National
How will Supreme Court rule on marriage?
Parsing statements, records for hints as to how justices will decide DOMA, Prop 8 cases
Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court are expected to issue rulings on the Prop 8 and DOMA cases in June. (Photo public domain)
The nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court are expected to reach a decision by the end of June in two high-profile LGBT rights cases on which they heard oral arguments last week challenging California’s Proposition 8 and the federal Defense of Marriage Act.
The justices could reach any number of decisions on either or both of the cases — upholding the anti-gay measures, dismissing the cases for lack of standing or jurisdiction, striking down Prop 8 and DOMA on grounds they violate the rights of same-sex couples under the U.S. Constitution — or even issuing a national ruling in favor of marriage equality.
Predicting how they might rule is tricky. But several of the justices made statements and asked questions during the oral arguments that offered some hints. Perhaps more significantly, many of them have a record of ruling in gay rights cases that might indicate their leanings on marriage. The Washington Blade has compiled profiles of the justices to assess how they might rule in the two marriage cases before them.
In addition to examining their comments during the arguments, the Blade has looked at how they ruled in other high-profile gay rights cases. One is the 1996 case of Romer v. Evans in which the Supreme Court struck down Colorado’s Amendment 2, which would have prohibited municipalities from passing non-discrimination ordinances protecting LGBT people. Another is the 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas in which the Supreme Court struck down state sodomy laws.
The Blade also looked at the court ruling in the 2010 case of Christian Legal Society v. Martinez. In that case, the court upheld the Hastings College of Law’s non-discrimination policy against a challenge from Hastings Christian Fellowship, which sought to overturn the policy to maintain its status as an official school group while prohibiting LGBT people from holding positions as officers.
Chief Justice John Roberts (Photo public domain)
1. Chief Justice John Roberts
The chief justice of the Supreme Court seemed skeptical during oral arguments that Prop 8 and DOMA should be struck down as unconstitutional. He also seemed dismissive of the notion that LGBT people lack political power.
In an exchange with attorney Robbie Kaplan, Chief Justice John Roberts disputed that gay people lack political power — a characteristic that the court has considered in weighing whether a group should be considered a suspect class.
“As far as I can tell, political figures are falling over themselves to endorse your side of the case,” Roberts said.
The chief justice was likely referring to the trend of U.S. senators announcing their support for marriage equality, which just this week added Sens. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), Tom Carper (D-Del.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.). When Kaplan pointed out that no group has been subject to referenda in recent years like gay people, Roberts seemed unmoved.
“You just referred to a sea change in people’s understandings and values from 1996, when DOMA was enacted, and I’m just trying to see where that comes from, if not from the political effectiveness of groups on your side,” Roberts said.
Roberts, who was appointed by President George W. Bush, hasn’t ruled on many gay rights cases during his time on the bench. Still, Roberts ruled as part of the dissent that deemed exclusion of LGBT students was acceptable in the Christian Legal Society case.
On the other hand, Roberts in 1996 helped gay rights activists as part of his law firm’s pro bono work in preparation for the Romer case. He also has a lesbian cousin, Jean Podrasky, who attended arguments on Prop 8.
Suzanne Goldberg, a lesbian and co-director of Columbia University’s Center for Gender & Sexuality Law, pointed to another comment Roberts made indicating a parent forcing a child to make friends with another child changes the definition of friendship.
“It suggested that he might be less open to recognizing marriage rights for same-sex couples than the Olson-Boies team had anticipated,” Goldberg said.
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia (Photo public domain)
2. Associate Justice Antonin Scalia
Associate Justice Antonin Scalia, viewed by many as the most anti-gay of the justices, mused that being raised by gay parents may not be good for a child — an argument made by many anti-gay groups.
“If you redefine marriage to include same-sex couples, you must permit adoption by same-sex couples, and there’s considerable disagreement among sociologists as to what the consequences of raising a child in a single-sex family, whether that is harmful to the child or not,” Scalia said. “Some states do not permit adoption by same-sex couples for that reason.”
Those words are consistent with anti-gay views that Scalia has expressed in the past. Most notably, speaking at Princeton in December, Scalia compared bans on sodomy to laws against murder, saying, “If we cannot have moral feelings against homosexuality, can we have it against murder? Can we have it against other things?”
Since his confirmation to the court, Scalia has not only made anti-gay rulings, but has taken the lead on the opinions. The Reagan-appointed justice wrote the dissenting opinions in the Romer and Lawrence cases and joined with other dissenting justices in ruling for LGBT exclusion in the Christian Legal Society case.
Doug NeJaime, who’s gay and a professor at Loyola Law School, said Scalia is likely to rule to uphold Prop 8 and the Defense of Marriage Act.
“Justice Scalia has made clear in earlier opinions … that legislation can be justified merely by moral disapproval of homosexuality, even though a majority of the court has rejected that position,” NeJaime said. “Moreover, under his theory of constitutional interpretation, he does not believe that lesbians and gay men have a constitutional basis for their claims in these cases.”
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy (Photo public domain)
3. Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy
The justice who’s being most closely watched because of his reputation for being a swing vote — and his previous rulings in favor of gay rights — conveyed mixed sentiments during the arguments.
Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy contemplated the effect that overturning or sustaining Prop 8 would have on children based on the newness of same-sex marriage.
“We have five years of information to weigh against 2,000 years of history or more,” Kennedy said. “On the other hand, there is … what could be a legal injury, and that’s the voice of these children. There are some 40,000 children in California … that live with same-sex parents, and they want their parents to have full recognition and full status.”
A Reagan appointee, Kennedy authored the majority opinions in the Romer and Lawrence cases that struck down anti-gay measures in those lawsuits. In the Christian Legal Society case, Kennedy also ruled in favor of requiring student groups to be open to all students regardless of LGBT status.
That’s what makes Kennedy’s comment questioning the Ninth Circuit ruling against Prop 8, which was largely based on his opinion in Romer, particularly noteworthy.
“The rationale of the Ninth Circuit was much more narrow,” Kennedy said. “It basically said that California, which has been more generous, more open to protecting same-sex couples than almost any state in the union, just didn’t go far enough, and it’s being penalized for not going far enough. That’s a very odd rationale on which to sustain this opinion.”
Nan Hunter, a lesbian law professor at Georgetown University, said the “single most powerful vibe” she received from Kennedy during arguments was his ambivalence.
“My best guess is that in the Perry case, he will rule in some way that avoids discussion of Prop 8’s constitutionality and that in the Windsor case, he will conclude that DOMA is unconstitutional, but his opinion may invoke federalism as much as it does the Equal Protection Clause,” Hunter said.
Associate Justice Clarence Thomas (Photo public domain)
4. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas
In accordance with his custom, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas remained silent for the duration of oral arguments in the marriage cases.
Thomas is known for not asking questions. In January, after seven years of silence, the George H.W. Bush-appointed justice made news when he broke his tradition and cracked a joke about the competency of an attorney during a case unrelated to marriage.
But Thomas has a history of taking the anti-gay side. He ruled in the dissent in the Romer and Lawrence cases and ruled for LGBT exclusion in the Christian Legal Society case.
Chris Stoll, a senior staff attorney for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said oral arguments don’t offer any information on how Thomas might rule, but noted the justice’s history of anti-gay opinions.
“He is quite conservative and historically has voted with the other conservative justices in cases involving LGBT equality,” Stoll said.
5. Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Photo public domain)
One justice who has a history of ruling in favor of gay rights indicated a disdain for DOMA during oral arguments.
Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the 1996 law creates two different kinds of unions for same-sex and opposite-sex couples: “the full marriage, and then this sort of skim milk marriage.”
While questioning attorney Paul Clement, Ginsburg more distinctly articulated the problems for gay couples under DOMA by enumerating benefits denied to them under the law.
“The problem is if we are totally for the states’ decision that there is a marriage between two people, for the federal government then to come in to say no joint return, no marital deduction, no Social Security benefits; your spouse is very sick but you can’t get leave; people — if that set of attributes, one might well ask, what kind of marriage is this?” Ginsburg said.
Ginsburg also has a history suggesting she’d be willing to rule against Prop 8 and DOMA. The Clinton-appointed justice ruled in favor of LGBT advocates in the Romer, Lawrence and Christian Legal Society cases. Prior to her confirmation as a Supreme Court justice, Ginsburg was a women’s rights advocate and co-founder of the women’s rights project at the American Civil Liberties Union.
David Gans, civil rights director for the progressive Constitutional Accountability Center, said he considers Ginsburg a likely vote to strike down DOMA and Prop 8 based on her history of rulings and comments made in court.
“I think her comments tended to be across the board very skeptical of the justifications offered, and, of course, her record, both as an advocate and justice is to honor the constitutional guarantee of equal protection applies to all persons,” Gans said.
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer (Photo public domain)
6. Associate Justice Stephen Breyer
The other Clinton appointee on the bench also made comments during the Prop 8 arguments suggesting he might rule in favor of marriage rights for gay couples.
Associate Justice Stephen Breyer was dismissive of Cooper’s assertion that marriage is for procreation, observing California allows straight couples who cannot have children to marry.
“What precisely is the way in which allowing gay couples to marry would interfere with the vision of marriage as procreation of children that allowing sterile couples of different sexes to marry would not?” Breyer said. “I mean, there are lots of people who get married who can’t have children.”
And Breyer’s earlier rulings suggest he would be amenable to striking down Prop 8 and DOMA. Breyer joined Kennedy and other justices in the pro-gay rulings for Romer and Lawrence and sided with LGBT inclusion in the Christian Legal Society Case.
Gans said Breyer’s comments during the Prop 8 arguments indicate his rulings on the anti-gay measures will likely be consistent with his earlier decisions.
“Justice Breyer’s questions during oral argument suggested that he would find that discriminatory marriage laws violate the constitutional guarantee of equal protection for all persons,” Gans said.
Associate Justice Samuel Alito (Photo public domain)
7. Associate Justice Samuel Alito
Associate Justice Samuel Alito expressed concerns about same-sex marriage, quipping that it’s “newer than cell phones or the Internet.”
“Same-sex marriage is very new,” Alito said. “I think it was first adopted in the Netherlands in 2000. So there isn’t a lot of data about its effect. And it may turn out to be a good thing; it may turn out not to be a good thing, as the supporters of Proposition 8 apparently believe.”
An appointee of President George W. Bush, Alito hasn’t been on the court long enough to have ruled in the earlier landmark Lawrence and Romer cases. But he wrote the dissenting opinion in favor of LGBT exclusion in the Christian Legal Society case.
Lavi Soloway, a gay immigration attorney and co-founder of The DOMA Project, said he expects Alito to be consistent and issue an anti-gay decision in the cases before him — taking note of the exchange in the Prop 8 case.
“This line of thinking was disappointing; it not only belittled the fight for equality, but suggested that Justice Alito would first need to be convinced of the ‘effects’ of same-sex marriage before he could determine whether gay and lesbian Americans have a constitutionally protected right to marry,” Soloway said. “This exchange suggested to me that Alito will most likely vote to uphold Prop 8, preferring that legislatures continue to wrestle with this issue.”
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor (Photo public domain)
8. Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor
Another justice — this one appointed by President Obama — asked some of the most pointed questions about whether there’s any reason anti-gay laws could survive the court’s lowest standard of review.
Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor pressed attorney Charles Cooper on whether he could conceive of anti-gay laws on other issues other than marriage that could survive rational basis review. The answer from Cooper was that he could not.
“If that is true, then why aren’t they a class?” Sotomayor responded. “If they’re a class that makes any other discrimination improper, irrational, then why aren’t we treating them as a class for this one thing?”
Sotomayor’s response suggests she might agree with the Obama administration that laws related to sexual orientation should be subjected to heightened scrutiny, or a greater assumption they’re unconstitutional.
A newcomer to the court, Sotomayor hasn’t had the opportunity to rule on many of the earlier LGBT rights cases that have come before the bench. But in the Christian Legal Society case, she joined four other justices in ruling student groups had to accept all students regardless of LGBT status.
Notably, Sotomayor was the only one among nine justices who responded to a letter from a North Carolina 6th grader named Cameron urging justices to rule in favor of marriage equality. The justice said she had no comment on the marriage cases, but urged Cameron to keep “dreaming big.”
NCLR’s Stoll pointed to Sotomayor’s exchange with Cooper as evidence she’d rule against Prop 8 and had similar expectations for how she’d rule on DOMA.
“She seemed perplexed and unpersuaded by Cooper’s argument that excluding gay people from marriage somehow promotes ‘responsible procreation’ by different-sex couples,” Stoll said.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)
9. Associate Justice Elena Kagan
Yet another justice appointed by President Obama seemed skeptical about arguments presented by proponents of Prop 8 and DOMA.
Associate Justice Elena Kagan suggested to attorney Paul Clement that Congress may have had another motive other than uniformity when it determined to pass the anti-gay law.
“This was a real difference in the uniformity that the federal government was pursuing,” Kagan said. “And it suggests that maybe something — maybe Congress had something different in mind than uniformity.”
Clement offered a lengthy response in which he talked about federal bans on polygamy and laws after the Civil War allowing freed slaves to marry. But Kagan responded by reading from the House report on DOMA, which states the law was passed “to reflect an honor of collective moral judgment and to express moral disapproval of homosexuality” — deemed a “gotcha” moment that elicited laughter from those in the courtroom.
During the Prop 8 arguments, Kagan was also skeptical of Cooper’s argument that the purpose of marriage is procreation and asked for a legitimate reason for excluding same-sex couples from marriage.
“Is there any reason that you have for excluding them?” Kagan said. “In other words, you’re saying, well, if we allow same-sex couples to marry, it doesn’t serve the state’s interest. But do you go further and say that it harms any state interest?”
Like Sotomayor, Kagan is a relative newcomer to the court and hasn’t had the opportunity to rule on gay cases. During her confirmation hearing, Kagan wouldn’t say whether the she thinks the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry.
Still, Loyola’s NeJaime said Kagan seemed bothered during oral arguments by equal protections concerns presented by Prop 8 and DOMA.
“Given her lengthy questions about the relationship between age and procreative ability, she seems unconvinced by the ‘responsible procreation’ rationale for same-sex marriage bans,” NeJaime said. “And given her reading of the House report on DOMA regarding the ‘moral disapproval of homosexuality,’ she is suggesting that the law may not survive rational basis review.”
National
At Alliance Defending Freedom’s summit, church and state are one
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) among speakers
Uncloseted Media published this article on July 23.
By SPENCER MACNAUGHTON | Earlier this month, hundreds of people filled a conference room in San Diego. These included Speaker of the House Mike Johnson, Assistant Secretary of Health Admiral Brian Christine, OpenAI executive Dean Ball, and the attorneys general of West Virginia and Idaho.
They all came together for Alliance Defending Freedom’s 2026 Summit. The Christian legal group, also a Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-LGBTQ hate group, described the event as a “gathering of leaders from many different spheres, including law, public policy, media, business, education, and Christian leadership.”
Johnson — who has said that “homosexual relationships are inherently unnatural and … society cannot give its stamp of approval to such a dangerous lifestyle” — was a featured speaker.
In his speech, he seemed unconcerned with the separation of church and state: “It is so encouraging to Kelly and I to be among friends and fellow warriors for this cause and people who understand that God is not done with America yet. … ADF’s on the very tip of the spear, front line, defending those very truths and keeping the door open for the spread of the Gospel. This is our moment. I’m telling you, I believe the next season … is going to be the greatest season of this ministry since its inception.”
That ministry is one that has espoused aggressively anti-LGBTQ views since its inception in the early 1990s. It was co-founded by a group of evangelical men, including Alan Sears, who co-authored a book called “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.” Since then, ADF has opposed gay marriage and supported bans on gay sex and on gender-affirming care for minors.
After helping overturn Roe v. Wade, ADF lawyers have led key victories at the Supreme Court. In 303 Creative v. Elenis, SCOTUS ruled that a website designer could refuse service to gay weddings. And this year they convinced the Court to overturn Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy and to uphold state laws in West Virginia and Idaho that ban trans girls from playing on girls’ sports teams.
At the summit, ADF President Kristen Waggoner, who has promoted conversion therapists and consistently misgenders trans people, interviewed these states’ attorneys general.
“The lawyers who were defending women’s sports were among the best I’ve ever seen in my entire life,” West Virginia Attorney General JB McCuskey told Waggoner.
Similar to Johnson, Trump’s Assistant Secretary of Health Christine showed his commitment to governing based on conservative Christianity. He gave a Bible-thumping speech against gender transition and trans healthcare, saying that it “contradicts … the deeper moral order that is woven into creation itself. For Genesis 1:27 informs us that God created man in his own image. … Male and female” He also said the “complementary relationship between man and woman is divine” and advocated for youth with gender dysphoria to receive care from a pastor.
All of these remarks from politicians made me think of the interview I published earlier this week with Pete Hegseth’s pastor, Doug Wilson. He wants a Christian theocracy in America and told me that: both the perpetrator and the victim should be disciplined in some cases of marital rape; that transgender people are “sad;” that execution is justifiable for certain homosexual acts; and that gay sex should be illegal.
The ADF Summit is glossy and polished. And while its messaging may be less explicit than Pastor Wilson’s, the track record of the organizations shows they have the exact same desires. They’re just deeply strategic in what they say and when and how they say it.
I believe the political power players who attended this year’s summit know this. They know they are endorsing an organization whose members have essentially called for the illegalization of most — if not all ‚ forms of queer behavior and presentation.
In the last few years, these perspectives have become increasingly embedded in the highest rooms of the federal government and they have been effective in stripping away LGBTQ rights. Wilson, who just installed a full-time pastor in Washington to lead services, says there are 10 to 20 government officials who align with his church’s ideology.
It is vital for Americans to keep their eyes wide open to the ultimate goal of groups like ADF: to create a United States that leaves LGBTQ people without rights and that pushes us back in the closet.
Puerto Rico
LGBTQ ‘human rights crisis is unfolding in Puerto Rico’
Activist spoke at Congressional Hispanic Caucus briefing in D.C. on July 15
An activist from Puerto Rico who spoke at a Congressional Hispanic Caucus briefing last week in D.C. said anti-LGBTQ laws and policies have left the LGBTQ community in the U.S. commonwealth even more vulnerable.
“A human rights crisis is unfolding in Puerto Rico — one that disproportionately affects LGBT+ people, particularly transgender and nonbinary Puerto Ricans,” said True Self Foundation Executive Director Miguel Vázquez-Rivera.
The True Self Foundation and LatinoJustice PRLDEF participated in the briefing that took place on July 15.
Vázquez-Rivera during the briefing highlighted several anti-LGBTQ laws and policies that have been implemented since Gov. Jenniffer González took office in January 2025. These include Law 63-2025, which prohibits gender-affirming healthcare for anyone under 21, and Law 26-2026, which prohibits the University of Puerto Rico and other “government facilities” from installing “mixed or gender-neutral multi-occupancy restrooms.”
“The legislation aims to strengthen public safety standards while ensuring that no individual is subjected to unlawful discrimination,” noted the Puerto Rico Federal Affairs Administration on Feb. 25 in a press release after González signed it.
González, a Republican who is a member of the pro-statehood New Progressive Party, was Puerto Rico’s resident commissioner in the U.S. House of Representatives before she became governor. González supports President Donald Trump.
Vázquez-Rivera during the briefing highlighted anti-LGBTQ measures that have been introduced in the Puerto Rico Legislative Assembly. These include House Bill 164, which would prohibit transgender athletes from school sports teams that correspond with their gender identity, and House Bill 131, which would allow faith-based adoption agencies to deny services to same-sex couples.
“The overwhelming scientific evidence is clear: children raised by same-sex parents do just as well as those raised by different-sex parents,” said Vázquez-Rivera. “What matters is not the gender or the sexual orientation of the parents; but the presence of love, stability, and support.”
Trump upon taking office for a second time on Jan. 20, 2025, signed his “Defending Women from Gender Identity Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” executive order. Among its provisions is the federal government’s recognition of two genders: male and female.
Vázquez-Rivera noted “other proposals” in Puerto Rico “would recognize only ‘biological sex’ in government documents, prohibit inclusive language throughout public institutions, continue challenging recognition of nonbinary identities, and reverse protections for LGBT+ students previously adopted by the University of Puerto Rico.”
“The challenges facing LGBT+ Puerto Ricans cannot be viewed as isolated debates about healthcare, sports, bathrooms, or language,” said Vázquez-Rivera. “They are part of a much larger picture.”
“Puerto Rico is already confronting poverty, disaster recovery, healthcare shortages, and economic instability,” he added. “When discrimination is added to these realities, existing inequities become even deeper. Mental health worsens. Families are displaced. Communities become more vulnerable.”
Vázquez-Rivera further stressed “these issues are interconnected, and our response must be as well.” He also urged the LGBTQ rights movement to do more to support — and fund — advocacy efforts in Puerto Rico.
“Ultimately, this is not about granting special rights,” said Vázquez-Rivera. “It is about ensuring that more than three million American citizens living in Puerto Rico have the same opportunity to live healthy, safe, and dignified lives as every other American.”
The Puerto Rican government has not responded to the Washington Blade’s request for comment.
North Carolina
In the middle of the Bible Belt, a summer camp lets trans kids exhale
Adulthood feels possible at Transcending Adolescence
Uncloseted Media published this article on July 18.
By SAM DONNDELINGER | On a June night in rural North Carolina, dozens of campers sat around the fire as a counselor asked them to close their eyes.
“Picture a place where you feel completely safe,” they were told. “Think about what it looks like and how it feels, what you can hear, smell, and taste.”
When they were invited to share what they had imagined, one camper described sitting in a circle with other trans people. It was dark. Trees surrounded them. Mosquitoes buzzed.
“‘That place is here, and this is the place where I feel safe,’” Jacob Hofheimer, one of the camp’s founders, recalled the camper saying. “It got all of us.”
For many of the 8- to 17-year-olds who attend Transcending Adolescence, the weeklong summer camp offers a reprieve from the calculations they have to make in their day-to-day lives: Who knows they are trans? Who can be trusted? Which bathroom can they legally use?
At a time when 40 percent of transgender and nonbinary youth seriously considered attempting suicide in the past year, and 90 percent of LGBTQ youth reported that recent anti-LGBTQ laws, policies, and debates cause them stress or anxiety, those questions never disappear. But at this camp, young people are given space to ask them openly and to a community that understands why they need to.
“It really made me smile knowing that there’s a lot of people out there like me,” Ruby, a 12-year-old camper, told Uncloseted Media. “I’m putting myself out there, I’m being myself and no one judges me.”
Origins
Transcending Adolescence was founded in 2019 by Jacob and his wife Chrissy Hofheimer. The trans married couple wanted to create a camp for queer kids in America’s South, where affirming resources can be difficult to find.
Surrounded by thick woods and the backdrop of the Appalachian Mountains, campers swim, tie-dye shirts, complete ropes courses, roast marshmallows and perform in shows. They also gather for conversations about healthy relationships, medical care, legal rights, bathroom anxiety, coming out, misgendering, depression, substance use, and self-esteem.
“A huge part of it is that every single person there is trans or gender diverse, including the staff,” says Rory Sowers, a 19-year-old junior counselor from Florida. “That’s just something that you don’t get to experience a lot, especially as a young trans person.”
Sowers first attended Transcending Adolescence as a camper during its inaugural year in 2021. He returned three times before becoming a junior counselor.
“There’s so much that trans folks have to worry about just going about their day-to-day lives, especially living in the South,” Sowers says. “I was able to come into myself a lot more when I didn’t have all of those anxieties on my back.”
A place to be ‘just Ruby’
For 12-year-old Ruby, pre-camp anxiety was intense.
When she attended camp in June of last year, it was the first time traveling to another state without her parents.
“I was nervous about having someone there not really understanding me … and not really accepting me,” says Ruby, whose name has been changed to protect her privacy.
Outside camp, Ruby worries about how other people perceive her, according to her mom, Kate, whose name has also been changed. She says her daughter has to consider a litany of questions cis kids don’t have to worry about: “‘What if someone finds out? Are they looking at me? Do I look the part?’ … All these thoughts go through her head every single day.”
Before camp, Ruby had been struggling so intensely that her family had questioned whether it might feel easier for her “not to be who she was,” Kate says. Ruby had faced bullying in school, prompting her family to withdraw her and homeschool her for the remainder of fifth grade.
“I couldn’t really go anywhere without picking [at] myself because I was anxious,” Ruby says.
But when she arrived at camp, a lot of Ruby’s anxiety subsided. She didn’t have to introduce herself through the lens of being trans. She could just be herself: a funny, theatrical, outgoing 12-year-old who likes Beyoncé, improvises rap battles, and wants to be in the center of dance shows.
“She can just go there and just be [Ruby],” Kate says. “[Being trans] is only a little piece of her. There’s so much more to her, and she’s able to do that for the whole week. … It was completely life-changing for her.”
Research suggests that spaces like Transcending Adolescence can have powerful mental health effects.
Young people tend to fare better when they feel they belong and have access to peers and adults who understand them. In one small study from 2021, participants of a six-day LGBTQ summer camp reported increased resilience, self-esteem and quality of life. Focus groups indicated that transgender and nonbinary campers found an affirming environment that offered social opportunities they had been unable to find elsewhere.
Though this environment can be transformative, it’s intimidating at first for some. Jacob remembers asking one camper from Texas his pronouns during medical check-in, and the boy responding that he used “guy pronouns” because he “was a guy.”
Jacob recalled him being closed off and leery of the “hippie-dippy nonsense.”
But on the second-to-last night, Jacob overheard him speaking with a fellow camper.
“‘When I first came here, I thought that I was a disgusting, mutilated pig and an alien, and nobody would ever love me because I’m trans,’” Jacob recalls the camper saying. “‘And now I know that being trans doesn’t make me disgusting. It’s actually a beautiful thing.’”
He later texted Jacob to say the camp had given him confidence during the school year.
“‘Half the time, I forget that I’m trans,’” Jacob remembers him writing. “‘I’m just a guy. I’m just me.’”
“Finding places where you literally see yourself and can be seen by others for who you are is important during adolescence. It’s a human need,” Stephen Russell, professor of social and family dynamics at Arizona State University, told Uncloseted Media. “For trans youth, especially those who may not feel fully accepted at school, at home or in their faith communities, a camp where their identity isn’t something they have to navigate or defend, but is simply centered as part of who they are, can be transformative.”
Filling the gaps
The Hofheimers know that these spaces can transform the mental health of trans youth because they experienced it firsthand when they met while working as lifeguards at a summer camp for young queer people in New Hampshire.
The camp was doing important work, Jacob says, but many of its attendees came from privileged families in New England and other parts of the country where affirming programs were more accessible. Far fewer came from places such as Florida, Georgia, and Texas.
That’s why, for the location of the camp, they intentionally chose North Carolina, a state that has laws on the books that exclude trans girls from participating in sports, restrict the instruction of LGBTQ topics in schools and ban gender-affirming care for trans youth.
“Access is really, really important,” Chrissy says, adding that while the camp costs $1,975 for the week, they offer robust financial aid, including a $1,500 “no questions asked” subsidized rate for families who can’t afford it.
At the camp, the staff educates campers about anti-trans laws, coming out, and how to have conversations with their doctors about gender-affirming care.
“The kids want to talk about this stuff,” Jacob says. “That was the gap that we identified.”
For Chrissy, baking education into the camp’s programming is personal: When she was transitioning as a young adult, accessing informed medical care was difficult. During consultations, doctors either quoted prices she could not afford or refused to treat her. One told her that they did not “put boobs on men.”
Desperate to change her chest, Chrissy turned to a friend who had undergone illegal silicone injections without an apparent complication. She received what she believed were similar injections in Florida.
But the substance wasn’t silicone, she says, and it hardened and became intertwined with her breast tissue. Seventeen years later, Chrissy underwent a double mastectomy to fix the damage.
This experience became one of the driving forces behind the camp’s educational work.
“Accurate information might have changed the course of my life,” Chrissy says.
To provide information that breaks out of the TikTok and Reddit misinformation bubble many campers exist in at home, Chrissy and Jacob bring in experts and host nightly fireside chats.
Each night, campers gather around for structured conversations about the nuances of being trans. They talk about coping with misgendering, managing bathroom anxiety, identifying red and green flags in relationships, asking for help, and caring for their mental health.
Jacob, who is a certified nurse practitioner, helps answer questions about gender-affirming care. A trans attorney explains policies affecting campers in different states and separates the practical effects of those laws from incomplete information and political fearmongering.
“It made me think about the people who I tell I am trans to and what I have to do to make sure I feel comfortable telling them,” Ruby says. “It let me think about all these questions I had but didn’t really know how to ask.”
Building what comes next
Chrissy hopes the results from the camp’s program will eventually be replicated across the country.
For now, roughly 30 campers come together for one week each summer. Some arrive unhappy about being sent to camp. But by the final day, Sowers says, those same campers are often crying because they do not want to leave.
They return home to the same schools, states, and political climates where they have to decide when it is safe to disclose their identities and how to respond when someone does not understand them.
But at camp, Ruby, among the other campers, found a weeklong respite and saw trans adults who were not merely surviving but building careers, relationships, and communities.
“After the camp, I really haven’t been talking about how I feel insecure that I’m trans,” Ruby says. “I can’t wait to go back and see the people I met and [meet] new friends.”
1 dead, 29 injured in Berlin Pride attack
‘Into the Grey’ unites Cavill, Gyllenhaal for thrills and gay love
Winsome Earle-Sears launches campaign against Va. marriage equality amendment
Calendar: July 24-30
Pentagon says hormones make trans troops unfit but gives them to men
Tickets on sale for chef Patrick O’Connell’s book launch event
In the middle of the Bible Belt, a summer camp lets trans kids exhale
Polish president vetoes same-sex relationship recognition bills
LGBTQ ‘human rights crisis is unfolding in Puerto Rico’
Is the Metro safe for riders?
-
a&e features5 days agoTickets on sale for chef Patrick O’Connell’s book launch event
-
North Carolina5 days ago
In the middle of the Bible Belt, a summer camp lets trans kids exhale
-
Poland5 days ago
Polish president vetoes same-sex relationship recognition bills
-
Puerto Rico5 days ago
LGBTQ ‘human rights crisis is unfolding in Puerto Rico’
