DENVER, CO, June 25, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A Colorado governing body has ruled that a 6-year old boy, who his parents claims is ‘transgender,’ was discriminated against when officials at his elementary school prohibited him from using the girls’ restroom.

In 2011, when Coy Mathis started elementary school, his family and school agreed to treat Coy as a girl and let him use the girls’ restroom.  However, the school decided to ban Coy from his continued use of the girls’ facilities this past winter break. 

The reason for the school’s change has not been made public.

Parents of the six-year-old boy filed a complaint with The Colorado Division of Civil Rights in February. On June 18, the board’s director, Steven Chavez, issued his ruling, in which he said the school’s actions were reminiscent of the pre-civil rights movement segregation attitude of “separate but equal,” and thus Mathis’s rights had been violated. 

The ruling stated that the school was “hostile, discriminatory and unsafe” due to its handling of the restroom situation.  

School administrators have the right to appeal the decision through the courts. 

The Transgender Legal Defense & Education Fund called the ruling “a high water mark for transgender students.” 

However, Matt Staver, founder and chairman of the Liberty Counsel said that this case, and others like it, makes a “mockery of civil rights.”  His group has been involved in similar litigation involving a department store employee who ordered a man out of a women’s changing room. 

Staver added, "It is insane to reorder society to accommodate a person's disordered thought.” 

Click "like" if you support TRADITIONAL marriage.

“It is also irresponsible for the parents to further confuse this child by referring to him as a her. Biologically this child is male and no amount of subjective thought will change that reality.” 

Mathis was born a triplet with two sisters, and has another brother and a younger sister.  The five are children of Kathryn and Jeremy Mathis, an ex-Marine. 

Mathis’s parents say they trace back their son’s female self-identification to an incident in which he, as a 5-month-old, grabbed his sister’s pink blanket.  

Then, he later showed a disinterest in traditionally male toys and clothing and instead gravitated toward the toys and clothes of his sisters.  

By 18 months, Mathis’s parents say he was identifying as a girl, long before he began elementary school.  

Mathis’s parents say that he seems to be more outgoing since they switched gears and started treating him as a girl. 

“Young children pick up on messages from their parents even during infancy,” explained Dr. Michelle A. Cretella, Vice President of the American College of Pediatricians. 

“A child who expresses that he desires to be or actually is the opposite sex reflects 'confusion' of a very young child reacting to a parent or parents conveying confused messages.” 

A mental health professional had diagnosed Mathis with ‘gender identity disorder,’ however the American Psychiatric Association has since removed the diagnosis from its list of disorders. 

One Toronto-based psychologist, Dr. Kenneth Zucker, says that in the vast majority of cases therapy relieves psychopathology within the family and child, reduces peer social ostracism and results in the acceptance of the child's birth sex. 

Dr. Zucker is the Psychologist-in-Chief at the Center for Addiction and Mental Health, where he heads the Child and Adolescent Gender Identity Clinic in Toronto, Canada. He has treated over 500 children with what was formerly known as Gender Identity Disorder (GID). 

Dr. Cretella told LifeSiteNews.com, “The decision in the Coy Mathis case has sacrificed science and children's health upon the altar of political correctness.”

“One's biological sex is not a disorder; allowing a child to disavow his biological sex is,” he said, adding, “No one is born transgender – this has been established by twin studies.” 

Agreeing with Cretella, The American Psychological Association addresses the issue of gender identity, saying: "Many experts believe that biological factors such as genetic influences and prenatal hormone levels, early experiences, and experiences later in adolescence or adulthood may all contribute to the development of transgender identities."

Staver also pointed out that Johns Hopkins University famously abandoned its so-called sex reassignment surgery when it discovered no beneficial outcome and found that some people ended up reverting their identity to the original birth gender.

“The founder of the program who abandoned the clinic said it right when he observed that you don't give liposuction to an anorexic.”

Staver added, “You don't pretend an anoxic is obese, nor should you present a boy as a girl.” 

“The Civil Rights Commission issued an absurd opinion that must be reversed.”

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 9, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – After the Supreme Court's ruling that same-sex “marriage” is a constitutionally guaranteed right, many Americans have asked, “How did we get here?” Last month's opinion tells us the road stretches back more than 50 years.

Justice Anthony Kennedy's ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges gave additional proof that the legal basis for same-sex “marriage” is inextricably tied up with abortion-on-demand and other aspects of the sexual revolution.

In his 5-4 decision, Justice Kennedy says the newly discovered constitutional right to enter into a homosexual “marriage” is granted, in part, by the “right to privacy.”

That right, first propounded by the court in 1965's Griswold v. Connecticut ruling, also conferred a woman's right to abortion-on-demand, according to the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision.

“Same-sex couples have the same right as opposite-sex couples to enjoy intimate association,” Justice Kennedy wrote last month, in an opinion that quoted Griswold. “Like choices concerning contraception, family relationships, procreation, and child-rearing, all of which are protected by the Constitution, decisions concerning marriage are among the most intimate that an individual can make.”

“As far as the right to life is concerned, that is the most troubling line in the opinion,” wrote Kelsey Hazzard, a pro-life lawyer, in an analysis of the decision posted at the Secular Pro-Life blog. That sentence “can be read as polite legalese for killing preborn children.”

But Kennedy actually put the same-sex “marriage” case on stronger ground even than abortion. “Justice Kennedy was smart,” Hazzard wrote. “By writing an opinion that does not cite any abortion cases, he has assured that Obergefell will withstand the reversal of Roe and Casey.”

Instead, he based his argument in part on the case that granted Americans the right to use contraception.

That lawsuit was brought by Estelle Griswold, the former executive director of Planned Parenthood in New Haven, against the state of Connecticut. Lawmakers had passed a law forbidding anyone, married or unmarried, from using contraception. Planned Parenthood challenged the law all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

On June 7, 1965, Planned Parenthood prevailed.

Justice William O. Douglas wrote that, while the “right to privacy” is not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution – much less the right to birth control – the idea flows from ideas embedded in the Constitution.

“Specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance,” he wrote.

For the state to determine whether married couples used contraception would require an invasion of their privacy, Douglas wrote; thus, couples had an inalienable right to contraception.

“Griswold took a major leap for women’s health by removing state interference with one of the most important and private decisions an individual considers: whether and when to have a child,” wrote Elizabeth G. Taylor, the executive director of the National Health Law Program (NHeLP).

That ruling applied only to married couples. The right to privacy was then extended for unmarried individuals to use contraception in the High Court's Eisenstadt v. Baird decision in 1972.

And one year later, the right to privacy emanated further, to grant women the “right to choose” an abortion.

Over the last 50 years, the “right to privacy” has been used to cover every form of sexual practice, displacing the public's right to object on moral grounds – something contained in Kennedy's 2003 Lawrence v. Texas ruling.

Finally, last month, that right – granted in Griswold and expanded in Eisenstadt, Roe, and Casey – demanded a nationwide legal recognition of homosexual relationships on par with heterosexual marriages.

Thus, Lauren Barbato could write in Bustle that “marriage equality may very well not be here on June 27, 2015, without Estelle Griswold and her fight to provide birth control to New Haven couples.” 

July 9, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The Nigerian Catholic Bishops Conference has made a forthright defense of the institution of marriage, following the U.S. Supreme Court decision redefining the institution and an Irish popular referendum ushering the new definition of marriage into the Emerald Isle.

"The Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria would like to once again reiterate the perspective of the Church on more recent developments concerning the sanctity and dignity of human life and the institutions of marriage and the family all across the world," reads the statement signed by Archbishop Ignatius Kaigama of Jos, president of the Nigerian Bishop’s Conference, and Conference Secretary Bishop William Avenya of Gboko.

The Nigerian bishops write in the statement, released on Wednesday, that the intensifying homosexual political pressure "will tend to provoke a notable and rapid shift in public opinion about the nature and meaning of marriage and family as it has been known for millennia," which has in turn has resulted in legislative and judicial maneuvers to redefine marriage.

"We wish to state that this is a sad, unjust and lamentable situation based largely upon a distorted perception of natural law, the will of God and human nature," the bishops say.

The bishops note that many of the world's leading economies – including Canada, France, the United Kingdom, Ireland and now the United States of America – have gone down the path of legalizing same-sex "marriage". That worries them that these nations will exert economic and cultural pressure on traditional societies' “morality and values.”

The bishops expressed concern at "the persistent and continuous propagation and globalization of the homosexual lifestyle and the effort to redefine marriage which is a distorted view of human sexuality, coming especially from the Western world.”

The bishops call on Nigerian legislators to wary of accepting these Western trends, for the sake of families, because "endorsing homosexual unions or 'same-sex marriage' will be devastating and detrimental to our nation of Nigeria, as it will lead to the inevitable deconstruction of the family and the society at large, with other serious but negative implications."

Furthermore, they appeal to those involved in media, music, entertainment, teaching, medicine, marketing and business "to become faithful gatekeepers by protecting the public from the infiltration of this propaganda, which is often spread through various media and forums."

Finally, they appeal to parents to teach their children "the immutable meaning of marriage so as to strengthen them to stand fearless by the indelible truth in a rapidly changing world," and to young people to hold firmly to the "sound religious and cultural values that celebrate the beauty and blessings of marriage as the lifelong union between one man and one woman."

"We hereby re-emphasize," the Nigerian bishops conclude, "that marriage is the sacred union of one man and one woman for the begetting and care of children. It forms the core of the family, which is the bedrock and foundational cell of our civilization and as such judges to shun all pressures and protect all Nigerians from the growing but dangerous influence of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender propaganda."

The Catholic bishops of Nigeria have repeatedly and unequivocally expressed their support for the protection of life, real marriage, family, and human dignity, and denounced the attempts by Western countries to impose the culture of death on Nigeria.

“The right to life is the first of all fundamental human rights,” the bishops stated in a document published at the end of the Plenary Assembly held in February 2013, under the theme of "Faith and Dignity of the Human Being."

A communiqué issued last year following an international pro-life march and conference organized by the Catholic Bishops of Nigeria held in Abuja called for the Church to be “more courageous and consistent in pro-life activities in favor of human life, marriage and the family as counter-cultural antidotes to anti-life ideologies and practices.”

The Catholic bishops of Nigeria's Ibadan Ecclesiastical Province said in a statement at the beginning of their International Pro-life and Pro-family Conference held at the University of Ibadan in April that "the adoption or promotion of same-sex unions undermines the right to life, right to freedom of conscience, religious liberty, respect for moral and cultural values.”

"It also harms the innocence of children, degrades marriage and family life and destabilizes society, now and in the future," the Ibadan bishops stated.

The full text of the July 8th statement on the stand of the Catholic Bishops Conference of Nigeria on Marriage, Family and Human Society is available here.

GENEVA, July 9, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – A pro-family resolution has been passed by the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva of “unprecedented” force and reach, thanks to a coalition of African and other developing countries, China and Russia and a support group of socially conservative NGOs.

“This is unprecedented, a tremendous victory for the family,” Sharon Slater, the head of Family Watch International, told LifeSiteNews. “It is the first time ever in the history of the United Nations that a comprehensive resolution has been passed calling for the protection of the family as a fundamental unit of society, recognizing the prior right of parents to educate their children, and calling on all nations to create family-sensitive policies and recognize their binding obligations under treaty to protect the family.”

The voting on the “Protection of the Family” resolution was 27 for and 14 against, Slater noted. Those opposing the motion included the United States, the United Kingdom, Ireland and other Western European countries, while its sponsors included Russia, China, Belarus, and more than a dozen Muslim and African countries. The four abstaining members of the council—Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Macedonia—probably were forced to do so by the rich countries opposing the bill.

“The developed countries probably put huge pressure on the others to stop the bill or insert amendments undermining its intent by threatening to withhold foreign aid,” said Slater. “We applaud those who were able to stand up for the family, and we ask people to write to them to thank them.” (FWI provides a webpage to help people send these supportive letters.)

Austin Ruse of the Center for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM), also termed the resolution “a tremendous victory for the pro-family world” and a defeat for the small but powerful group of anti-family groups supported by developed countries and the United States. Several attempts were made by feminist and pro-LGBT groups to first defeat and then amend the resolution by inserting “reproductive rights”--a euphemism for abortion, and by replacing “the family” with “families” and by inserting inclusive language to apply the resolution to sexual minorities.

The passage of the resolution was predictably condemned by feminist and sexual advocacy groups. The Sexual Rights Initiative, for example, called it “a set back to the advancement of the human rights of individuals as it seeks to elevate the family as an institution in need of protection without acknowledging the harms and human rights abuses that are known to occur within families, or recognizing that diverse forms of family exist.”

Specifically, it claimed, “Families perpetuate patriarchal oppression, traditions and harmful practices, and…human rights abuses do occur within families (i.e., marital rape, child abuse, FGM [female genital mutilation], early and forced marriage, dowry related violence, so-called ‘honour’ killings and other forms of domestic violence).”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

Nonetheless, said Ruse, “The globe was with us on this resolution. Only a small number of countries backed the LGBT agenda. You can be certain the United States lobbied with great energy against this resolution. Supporting the LGBT agenda is a primary objective of U.S. foreign policy.”

Slater said the resolution was particularly significant because its preamble assembled dozens of past UN resolutions, binding treaties and foundational declarations, all recognizing “the family” as a cornerstone of society, a defender of human rights, a transmitter of social, cultural and religious values, primary educator of youth, and, just in time for current negotiations at the UN in New York City on sustainable development, a positive force for economic development.

Significantly, the resolution also recognized the family as a “crosscutting” value—one that national policy makers must avoid weakening in pursuit of other policy goals.

Ruse said that the UN bureaucracy, including the High Commission on Human Rights, act as if the United Nations already protect sexual orientation or gender identity from discrimination, even though this has not been recognized in resolutions. “The bureaucracy is out of control.”

Nonetheless, said FWI’s Slater, the passage of such a powerful resolution will undermine efforts of feminist or LGBT lobbyists to use the UN to bend individual countries to their agenda. “The next step is to get pro-family language and policies included in the policies on sustainable development,” said Slater.

The victory marks the growing impact of the UN Family Rights Caucus, a coalition of pro-family NGOs that supported the national delegations in Geneva.