When Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear appeared on The View and invoked his Christian faith to defend gender-related medical interventions for minors, the reaction in many faith communities was immediate and deeply unsettled.
His words were simple: “My faith teaches me that all children are children of God, and I didn’t want people picking on those kids.” On the surface, the statement sounds compassionate, even pastoral. But beneath it lies a theological and moral argument that demands careful examination.
The assertion that all children are children of God is foundational within Christianity. It affirms dignity, inherent worth, and sacred value. Yet the tension arises in how that truth is applied. Does recognizing children as belonging to God lead society to endorse life-altering medical interventions during adolescence? Or does it call adults into a role of stewardship—protecting, guiding, and exercising restraint in moments of vulnerability?
The debate is not merely political; it is deeply moral. Advocates of medical transition for minors often frame their position as an extension of mercy and protection from bullying or emotional distress. Critics argue that such interventions—puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries—carry irreversible consequences, including sterility and long-term medical dependence. The core question becomes whether compassion requires affirmation of every internal experience or whether it sometimes demands patient guidance through confusion and distress.
Unreal.
Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear went on “The View” and used the Bible as a defense for mutilating kids with gender dysphoria:
“My faith teaches me that all children are children of God, and I didn’t want people picking on those kids.”
— Daily Wire (@realDailyWire) February 9, 2026
Scripture consistently presents love and truth as inseparable. Divine mercy does not negate divine design. Biblical compassion does not override moral boundaries. Throughout Christian theology, God’s attributes are understood as harmonious rather than selective. When one aspect—such as love—is isolated from righteousness or order, critics argue that faith becomes a tool shaped by cultural pressure rather than anchored conviction.
There is also the broader pastoral concern. Adolescence is marked by volatility, identity exploration, and heightened emotional intensity. Society places age restrictions on voting, driving, signing contracts, and consuming alcohol because it recognizes developmental limitations. Yet in this debate, some argue that minors possess sufficient maturity to consent to permanent medical decisions that reshape their bodies. For many parents and clergy, that inconsistency is alarming.
The pressure placed on families compounds the conflict. Parents who hesitate to affirm a child’s self-diagnosis may be labeled intolerant. Schools and policymakers increasingly step into traditionally parental roles. What emerges is a collision between state authority, parental responsibility, and religious conviction.
The invocation of faith by elected officials intensifies the controversy. When Scripture is cited in defense of controversial policies, faith leaders often feel compelled to respond. Silence, in their view, risks signaling agreement. The biblical warning about causing “little ones” to stumble carries sobering weight in such discussions. Whether interpreted spiritually or culturally, it underscores the seriousness with which children’s welfare is regarded.