Change in the Weather: The SCOTUS shocks

This week, the United States Supreme Court reversed Colorado’s 2019 ban (along with bans in almost half of the U.S.’s other states) of counsel advocating change in “gender identity.” The court held for Kaley Chiles, a Christian counselor who sued the state of Colorado (Chiles v. Salazar) for the right to counsel along Biblical lines. Although establishing a significant legal standard, they sent the case back to the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals with instruction. So, the law has not actually been overturned yet. But it is on its way to being so.

This decision feels like a sudden weather change for which one might not have properly dressed. You know how sometimes the sun or rain surprises you? This happens a lot in Scotland, where during the winter season the rains come and go. This is like that. The threat of lawsuits has had a big effect on medical associations which are money driven, but this is a governmental shift. Those often reflect, at least to a certain degree, the public imaginary.

Note three large points in this momentous decision.

The Challenging of the Trans-narrative

Though the majority opinion writer, Justice Gorsuch, framed it as a matter of free speech, which it is, it is, more importantly, a recognition that change is possible. The government is acknowledging that those who feel like they are the opposite gender could possibly be reconciled to their bodies. This is big news for a large number of Americans who do not believe that, as well as for the rest who do. The contention is further supported by last week’s striking International Olympic committee decision that males cannot compete in women’s sports. Hope for change is the real issue, and one that I always try to get to in discussion about trans. If there is some other way for a gender dysphoric person to receive peace, should we not allow that? Should we not make it available? In my experience, I have seen tormented people reach that reconciliation in Jesus Christ, Who gave His body for us to be reconciled to ours.

The Inclusion of Same-Sex Attraction

There is a second seismic statement that got incorporated in the ruling, not fully appreciated with the current focus on trans. The judgment included the same striking down of similar bans on same-sex attraction counseling. Even more Americans have accepted the “born-that-way” narrative about same-sex attraction, which makes this inclusion particularly amazing. The Colorado law stated: “It is wrong to seek to change…or to eliminate or reduce romantic attractions toward individuals of the same sex.” SOTUS struck down this law, allowing, from this court’s perspective at least, that change is possible.

The signaling of Justice Kagan

A remarkable feature of this ruling is that it was a slam-down, an actual 8 to 1 decision. In our time, on such an issue, this concurrence is extraordinary. But, the third point to take note of is this: Justice Elena Kagan issued a subtle invitation. She voted with the majority, recognizing this as a clear violation of Free Speech. But in a cleverly worded concurring opinion, she concludes:

Medical care typically involves speech, so the regulation of medical care (which is, of course, pervasive) may involve speech restrictions. And those restrictions will generally refer to the speech’s content…But laws of that kind may not pose the risk of censorship—of “official suppression of ideas”—that appropriately triggers our most rigorous review….And that means the “difference between viewpoint-based and viewpoint-neutral content discrimination” in the health-care context could prove “decisive.”…Fuller consideration of that question, though, can wait for another day. We need not here decide how to assess viewpoint-neutral laws regulating health providers’ expression because, as the Court holds, Colorado’s is not one.

In other words, we could have upheld a law Colorado doesn’t have, but this decision is about the regulation Colorado did have. Try again, LGBT advocates, only be smarter about it the next time.

What Hasn’t Changed

This highlights what hasn’t changed. What hasn’t changed in America is the rise of an influential and compelling vision of gender. Without that understanding, of gender as a gift given to bestow upon our lives intimacy and fruitfulness, the winds can easily shift again in the rising generation. But, of course, casting that vision would require a re-orientation of men about men and women about women, and vice-versa, along Biblical lines. This remains a topic few care to address. But it is necessary to make real cultural (and church cultural) change.

Because changes in the weather can easily happen again.