Daren Mehl Testimony HCR 3013
Pastor Daren Mehl testifies for North Dakota HCR 3013 (Download PDF from ND Gov Website) (HCR 3013 Testimonies)
Personal Testimony: A Journey from Gay to Straight through Marriage in Jesus Christ
My name is Daren Mehl, and I testify for you today as a pastor, a husband, and a father, testifying to the transformative power of Jesus Christ. I was once a gay-identified man, living a lifestyle I believed to be unchangeable. My wife, Rhoda, was also identified within the LGBTQ+ community as a queer woman. We met through a mutual acquaintance—someone I once dated and she was dating at the time—and, as God ordained, I proposed to her on July 11, 2004. Rhoda knowing I was sexually attracted to men, but not women, she still moved forward in our relationship as we married on December 5, 2005. I married the woman I loved in spite of having gay attractions. I gave the gay sexual orientation to God to figure out for us. We were blessed with our first child, a son, in the Winter of 2013, and our daughter in the Spring of 2015.
Despite being married, I still had sexual attractions to men until the seventh year of our marriage when I encountered the living God in a radical way. Through faith in Jesus Christ, I experienced complete transformation, not only spiritually but also in my desires and identity. My romantic and erotic attractions to men were utterly eliminated by the power of the truth and love of God. My testimony stands as irrefutable evidence that sexual orientation is not immutable—it is fluid and can change. Jesus was my counselor who healed me.
Again, I emphasize this: as a gay man, I had every right under the law to marry a woman, just as any heterosexual man. There was no equality under the law for LGBTQ+ as far as marriage. My wife, as a queer woman, had every right under the law to marry a man, and she did! The fundamental nature of marriage was never about sexual orientation but about the biological reality of a man and a woman forming a union to carry on procreation of families, the bedrock of civilized society and nations.
The Obergefell v. Hodges ruling was not about granting a right that same-sex attracted individuals never had; it was about redefining an institution that was already accessible to all based on sex, not orientation.
Legal Argument: The Flawed Foundation of Obergefell
The Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges rested on the false premise that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic akin to race or sex. However, this is contradicted by extensive evidence demonstrating that sexual orientation is fluid. Unlike race or biological sex, which are unchangeable, individuals can and do experience shifts in their sexual attractions, as my own life and many other’s attests.
Moreover, the ruling bypassed the democratic process and overrode the will of the states and their citizens, stripping them of their authority to define marriage. The decision improperly treated the Due Process Clause as a source of new substantive rights, a dangerous precedent that has led to government coercion of religious individuals and institutions who uphold the biblical and historical definition of marriage.
By restoring the definition of marriage to its natural and legal foundation—one man and one woman—Resolution 3013 seeks to return this matter to the states and the people, where it rightfully belongs.
Religious Freedom & Conscience Clauses: The Suppression of Religious Liberty Post-Obergefell
The Obergefell v. Hodges decision did not merely redefine marriage; it set the stage for systematic suppression of religious liberty, placing the government in direct conflict with those who hold to biblical and traditional views of marriage. By elevating sexual orientation to a status akin to race or sex, the ruling has been used to coerce individuals, businesses, and religious institutions into affirming same-sex marriage against their deeply held convictions.
1. The Weaponization of Anti-Discrimination Laws Against Christians
Since Obergefell, we have seen a sharp increase in legal action, fines, and social punishment directed at Christians who refuse to participate in or endorse same-sex marriage:
- Jack Phillips (Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 2018) – Phillips, a Christian cake artist, was sued for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. Despite winning a narrow Supreme Court ruling, he continues to face relentless legal harassment for his faith-based refusal to express messages contrary to biblical teachings.
- Barronelle Stutzman (Arlene’s Flowers v. Washington, 2021) – Stutzman, a florist, was sued by the State of Washington and fined for declining to create floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding due to her Christian beliefs. She was forced into retirement after years of costly litigation.
- Melissa and Aaron Klein (Sweet Cakes by Melissa, 2015) – This Christian couple was fined $135,000 by the state of Oregon for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. Their business was driven to bankruptcy.
- Catholic Charities Adoption Agencies (Multiple States, Post-Obergefell) – In several states, Christian adoption agencies were forced to shut down because they refused to place children with same-sex couples, violating their deeply held beliefs about family and parenting.
2. Obergefell Created a “Zero-Sum” Conflict Between LGBT Rights and Religious Freedom
Before Obergefell, marriage was a state-level issue, and religious institutions and individuals had the freedom to operate according to their conscience. However, the Supreme Court’s redefinition of marriage created an unavoidable conflict:
- If same-sex marriage is a constitutional right, then religious objections are treated as unlawful discrimination.
- If religious freedom is protected, then individuals must have the right to refuse participation in events that violate their faith.
This has resulted in a massive legal shift, where Christians are increasingly viewed as bigots rather than conscientious objectors. People of faith are now being forced to choose between their livelihoods and their beliefs.
3. The Expansion of Obergefell into Compelled Speech and Thought Control
The aftermath of Obergefell has not been limited to participation in same-sex weddings. It has expanded into a broad campaign to enforce ideological conformity, silencing dissent, and punishing those who uphold biblical truths about marriage and sexuality.
- Compelled Speech in the Workplace – Employees have been fired or disciplined for refusing to use preferred pronouns or for expressing traditional views on marriage.
- Corporate & Government Censorship – Tech companies and financial institutions have de-platformed Christian organizations and businesses that oppose LGBTQ ideology.
- Educational Indoctrination – Christian schools, colleges, and seminaries have faced pressure to conform or risk losing accreditation and funding.
4. The Urgent Need for Conscience Protections & Legislative Action
Resolution 3013 seeks to reverse the damage caused by Obergefell and restore marriage to its rightful place, protecting the rights of individuals and institutions to live out their faith without fear of government retaliation.
- Congress and state legislatures must enact robust religious liberty protections, ensuring that no person is forced to affirm or participate in practices that violate their conscience.
- The Supreme Court must reconsider Obergefell, recognizing that it has led to a massive infringement on First Amendment rights.
- Christians must stand firm, advocating for legal safeguards that preserve the ability to worship, speak, and live according to biblical truth without facing legal and financial ruin.
Religious Liberty Must Be Restored
The promise of religious freedom is enshrined in the First Amendment, yet Obergefell has systematically eroded that freedom in favor of a government-enforced sexual ideology. Christians must not be forced to choose between their livelihoods and their faith, nor should the government dictate what is and isn’t acceptable belief.
Restoring the definition of marriage to one man and one woman is not just a matter of morality—it is a matter of preserving fundamental religious liberties for generations to come.
Scientific Evidence: The Reality of Sexual Orientation Fluidity
Contrary to the assertions of Obergefell, research consistently demonstrates that sexual orientation is not a fixed trait. Dr. Lisa Diamond, a researcher and proponent of LGBTQ rights, has acknowledged that sexual orientation is fluid for many individuals, particularly among women[i]. Studies show that changes in sexual attraction occur due to various life circumstances, personal growth, and spiritual transformation.[ii]
The existence of individuals who once identified as homosexual but are now living content heterosexual lives—including myself and many others[iii]—directly contradicts the claim that same-sex attraction is immutable. This fluidity undermines the classification of sexual orientation as a protected civil rights category.
Biblical Foundations: The Consequences of Redefining Marriage
The Bible is unequivocal in its definition of marriage as the union between one man and one woman (Genesis 2:24, Matthew 19:4-6). This design is not arbitrary; it reflects God’s purpose for human relationships, procreation, and the nurturing of children in stable, complementary family units.
Scripture also warns nations that depart from God’s design. Romans 1:26-27 describes the consequences of turning away from natural relationships, and Proverbs 14:34 declares that righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people. When a society redefines marriage against God’s will, it invites judgment and social decay.
Furthermore, Jesus Himself affirms that marriage is a divine institution, not subject to human redefinition: “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate” (Matthew 19:6). A nation that disregards this divine order not only harms individuals but also future generations, as children are deprived of the stability of homes with both a mother and a father.
Arguing Against the LGBTQ+ Ontology of Humanity and Human Flourishing
At the core of the LGBTQ+ movement’s ideological framework is an ontological redefinition of what it means to be human. According to their perspective, human identity is largely self-determined, fluid [irony], and primarily centered on subjective feelings and desires. They argue that a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity is an essential, defining trait of their humanity—one that is as immutable and intrinsic as race or biological sex. This framework places personal autonomy and self-actualization as the highest goods in defining human flourishing.
Counter-Argument: Biblical Ontology and True Human Flourishing
The Christian worldview which founded our country and made it great stands in stark contrast to the darkness and lies of the LGBTQ+ worldview. The Christian worldview teaches that ontology is rooted in divine design, not subjective self-perception. According to Scripture:
- All humans are created in the image of God (Imago Dei) – Genesis 1:27 states, “God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.” Our existence is not defined by our desires but by the fact that we are image-bearers of the Creator, given a specific design and purpose.
- Human flourishing comes through obedience to God’s order – True well-being is not achieved by indulging every inner impulse but by aligning oneself with God’s will (Psalm 1, John 10:10).
- Sexual identity is not an ontological category – Nowhere in Scripture or in nature is a person’s identity tied to sexual preference. Rather, one’s primary identity is in relation to God—either as a sinner in rebellion or as a redeemed saint in Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11), and distinctly as male or female.
The LGBTQ+ ontology is inherently reductionist, reducing humanity to mere sexual or gender expressions, whereas the biblical view of humanity sees men and women as inherently valuable, created for divine purposes beyond carnal impulses. This is why LGBTQ ideology leads to confusion and dysfunction rather than fulfillment—because it misidentifies the core of human nature and purpose.
Arguing Against the LGBTQ+ Definition of Love
The LGBTQ+ movement and the concept of “gay marriage” frequently appeals to “love” as its highest moral argument:
- “Love is love.”
- “If two consenting adults love each other, why should anyone interfere?”
- “Denying someone the right to love is cruel.”
But what does love mean in this framework? The LGBTQ+ ideology defines love as an uninhibited emotional and sexual attraction that should be acted upon without restriction, provided it is consensual. Their idea of love is fundamentally rooted in eros (erotic attraction and self-fulfillment) rather than agape (selfless, God-honoring and person-honoring love).
The Biblical Definition of Love
In contrast, Scripture defines love as righteous, self-sacrificial, and ordered towards God’s holiness and human flourishing:
- Love is rooted in truth and holiness – “Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth” (1 Corinthians 13:6). Biblical love cannot celebrate sin, and thus love cannot be used to justify homosexual acts of sodomy.
- Love is self-sacrificial, not self-indulgent – “Greater love has no one than this, that one lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13). True love calls people out of sinful bondage, not deeper into it.
- Love protects, rather than harms – “Let all that you do be done in love” (1 Corinthians 16:14). This means love must be rightly ordered—protecting the dignity of the person, rather than degrading them through sinful acts. Sodomy acts are actually working against the dignity of the gay identified man, treating them less than other men in their natural purpose in creation.
Why the LGBTQ+ Definition of Love Falls Short
- It equates love explicitly with sexual gratification. In Scripture, love is not lust or indulgence—it is holy, pure, and ordered toward godly purposes (Ephesians 5:1-3). The LGBTQ+ movement conflates fleeting erotic desires with lasting, meaningful love.
- It justifies harm under the guise of affection. Engaging in same-sex sodomy is not an expression of love—it is an act of defilement (Romans 1:24-27). Physically, it leads to increased risks of disease, trauma, and medical complications. Spiritually, it corrupts the soul and dishonors the image of God in the man.
- It is self-seeking, rather than self-sacrificial. The LGBTQ+ ideology promotes a self-focused “love” that seeks personal fulfillment over holiness and righteousness. Biblical love denies the self to honor God and others.
Why Sodomy is Unbecoming, Harmful, and a Radical Abomination
Physically Harmful
Sodomy—whether giving or receiving—is not what the male body was designed for. The biological reality is clear:
- The rectum is not designed for penetration the way a vagina is. It lacks the necessary natural lubrication and structure, making it highly susceptible to tearing and disease transmission.
- Medical studies confirm that sodomy significantly increases the risk of infections, STDs, rectal trauma, and even colorectal cancer.
- It violates natural function.
Spiritually and Morally Unbecoming
- Sodomy is a complete perversion of God’s design for sexuality, which was created for the union of male and female in marriage for procreation and deep, spiritual intimacy (Genesis 1:28, 2:24).
- Romans 1:26-27 states that unnatural sexual relations are evidence of a society that has rejected God and is under His judgment.
- 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 is clear: “Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals … will inherit the kingdom of God.” Homosexual acts—including sodomy—are fundamentally incompatible with salvation and sanctification.
Sodomy as a Radical Abomination
- Scripture explicitly calls homosexual behavior an abomination (toevah in Hebrew), meaning a detestable act that deeply offends God (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13).
- The judgment of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis 19) serves as a historic warning: when a society embraces and normalizes sodomy, it invites divine wrath.
- Sodomy is the antithesis of love, because it degrades the image of God in men and women who practice it. It does not honor, cherish, or protect—it dehumanizes, defiles, and destroys.
Summary of Truth and Love in Harmony
- The LGBTQ+ movement’s ontology of human nature is flawed because it is self-defined, rather than grounded in divine truth. Human flourishing is found not in indulging desires, but in submitting to God’s will.
- The LGBTQ+ definition of love is self-focused, sexualized, and permissive of sin. In contrast, biblical love is holy, sacrificial, and rooted in truth.
- Sodomy is unnatural, physically harmful, and spiritually destructive. It is not an act of love, but an act of defilement and rebellion against God’s design inviting divine wrath.
True love calls sinners to repentance—not affirmation of sin. Love, in its purest form, points people to Christ, the only One who can set them free. Jesus sets the repentant homosexual free and washes them clean of sin and sanctifies them unto holiness, which includes heterosexuality.
Conclusion: A Call to Restore Marriage to Its Rightful Place
The Obergefell ruling was an unconstitutional overreach, built upon a faulty premise that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic. The reality of transformation, as seen in my life and the lives of many others, contradicts this assertion. Marriage is not a right based on personal desire but a sacred institution ordained by God for the good of individuals, families, and society.
I urge the North Dakota legislature to stand for truth and pass Resolution 3013, calling upon the U.S. Supreme Court to restore the definition of marriage to its rightful and natural state. We must honor God’s design and protect future generations from the consequences of abandoning it.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Pastor Daren Mehl
Agape First Ministries
President, Voice of the Voiceless
Founder, Made Free Ministries
Linktr.ee/darenmehl
www.agapefirstministries.org/darenmehl
https://changedmovement.com/stories//daren-mehl
Mehl Marriage Dec 11, 2005
The Mehl Family, 2024, Praise to Jesus for His generous blessing in our marriage!
[ii] www.therapyequality.org www.therapeuticchoice.com www.journalofhumansexuality.com
