We must not allow government to intrude into and fracture the trust between parents and children.”

State Senator Janice Rich (R) echoed these concerns, stating, “It concerns me that the government continues to think it knows better than the parents as to what’s best for their children.” She added, “Should the issue of a child’s gender arise in the home, I believe that the parents of that child are in the best position to address the issue in concert with the child’s pediatrician.”

State Senator Barbara Kirkmeyer (R) criticized the amendment process, saying, “[The Democrats] don’t understand about first readings, second readings, third readings, amendments. They understand what an amendment is, but they don’t understand how it impacts the bill.”

The Washington Stand previously reported that the bill’s original version could have allowed parents to lose custody for rejecting a child’s transgender identity, with potential jail time for noncompliance. Amendments reportedly removed these provisions. However, the final draft still includes school policies on names and dress codes, and TWS noted that businesses failing to comply could face fines, closures, or mandatory “anti-discrimination” training, though it’s unclear if these penalties remain.

Ultimately, all Republicans, along with Democratic state Senators Marc Snyder and Kyle Mullica, voted against the bill.

Beyond the legislative debate, critics like Family Research Council’s Joseph Backholm have raised concerns about the bill’s broader ideological implications. Backholm told TWS that, despite any amendments, the bill is grounded in a contentious ideology with far-reaching consequences that transcend mere politics.

“The fixation with so-called ‘deadnaming’ and ‘misgendering’ is fundamentally about regulating speech so people aren’t allowed to say things you disagree with,” he contended, adding that the bill’s intent is less about protecting a group and more about mandating that “they want to require people to refer to men as women and to women as men if they want you to. This is a legal requirement to lie. No one should be legally required to lie.”

Backholm continued, “The legislators who bring bills like this have embraced a worldview in which feelings, rather than science or biology, determine reality.” He compared it to “requiring people to refer to dogs as cats if their owner wants you to. A dog will always be a dog, even if there is someone who really wishes it was a cat.” Thus, “Requiring us to refer to it as a cat because it makes the dog owner happy is insane and obviously bad policy.”

When the Kelly Loving Act was introduced, Colorado Christians mobilized to oppose what they called a “wicked agenda” and its demands. Though the bill passed, Backholm praised their efforts, saying, “It’s good to see the church beginning to respond in Colorado. Our duty to speak the truth is not contingent upon guarantees that the truth will prevail politically.”

Offering encouragement, Backholm noted, “The truth will ultimately prevail, because lies always produce bad results. The chaos currently being created in Colorado by their godless leadership will inevitably lead to pain for the people in that state.” However, “the amount of damage done can be mitigated by an active church that provides an alternative to the insanity.”

“If we do not boldly, joyfully, and clearly communicate what the truth is,” he concluded, “a lot of people won’t understand why the lie is causing so much pain.”

Originally published at The Washington Stand.

We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal.

The post Colorado Trans Bill Called a ‘Legal Requirement to Lie’ appeared first on The Daily Signal.