Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Evangelical
Politics and Religion
How Bans on LGBTQ+ Student Clubs Threaten Religious Liberty

How Bans on LGBTQ+ Student Clubs Threaten Religious Liberty

Last updated on: December 22, 2025 at 8:41 pm by John San Nicolas

0 Comments

How Bans on LGBTQ+ Student Clubs Threaten Religious Liberty 2025-12-22T20:41:48-07:00 John San Nicolas

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

On June 20, 2025, the State of Texas passed Senate Bill 12. The bill includes several provisions that bear upon operations of public education associated with identity politics, such as gender and LGBTQ+ issues. For example, SB 12 (see the latest text here) prohibits the assigning of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion duties to school employees. It also forbids schools from assisting what the legislature calls “social transitioning.” This term encompasses gender reassignment surgeries, adopting a name associated with a different gender, and adopting pronouns associated with a different gender.

But the provision that this article takes special focus on is how SB 12 surveils student groups that focus on LGBTQ+ issues. This provision has resulted in complaints that SB 12 is unconstitutional in its crackdown on identity politics. We shall discuss the case that resulted from these complaints. And we shall also meet a somewhat unexpected amici joining the battle—the Christian Legal Society.

SB 12 and LGBTQ+ Student Groups

So, what exactly does SB 12 have to say about student clubs? The bill lays out two important regulations for student clubs. Below is the relevant passage of the bill:

Sec. 33.0815. CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS FOR STUDENT CLUBS. (a) Subject to Subsection (b), a school district or open-enrollment charter school may authorize or sponsor a student club. (b) A school district or open-enrollment charter school may not authorize or sponsor a student club based on sexual orientation or gender identity. (c) A school district or open-enrollment charter school must require the written consent of the parent of or person standing in parental relation to a student enrolled in the district or school before the student may participate in a student club authorized or sponsored under Subsection (a) at the district or school.

The first regulation prohibits which student clubs schools can and cannot authorize or fund. If a student club is gathered around gender and sexuality, they cannot be authorized or sponsored by schools, including charter schools with open-enrollment. This effectively bans the formation and continuation of LGBTQ+ student clubs.

While the first regulation restricts the administrative actions that schools can take, the second regulation installs a surveillance mechanism grounded in parental rights. Students must give written notice to parents and guardians in order to participate in a school-authorized student club.

These two restrictions together ensure a two-factor prohibition on student clubs that may focus on LGTBQ+ issues.

GSA Network v. Morath

The bill sent tremors in school communities. While the bill passed in June, a formal complaint were filed in late August. The complaint were filed by organizations like GSA Network and Students Engaged in Advancing Texas. Plaintiffs also included private persons (including two students, parents, and a high school teacher).

Gay Straight Alliance Board, via Wikimedia Commons. Available here.

The main complaint that Plaintiffs allege is that SB 12 violates freedom of speech, in addition to the regulations being overly burdensome and vague. Essentially, Plaintiffs allege that the bill is a form of viewpoint discrimination that does not satisfy what American jurisprudence calls “strict scrutiny.”

Strict scrutiny is applied by judges to discern whether a government law that prohibits a fundamental freedom (like speech) is constitutional or not. The government rather than Plaintiffs must demonstrate two things. First, the government must prove that its action is “narrowly tailored” in order to advance or promote a “compelling government interest.” Second, the government must demonstrate that the action in question uses the “least restrictive means” to do so.

Courts do not generally consider speech about gender and sexuality in public schools to be unconstitutional. Thus Plaintiffs hold a defensible position that SB 12 infringes on constitutionally protected speech. If this is accepted by the court, the State of Texas must demonstrate that it has a compelling interest in banning LGBTQ+ student groups. It must also show that SB 12 is “narrowly tailored” to accomplish this and is the “least restrictive means” of regulating speech on gender identity and sexuality.

LGBTQ+ Rights and the Christian Legal Society

Several amici have joined the case, including the American Civil Liberties Union of Texas, the Transgender Law Center, and Baker McKenzie. But one perhaps unexpected amici has lent its arguments to support the Plaintiffs: the Christian Legal Society (CLS).

The legal society is conservative in its social beliefs. As the Supreme Court justices noted in a 2010 case, the CLS has as one of its tenets the “belief that sexual activity should not occur outside of marriage between a man and a woman.” Christian Legal Soc. v. Martinez, 561 U.S. 661, 672 (2010). And yet, the CLS recognizes how the underlying juridical logic of SB 12 could very well threaten religious liberty, a core concern of the society.

The CLS argues that SB 12 defies the Equal Access Act. The Act forbids schools from preventing student meetings on the basis of the “religious, political, philosophical, or other content of the speech at such meetings.” Interestingly enough, the CLS points out that the Act originated in disputes over religious liberty, not speech regarding other issues like LGBTQ+ rights or gender identity.

In 1982, the 5th Circuit of Texas forbade students from meeting to pray and read the Bible at school. Lubbock Civil Liberties Union v. Lubbock Ind. School Dist., 669 F.2d 1038 (5th Cir 1982). Two years later, the US Congress passed the EAA to safeguard student meetings from this viewpoint discrimination. The CLS names at least ten cases across the US where courts considered the EAA to protect LGBTQ+ student meetings.

The Interconnectedness of Rights

In a liberal society, individuals are protected from the state, the only entity that lawfully wields the power of coercion. These protections mostly take the form of rights. Rights will often conflict in pluralistic societies. For example, can a gay couple procure a wedding cake from a conservative Christian baker? The couple has the constitutional right to marry. The baker has the constitutional right to follow his conscience in the course of business.

But between individuals and the government, the government’s infringement of the rights of one person invariably threatens the rights of others. President John F. Kennedy argued this well in June of 1963, when the National Guard was called in after two Black students were admitted into the University of Alabama. The National Guard had to force Alabama Governor George Wallace to step aside, as he was obstructing students Vivian Malone and James Hood from registering from classes. Kennedy insisted that Wallace’s actions against these students not only violated American ideals of fairness and equality. It threatened the American project itself. As he said,

I hope that every American, regardless of where he lives, will stop and examine his conscience about this and other related incidents. This Nation was founded by men of many nations and backgrounds. It was founded on the principle that all men are created equal, and that the rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.

Federalized National Guard troops on the campus of the University of Alabama, June 11, 1963 when African Americans Vivian Malone and James Hood registered for classes, via Wikimedia Commons. Available here.

Religious liberty and LGBTQ+ freedoms might seem unrelated to many readers. But the CLS has proven President Kennedy correct. Rights are not merely the signposts of victories against government discrimination. They are also the interconnected, mutually dependent veins of the body politic.

About John San Nicolas

John San Nicolas researches American Christianity and politics. Having grown up evangelical, John is very interested in how politics and faith mix, for better and worse. Although he no longer identifies with the Christian tradition, John remains interested in helping people of all traditions, religious or not, work towards mutual understanding and cooperation to build up their shared political life. You can read more about the author here.

Previous Post

December 13, 2025

The Truth About the Gen Z Revival

What is the Christian approach to enemies?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Avoid them Pray for them Curse them Fight with them