Improper Pronoun Usage

In M.C. and J.C. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, Mary and Jeremy Cox are appealing to the United States Supreme Court after they were investigated by Indiana officials for refusing to refer to their son using pronouns and a name inconsistent with his biological sex. 

The Coxes are arguing state courts allowed Indiana to keep the child from living in his parents' home due to their disagreement with the child's gender identity because of their religious beliefs. Notably, upon completing the investigation, the state determined the allegations of abuse against Mary and Jeremy were unsubstantiated, but still argued that the disagreement over gender identity was distressing to their child. 

Lori Windham, vice president and senior counsel at Becket, told Fox News Digital that no parent should ever have to endure what Mary and Jeremy have been forced to go through. 

"Keeping a child away from loving parents because of their religious beliefs—even when the state admits there was no abuse or neglect—is wrong and it’s against the law," she said. "The Court should take this case and make clear that other states can’t take children away because of ideological disagreements."

In 2019, Mary and Jeremy's son told them that he identified as a girl, but in line with their Catholic religious beliefs that God created human beings with an immutable sex, male or female, they did not believe in referring to him using pronouns and a name inconsistent with his biology. 

In addition, the Coxes believed their son was struggling with underlying mental health conditions, including an eating disorder, so they sought therapeutic care for both.

But, in 2021, Indiana officials began investigating the Coxes after a report found they were not referring to their child by his preferred gender identity, removing the teen from their custody and placing him in a "gender-affirming" home. Despite the unsubstantiated claims of abuse, they claimed the Coxes made the child's eating disorder worse even though it worsened after he was removed and placed in a transition-affirming home.

"This is what every parent is afraid of," Mary and Jeremy Cox said in a press release. "We love our son and wanted to care for him, but the state of Indiana robbed us of that opportunity by taking him from our home and banning us from speaking to him about gender."

"We are hopeful that the Justices will take our case and protect other parents from having to endure the nightmare we did," they added.

When the case was first heard in trial court, Indiana officials argued the child "should be in a home where she is accepted for who she is" and restricted the Coxes’ visitation time to a few hours once a week, which barred them from speaking to him about their religious views on human sexuality and gender identity. Even though the court determined the Coxes were fit parents, it upheld the removal of their child which was later upheld by the appeals court. 

"If this can happen in Indiana, it can happen anywhere," Windhamn said. "Tearing a child away from loving parents because of their religious beliefs, which are shared by millions of Americans, is an outrage to the law, parental rights, and basic human decency. If the Supreme Court doesn’t take this case, how many times will this happen to other families?" 

Conclusion

What more needs to be said?  Constitutional Rights, Parental Rights, Guardian Rights.  The intention of the law is to protect those fundamental rights provided to us by God, not have man undermine them.  When those that enforce the law forget that the purpose of the law is to protect the rights and opportunities of the people, not to target and repress the people they disagree with, then we will lose the freedom associated with those rights. 

If your civil rights are targeted by those that wish to weaponize the law, then call Winslow Law at 843-357-9301.

How did we go from this position in 1750:

To this position in 2020:

May God Bless You, Your Business, Israel, and the United States of America, 

Tom Winslow