Truth Is Not Hate. Why Faith Still Matters in the Debate Over SB26-018

Representative Max Brooks’ recent remarks on the House floor during debate on Senate Bill 26-018 reached far beyond a procedural amendment. They addressed something deeper. The meaning of truth. The responsibility of conscience. The role of Christians in public service.

His response drew more than 14,000 views online. That level of attention signals something important. People are paying attention because the issue is not technical. It is moral.

Senate Bill 26-018 suppresses court record visibility and removes traditional public notice requirements when minors petition for legal name changes. Supporters describe the bill as protecting dignity. That goal deserves respect. Every child deserves safety and care.

The question raised during debate was different.

Should people of faith be required to remain silent when law conflicts with what they believe is true about the human person?

Representative Brooks defended an amendment that would have protected religious conscience. The amendment failed. The principle still matters.

During debate, lawmakers suggested that religious objections to gender identity claims reflect prejudice or bigotry. That accusation misunderstands the Christian position. Christians do not speak from hostility. They speak from conviction grounded in Scripture, biology, and moral responsibility.

The Christian understanding of the human person begins with creation itself.

God created mankind male and female.

That truth is not political. It is foundational. It is biological. It is biblical. It is civilizational.

Insisting that XX and XY mean something real is not hatred. It is clarity.

Representative Brooks explained this clearly. He reminded the chamber that truth does not change when pressure increases. That statement reflects the teaching many Christians heard recently from Pastor Bryan Fields at Grace Chapel. It also reflects a broader principle often repeated by Charlie Kirk.

The most loving thing we can do is speak the truth.

Christians believe love requires honesty. Love cannot be built on agreement with something that is not true. Encouraging an XY child to believe he is XX is not compassion. It is confusion. It may feel kind in the moment. It does not lead toward flourishing.

Scripture teaches that love rejoices with the truth.

That principle guided Representative Brooks’ response.

Some lawmakers pointed to churches that publicly affirm gender transition claims as evidence that religious objections should not be taken seriously. That argument misunderstands religious liberty. The existence of disagreement between churches does not eliminate the rights of churches that hold historic Christian teaching.

Government does not decide theology.

Christians in public office still answer first to God. That responsibility shapes how they vote. It shapes how they speak. It shapes when they stand.

Representative Brooks stood.

He did not attempt to prevent the bill from moving forward entirely. He defended a narrow amendment protecting conscience. That distinction matters. A pluralistic society depends on protecting citizens from compelled speech and forced affirmation.

Religious liberty protects everyone.

It protects pastors. Parents. Teachers. Nonprofit ministries. It protects people who hold minority views today that may become majority views tomorrow. Freedom of conscience remains essential to a healthy republic.

The strong reaction to Representative Brooks’ remarks shows that many Coloradans recognize what is happening. They understand the debate is not about whether minors deserve dignity. It is about whether truth can still be spoken in public life without punishment.

Christians must not retreat from that responsibility.

Christ called His followers to speak clearly and live faithfully. Public service does not suspend that calling. It strengthens it.

Representative Brooks’ statement reminded the House of something simple and enduring.

Truth spoken with courage is love.