U.S. Supreme Court
Survivors speak out as Supreme Court considers conversion therapy case
As conversion therapy survivors share painful testimonies, they urge SCOTUS justices to protect LGBTQ youth.
As the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar last week—a case that could overturn bans on conversion therapy in more than 20 states and the District of Columbia—a group of conversion therapy survivors gathered in Washington, D.C., to support one another and ensure their experiences are not ignored.
Some members of the Conversion Therapy Survivor Network (CTSN), a nonprofit organization that provides a safe, non-therapeutic space for survivors nationwide, began their day on the steps of the Supreme Court. The small but dedicated group of protesters held signs, waved Pride flags, and shared stories of survival. They were joined by representatives from the Born Perfect Campaign, the Human Rights Campaign, and The Trevor Project—the LGBTQ suicide prevention nonprofit that has worked to save queer lives since 1998.
The case centers on whether parents have the constitutional right to subject their children to conversion therapy under the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom. Dozens of states have banned the practice, citing overwhelming evidence that it does not change sexuality or gender identity and often leads to long-term psychological harm. Survivors of conversion therapy are at significantly higher risk of depression, anxiety, and suicide, according to every major U.S. medical association—including the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, and the American Medical Association—all of which have disavowed the practice.
Kaley Chiles, a Christian therapist from Colorado, brought the case after arguing that Colorado’s 2019 law banning conversion therapy for minors violates her First Amendment rights. Chiles, who provides what she describes as “religiously informed care,” contends that the law restricts her ability to counsel clients in accordance with “biblical understandings of sexuality and gender.”
During oral arguments, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared sympathetic to her claim that the law constitutes “viewpoint discrimination.” Justice Samuel Alito went so far as to say the ban represented “blatant viewpoint discrimination,” signaling that the court may be willing to expand First Amendment protections to cover conversion therapy.
For survivors gathered just blocks away, that prospect was devastating.
Following the hearing, CTSN held a vigil and celebration at As You Are, an LGBTQ bar and café in Southeast D.C. that has become a haven for the queer community. On the bar’s second floor, posters from the protest were propped against the wall—“I refuse to hate myself for your comfort” and “Conversion therapy hurts kids, hurts families, hurts faith”— as two phones livestreamed survivors’ stories to TikTok. The testimonies were both wrenching and cathartic.
As the meeting began, the group held a moment of silence for those who did not survive their experiences with conversion therapy, setting the tone for the urgent need to end the practice.
Tears welled in the audience and among speakers as they took the microphone to share how conversion therapy had scarred—and in some cases nearly destroyed—their lives.
“Since when is the freedom of religion more important than ‘do no harm?’” one survivor asked, encapsulating the frustration that ran through the room.
Curtis Lopez-Galloway, founder and president of CTSN, said the only way to end conversion therapy is through awareness. “The one way we’re going to defeat conversion therapy is by education,” he said before sharing his own story. “The more people that know about the harms, the less likely they are to take their children—or themselves—into it.”
Their commitment to breaking the cycle of harm echoed throughout the afternoon. Survivors from across the LGBTQ spectrum—gay, trans, and asexual—shared their experiences of rejection, isolation, and recovery.
Cairn, who once trained as a youth minister, recalled how their church’s teachings were weaponized against them. “We prayed for the gay to go away,” they said. “The Bible was used as a weapon to make me submissive to the normal gender roles I was destined to fill.”
They remembered being instructed on how to “walk like a lady” to suppress their masculinity. “I was advised how to walk like a lady because I have swagger. I still do,” Cairn added with a small smile, drawing laughter and applause from the crowd.
But the damage ran deep. “That year in Bible school ended my career as a youth minister—but it also ended my personal faith in God,” Cairn said. “When you are told repeatedly that you’re going to hell if you choose this lifestyle, it starts to take a toll on you.”
Years later, they found affirming pastors and began rebuilding their life. “After 35 years,” Cairn said, “I started to live my life unashamed.”
Other speakers shared stories of lives fragmented by fear. “I lost 20 years of my life,” said Gwen Brossard, a queer and nonbinary person living in California. “It’s hard to settle with the enormity of the grief.”
“The inner conflict and continual effort of examining my attractions while trying to counter them left me emotionally and physically exhausted,” she said. “The therapy radically altered the trajectory of my life. I felt adrift, severed from my previous sense of meaning and belonging.”
For Al Linkskoog, a gay man who subjected himself to the practice due to the insurmountable pressure he felt from how the world treated LGBTQ people, conversion therapy’s toll was both spiritual and psychological. “They told me I was broken,” he said. “It’s an interesting, although bogus, way of trying to solve a problem—decide what the problem is before even meeting the person.”
“Being called broken is a dismal diagnosis. It means you’re already in pieces,” he continued. “Every prayer, every determination to change—nothing changed. All the years of trying to change were unnecessary. I was perfectly fine as I was.”
Years later, he said, he finally found peace. “No more need for closets. I have full run of the mansion. So now I can truly say: I am not broken.”
Sarah, who identifies as asexual, reminded the audience that conversion therapy doesn’t only target gay and trans people. “Asexuality is sometimes called the invisible sexuality,” she said. “Many ace folks encounter professionals who believe their lack of attraction is a problem to fix instead of a neutral fact of their identity.”
She challenged assumptions about what love and intimacy should look like. “Our existence doesn’t just challenge compulsory heterosexuality—it questions compulsive sexuality,” Sarah said. “We are here. We are queer. We aren’t going anywhere. We don’t need to be fixed—only to love the way we love and be loved for who we are.”
One of the most harrowing stories of the night was from Caleb Bailar, a trans man from England who was not in attendance but whose story was read by Samuel Nieves, the board director for CTSN.
“My phone was taken away, my messages read daily. I was told I was being misled and was too young to know what I wanted from life,” he recalled.
He described a form of punishment his mother practiced called “kid hell,” a conversion therapy method derived from a manual circulated among anti-trans groups. “My kid hell was to have no time truly alone,” he said. “I could not use the phone, computer, or journal in private. Whenever I would hyperventilate and scream and beg for it to be over, my mom would hold me and tell me this was for my own good.”
“Every time I expressed myself or was interpreted correctly, I would flinch and brace for punishment,” Nieves read. “Once, she threatened to unalive herself if I got a mastectomy. I found out my experience could be considered conversion torture—the horror I had endured was a map. I can joke about it now,” he added quietly.
“The pain is real, but so is the healing,” said one organizer after the stories were shared. “We can’t let the Court forget that.”
For those in attendance, the message was clear: Their survival is their protest.
As the Supreme Court deliberates the Chiles v. Salazar case, survivors hope the justices will remember that the cost of conversion therapy cannot be measured in legal briefs or religious rights—but in lives.
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
Justices declined to revisit the Obergefell decision
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear an appeal from Kim Davis, the former Rowan County, Ky., clerk best known for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples after the landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges decision legalized same-sex marriage nationwide.
Following the Obergefell ruling, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses altogether and has since filed multiple appeals seeking to challenge same-sex marriage protections. The court once again rejected her efforts on Monday.
In this latest appeal, Davis sought to overturn a $100,000 monetary award she was ordered to pay to David Moore and David Ermold, a same-sex couple to whom she denied a marriage license. Her petition also urged the court to use the case as a vehicle to revisit the constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
The petition, along with the couple’s brief in opposition, was submitted to the Supreme Court on Oct. 22 and considered during the justices’ private conference on Nov. 7. Davis needed at least four votes for the court to take up her case, but Monday’s order shows she fell short.
This story is developing and will be updated as more information becomes available.
U.S. Supreme Court
LGBTQ legal leaders to Supreme Court: ‘honor your precedent, protect our families’
Experts insist Kim Davis case lacks merit
The U.S. Supreme Court considered hearing a case from Kim Davis on Friday that could change the legality of same-sex marriage in the United States.
Davis, best known as the former county clerk for Rowan County, Ky., who defied federal court orders by refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — and later, to any couples at all — is back in the headlines this week as she once again attempts to get Obergefell v. Hodges overturned on a federal level.
She has tried to get the Supreme Court to overturn this case before — the first time was just weeks after the initial 2015 ruling — arguing that, in her official capacity as a county clerk, she should have the right to refuse same-sex marriage licenses based on her First Amendment rights. The court has emphatically said Davis, at least in her official capacity as a county clerk, does not have the right to act on behalf of the state while simultaneously following her personal religious beliefs.
The Washington Blade spoke with Karen Loewy, interim deputy legal director for litigation at Lambda Legal, the oldest and largest national legal organization advancing civil rights for the LGBTQ community and people living with HIV through litigation, education, and public policy, to discuss the realistic possibilities of the court taking this case, its potential implications, and what LGBTQ couples concerned about this can do now to protect themselves.
Loewy began by explaining how the court got to where it is today.
“So Kim Davis has petitioned the Supreme Court for review of essentially what was [a] damages award that the lower court had given to a couple that she refused a marriage license to in her capacity as a clerk on behalf of the state,” Loewy said, explaining Davis has tried (and failed) to get this same appeal going in the past. “This is not the first time that she has asked the court to weigh in on this case. This is her second bite at the apple at the U.S. Supreme Court, and in 2020, the last time that she did this, the court denied review.”
Davis’s entire argument rests on her belief that she has the ability to act both as a representative of the state and according to her personal religious convictions — something, Loewy said, no court has ever recognized as a legal right.
“She’s really claiming a religious, personal, religious exemption from her duties on behalf of the state, and that’s not a thing.”
That, Loewy explained, is ultimately a good thing for the sanctity of same-sex marriage.
“I think there’s a good reason to think that they will, yet again, say this is not an appropriate vehicle for the question and deny review.”
She also noted that public opinion on same-sex marriage remains overwhelmingly positive.
“The Respect for Marriage Act is a really important thing that has happened since Obergefell. This is a federal statute that mandates that marriages that were lawfully entered, wherever they were lawfully entered, get respect at the federal level and across state lines.”
“Public opinion around marriage has changed so dramatically … even at the state level, you’re not going to see the same immediate efforts to undermine marriages of same-sex couples that we might have a decade ago before Obergefell came down.”
A clear majority of U.S. adults — 65.8 percent — continue to support keeping the Obergefell v. Hodges decision in place, protecting the right to same-sex marriage. That support breaks down to 83 percent of liberals, 68 percent of moderates, and about half of conservatives saying they support marriage equality. These results align with other recent polling, including Gallup’s May 2025 estimate showing 68 percent support for same-sex marriage.
“Where we are now is quite different from where we were in terms of public opinion … opponents of marriage equality are loud, but they’re not numerous.”
Loewy also emphasized that even if, by some chance, something did happen to the right to marry, once a marriage is issued, it cannot be taken back.
“First, the Respect for Marriage Act is an important reason why people don’t need to panic,” she said. “Once you are married, you are married, there isn’t a way to sort of undo marriages that were lawfully licensed at the time.”
She continued, explaining that LGBTQ people might feel vulnerable right now as the current political climate becomes less welcoming, but there is hope — and the best way to respond is to move thoughtfully.
“I don’t have a crystal ball. I also can’t give any sort of specific advice. But what I would say is, you know, I understand people’s fear. Everything feels really vulnerable right now, and this administration’s attacks on the LGBTQ community make everybody feel vulnerable for really fair and real reasons. I think the practical likelihood of Obergefell being reversed at this moment in time is very low. You know, that doesn’t mean there aren’t other, you know, case vehicles out there to challenge the validity of Obergefell, but they’re not on the Supreme Court’s doorstep, and we will see how it all plays out for folks who feel particularly concerned and vulnerable.”
Loewy went on to say there are steps LGBTQ couples and families can take to safeguard their relationships, regardless of what the court decides. She recommended getting married (if that feels right for them) and utilizing available legal tools such as estate planning and relationship documentation.
“There are things, steps that they can take to protect their families — putting documentation in place and securing relationships between parents and children, doing estate planning, making sure that their relationship is recognized fully throughout their lives and their communities. Much of that is not different from the tools that folks have had at their disposal prior to the availability of marriage equality … But I think it behooves everyone to make sure they have an estate plan and they’ve taken those steps to secure their family relationships.”
“I think, to the extent that the panic is rising for folks, those are tools that they have at their disposal to try and make sure that their family and their relationships are as secure as possible,” she added.
When asked what people can do at the state and local level to protect these rights from being eroded, Loewy urged voters to support candidates and initiatives that codify same-sex marriage at smaller levels — which would make it more difficult, if not impossible, for a federal reversal of Obergefell to take effect.
“With regard to marriage equality … states can be doing … amend state constitutions, to remove any of the previous language that had been used to bar same-sex couples from marrying.”
Lambda Legal CEO Kevin Jennings echoed Loewy’s points in a statement regarding the possibility of Obergefell being overturned:
“In the United States, we can proudly say that marriage equality is the law,” he said via email. “As the Supreme Court discusses whether to take up for review a challenge to marriage equality, Lambda Legal urges the court to honor what millions of Americans already know as a fundamental truth and right: LGBTQ+ families are part of the nation’s fabric.
“LGBTQ+ families, including same-sex couples, are living in and contributing to every community in this country: building loving homes and small businesses, raising children, caring for pets and neighbors, and volunteering in their communities. The court took note of this reality in Obergefell v. Hodges, citing the ‘hundreds of thousands of children’ already being raised in ‘loving and nurturing homes’ led by same-sex couples. The vows that LGBTQ+ couples have taken in their weddings might have been a personal promise to each other. Still, the decision of the Supreme Court is an unbreakable promise affirming the simple truth that our Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law to all, not just some.”
He noted the same things Loewy pointed out — namely that, at minimum, the particular avenue Davis is attempting to use to challenge same-sex marriage has no legal footing.
“Let’s be clear: There is no case here. Granting review in this case would unnecessarily open the door to harming families and undermine our rights. Lower courts have found that a government employee violates the law when she refuses to grant marriage licenses to same-sex couples as her job requires. There is no justifiable reason for the court to revisit settled law or destabilize families.”
He also addressed members of the LGBTQ community who might be feeling fearful at this moment:
“To our community, we say: this fight is not new. Our community has been fighting for decades for our right to love whom we love, to marry and to build our families. It was not quick, not easy, not linear. We have lived through scary and dark times before, endured many defeats, but we have persevered. When we persist, we prevail.”
And he issued a direct message to the court, urging justices to honor the Constitution over one person’s religious beliefs.
“To the court, we ask it to honor its own precedent, to honor the Constitution’s commands of individual liberty and equal protection under the law, and above all, to honor the reality of LGBTQ families — deeply rooted in every town and city in America. There is no reason to grant review in this case.”
Kenneth Gordon, a partner at Brinkley Morgan, a financial firm that works with individuals and couples, including same-sex partners, to meet their legal and financial goals, also emphasized the importance of not panicking and of using available documentation processes such as estate planning.
“From a purely legal standpoint, overturning Obergefell v. Hodges would present significant complications. While it is unlikely that existing same-sex marriages would be invalidated, particularly given the protections of the 2022 Respect for Marriage Act, states could regain the authority to limit or prohibit future marriage licenses to same-sex couples. That would create a patchwork of laws across the country, where a couple could be legally married in one state but not recognized as married if they moved to or even visited another state.
“The legal ripple effects could be substantial. Family law issues such as adoption, parental rights, inheritance, health care decision-making, and property division all rely on the legal status of marriage. Without uniform recognition, couples could face uncertainty in areas like custody determinations, enforcement of spousal rights in medical emergencies, or the ability to inherit from a spouse without additional legal steps.
“Courts generally strive for consistency, and creating divergent state rules on marriage recognition would reintroduce conflicts that Obergefell was intended to resolve. From a legal systems perspective, that inconsistency would invite years of litigation and impose significant personal and financial burdens on affected families.”
Finally, Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson issued a statement about the possibility of the Supreme Court deciding to hear Davis’s appeal:
“Marriage equality isn’t just the law of the land — it’s woven into the fabric of American life,” said Robinson. “For more than a decade, millions of LGBTQ+ couples have gotten married, built families, and contributed to their communities. The American people overwhelmingly support that freedom. But Kim Davis and the anti-LGBTQ+ extremists backing her see a cynical opportunity to attack our families and re-litigate what’s already settled. The court should reject this paper-thin attempt to undermine marriage equality and the dignity of LGBTQ+ people.”
U.S. Supreme Court
Supreme Court rules White House can implement anti-trans passport policy
ACLU, Lambda Legal filed lawsuits against directive.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday said the Trump-Vance administration can implement a policy that bans the State Department from issuing passports with “X” gender markers.
President Donald Trump once he took office signed an executive order that outlined the policy. A memo the Washington Blade obtained directed State Department personnel to “suspend any application where the applicant is seeking to change their sex marker from that defined in the executive order pending further guidance.”
The White House only recognizes two genders: male and female.
The American Civil Liberties Union in February filed a lawsuit against the passport directive on behalf of seven trans and nonbinary people.
A federal judge in Boston in April issued a preliminary junction against it. A three-judge panel on the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in September ruled against the Trump-Vance administration’s motion to delay the move.
A federal judge in Maryland also ruled against the passport policy. (Lambda Legal filed the lawsuit on behalf of seven trans people.)
“This is a heartbreaking setback for the freedom of all people to be themselves, and fuel on the fire the Trump administration is stoking against transgender people and their constitutional rights,” said Jon Davidson, senior counsel for the ACLU’s LGBTQ and HIV Project, in a statement. “Forcing transgender people to carry passports that out them against their will increases the risk that they will face harassment and violence and adds to the considerable barriers they already face in securing freedom, safety, and acceptance. We will continue to fight this policy and work for a future where no one is denied self-determination over their identity.”
Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
The Supreme Court ruling is here.
Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
I’m transgender. I’m autistic. And Trump’s SNAP chaos is frightening
Capital Pride files anti-stalking complaint against local LGBTQ activist
How federal layoffs, shutdown threaten D.C.-area landlords
A history of lesbian workarounds to build family
‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case
Gay speedskater racing toward a more inclusive future in sports
Blue wave hits Northeast: Sherrill and Mamdani lead Democratic comeback
Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
Beginning of the end for Trump
-
District of Columbia4 days ago‘Sandwich guy’ not guilty in assault case
-
Sports4 days ago
Gay speedskater racing toward a more inclusive future in sports
-
New Jersey5 days ago
Blue wave hits Northeast: Sherrill and Mamdani lead Democratic comeback
-
U.S. Supreme Court19 minutes ago
Supreme Court rejects Kim Davis’s effort to overturn landmark marriage ruling
