I often say that a lot of anti-trans anti-gay anti-LGBTQ+ people have their feelings because they don’t feel different from the cis straight majority so can’t understand or accept that such things because they simply don’t feel that way. If they don’t feel it it can’t be real which is the same with how many white people feel about racism. Remember the old question of how do you know you’re gay or trans or lesbian or nonbinary or what ever simply because the people who grew up straight and cis felt normal in society? But if you ask them when they knew or how they knew they were straight and / or cis they are confused. If a boy at 10 comes out as gay the parents freak out, but if that same kid starts showing interest in girls the parents are ecstatic about their boy growing up. Why the difference? Because one fulfills their expectations and the other … well it just is not like them. It simply comes down to tradition and what feels normal for them. Every person who asked me if I tried to change my sexual orientation and there have been so many, to them I ask have you? They act offended. Why would I do that and I reply, then why should I. Then if they persist for some reason that I should do conversion therapy I ask could they convert from their straight / cis desires to being LGBTQ+? Again they are stunned why they would do that and instantly claim not I couldn’t do that. Then again why ask me to do it? Hugs
Providing objective, nonpartisan, rigorous, original journalism that investigates America’s anti-LGBTQ landscape and elevates everyday American heroes. Expect two rigorously reported stories every weekend.
On Oct. 7, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Chiles v. Salazar, a case that challenges Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy.
Shortly after, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) sent an email to their supporters quoting Paul in Ephesians 6:12: “For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.”
The email goes on to say, “You might think that a law like this might be just a ‘Colorado problem.’ Sadly, laws like this exist in 22 other states,” referencing other parts of the U.S. that have instituted conversion therapy bans.
This sort of language about conversion therapy is nothing new for the Christian legal group representing Kaley Chiles. Unlike most legal organizations, ADF is sharply anti-LGBTQ. Since their inception over 30 years ago, the group has fought to maintain anti-sodomy laws, uphold the right to discriminate against gay couples and overturn Roe v. Wade.
In recent years, a major element of their fight has been to legalize the discredited practice of conversion therapy.
The Supreme Court appears poised to rule in favor of ADF, which could effectively invalidate conversion therapy bans for minors by licensed professionals across the U.S. This victory would add to the organization’s already-high win streak, which they say is around 80%.
“I don’t think anyone is undermining LGBTQ rights as relentlessly as ADF,” Peter Montgomery, research director at the advocacy group People for the American Way, told Uncloseted Media and GAY TIMES. “They’re shaping the culture for generations to come.”
Although nearly every major medical association has denounced conversion therapy, ADF is arguing that disallowing the practice is a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
“This case is part of its crusade to turn religious freedom into a license to harm others,” says Amy Tai, the co-author of an amicus brief in Chiles v. Salazar that is urging the Supreme Court to uphold the Colorado law. “It is part of a larger effort and movement to harm LGBTQ people and strip them of their constitutional rights.”
ADF, originally the Alliance Defense Fund, was founded by evangelical anti-gay activists in 1994. Alan Sears, their former CEO and president, co-authored “The Homosexual Agenda: Exposing the Principal Threat to Religious Freedom Today.” The book calls homosexuality a “disordered sexual behavior” and equates it with pedophilia and states that gay people on college campuses are involved in “the promotion of sexual relations between adults and children.”
D. James Kennedy, another founder, has preached about “reparative” therapy for gay folks. In a 1993 fundraising letter for his Christian media organization Coral Ridge Ministries, he asked “Would you want your son, daughter, or grandchild sharing a shower, foxhole, or blood with a homosexual?”
A third founder was the late James Dobson, who advised several presidents and argued that conversion therapy could “cure” people.
Since ADF launched, many powerful political figures with anti-LGBTQ beliefs have worked for them. While working as an ADF spokesperson between 2002 and 2010, House Speaker Mike Johnson described gay folks as “destructive” and argued that support for homosexuality could lead to support for pedophilia.
Kristen Waggoner speaking at a press conference in 2018 (Groversawit)
And their current president, Kristen Waggoner, has delegitimized the harm conversion therapy causes by defining the practice as merely having conversations.
Today, their influence in the U.S. government is stronger than ever, with ties to all three branches. In addition to Speaker Johnson, Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett has been a paid speaker for ADF at least five times since 2011. And in May, President Donald Trump appointed Waggoner to the newly-formed Religious Liberty Commission.
All of these resources and connections are employed to advance an anti-LGBTQ agenda. “They want to see what they see as the God-defined order for gender and marriage be imposed into law,” Montgomery says. “They are trying to create a legal regime in which people can claim religious beliefs to opt out of laws that apply to everyone else.”
History of Fighting to Criminalize Homosexuality and Legalize Conversion Therapy
Over time, ADF has incorporated these viewpoints into their litigation to try and dismantle legal protections for LGBTQ people.
“Just 20 years ago, they were still arguing in court that states should be able to criminalize gay people,” says Montgomery.
In 2000, for example, ADF funded amicus briefs in Dale v. Boy Scouts of America, a case where an assistant scoutmaster sued the Boy Scouts after the organization revoked his membership for being gay. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of ADF.
In 2003, when support for gay marriage was still low in the U.S., they filed an amicus brief to uphold the criminalization of gay sex in Lawrence v. Texas, arguing that the state has a right to regulate “public health and morality.” The group lost the case and sodomy laws were banned nationwide.
As public opinion changed and gay marriage became legal across America in 2015, ADF shifted to more nuanced arguments. “Now, because they know that most Americans favor LGBTQ equality, they’ve really reframed their arguments [around] religious liberty and free speech,” says Montgomery.
The organization has since set its sights on overturning state bans on conversion therapy. In 2018, ADF Senior Counsel Matt Sharp argued against a California bill that classified conversion therapy as fraud. And in 2019, the group sued New York City for a similar law, which led the city to reverse the ban out of fear the case would reach the Supreme Court.
A few years later, in 2021, ADF fought to overturn a statewide conversion therapy ban in Washington, where they represented Christian therapist Brian Tingley. In this instance, they argued that Washington’s law censored Tingley from speaking about gender dysphoria.
A federal appeals court unanimously upheld Washington’s law, with Circuit Judge Ronald Gould shutting down ADF’s argument, writing that: “Washington, like other states, has concluded that health care providers should not be able to treat a child by such means as telling him that he is ‘the abomination we had heard about in Sunday school.’”
Learning from their mistakes, ADF tried again with Chiles v. Salazar, claiming the Colorado law discriminates against Chiles’ viewpoint. Chiles is an evangelical therapist who received her counseling training and education from a seminary.
In their arguments to the Supreme Court, ADF says the conversion therapy ban encourages therapists to help minors explore LGBTQ identities and condemns assisting patients to align with their assigned gender.
Though intended to ban conversion therapy for all LGBTQ people, ADF’s case focuses on gender identity, capitalizing on souring U.S. public opinion on trans rights.
“Chiles believes that people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex,” ADF wrote in a petition to the Supreme Court.
“ADF has tried to draw a connection between laws prohibiting conversion therapy and states attempting to force mental health professionals or doctors to treat transgender youth,” Christopher Stoll, senior staff attorney at the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, told Uncloseted Media and GAY TIMES. But if the law passes, conversion therapy would become legal to practice on all LGBTQ people.
Another part of ADF’s success stems from manufacturing legal battles to advance cases that match their goals.
Chiles, for example, had not incurred any legal penalty from the Colorado district attorney. Instead, ADF filed a pre-enforcement lawsuit, claiming that she had censored herself and stopped accepting patients for conversion therapy following the law’s passage.
“All of these cases are, in a sense, made up cases. … They’re brought on behalf of therapists who have not actually been subject to any kind of investigation or penalty by either state or local governments,” says Stoll, who is representing Kansas City, Mo. as ADF and Missouri’s Attorney General challenge the city’s ban on conversion therapy.
This strategy is what makes ADF stand out. Montgomery says that unlike many other legal organizations, ADF also helps file lawsuits and writes the bills that directly challenge precedents and legislation they hope to change.
This was in part how they were effective in overturning Roe v. Wade. ADF drafted the Gestational Age Act, which banned abortion in Mississippi after 15 weeks of pregnancy. That law then became the central point of the Dobbs case, which overturned abortion rights nationwide.
“They’re just engineered to test these legal arguments, when really no dispute has arisen,” says Stoll.
When asked for comment, an Alliance Defending Freedom Media Relations Specialist redirected Uncloseted Media to a website criticizing the Southern Poverty Law Center, saying the group mischaracterizes ADF as a hate group.
How ADF Operates Globally
ADF’s efforts to dismantle conversion therapy and LGBTQ rights span far beyond the U.S. Alliance Defending Freedom International (ADFI) boasts about efforts in 70 countries, where they push anti-LGBTQ legislation as far as possible in each country.
In 2012, ADF’s then-legal counsel Piero Tozzi spoke at a conference in Jamaica, advocating for the prohibition of gay sex, stating that the “retention of the legislation prohibiting sodomy is a bulwark against this agenda.” And in 2013, members of ADF defended a statute in Belize that characterized LGBTQ sex as “carnal intercourse against the order of nature.”
“They’re one of the most powerful and influential Christian right religious extremist groups that we have operating in Europe,” Neil Datta, executive director of the European Parliamentary Forum on Sexual and Reproductive Rights, told Uncloseted Media and GAY TIMES.
Datta says with offices in six cities with international human rights centers, ADFI contacts political allies throughout the continent, feeding them legal briefs and direct arguments. Then, those partners take that information and rejig it to align with their country’s political discourse.
“They’re hiring Europeans, training them in the American model of social issues litigation from an anti-rights perspective, and then hoping that [they] will be running with this in European courts,” Datta says. “They bring know-how and capacity to the continent.”
Datta says the U.S. is where the organization conducts its litmus tests for anti-LGBTQ laws and legal arguments: “In the U.S., you have 50 little courts that you can try things out in,” he says. “[ADF] has their own range of different areas that they would like to be active in, and they hunt for opportunities where they can make some progress.”
That includes the defense of Finnish politician Päivi Räsänen, who in 2021 was tried for hate speech for condemning a Lutheran church for supporting a Pride event. With ADFI’s assistance, Räsänen was acquitted in 2023.
Making Headway to Ban Conversion Therapy Abroad
While ADFI has yet to succeed in overturning conversion therapy bans in Europe, Datta says some politicians with links to the group have promoted reintegrative therapy, another form of therapy that attempts to help folks suppress same-sex attraction. While the term attempts to distance itself from conversion therapy, it uses similar procedures to the condemned practice.
However, Datta says ADFI is taking steps to shift the discourse by lobbying against the Digital Services Act, a European Union regulation for online hate speech.
In October, ADFI penned a letter to the European Commission asking the organization to review the law. ADF has also posted various blogs on the legislation, one posing a hypothetical about gender identity, stating, “Let’s say you went on Facebook … to post something as common sense as believing that there are only two genders. … If someone were to report that as hate speech, the E.U. could pressure Meta … to remove the post lest it face those stiff financial penalties.”
ADFI has also expanded its horizons to Africa. In May, Bettina Roska, an ADFI legal officer based in Geneva, joined a consortium of anti-LGBTQ advocates in a Pan-African conference on “family values” in Nairobi, Kenya.
“They are trying to do the same thing in Africa, around the African Union, and the African human rights system,” Jamie Vernaelde, senior researcher at Ipas, a non-governmental organization that focuses on reducing the harm of U.S. foreign policy, told Uncloseted Media and GAY TIMES.
Back in the U.S., the Supreme Court will rule on Chiles v. Salazar before the end of its current term next year. Their decision will potentially clear the way for conversion therapy to be practiced nationwide and abroad.
Vernaelde says that if Chiles v. Salazar is successful, ADF is hoping to bring their fight against conversion therapy worldwide in the same way they are expanding their anti-abortion lawsuits. Today, the group is attempting to undo abortion protections in the U.K. with the help of allies in the country’s right-wing Reform party.
“This is a template that they can use in other places that they can spread as widely as they want through their networks,” says Vernaelde.
If objective, nonpartisan, rigorous, LGBTQ-focused journalism is important to you, please consider making a tax-deductible donation through our fiscal sponsor, Resource Impact, by clicking this button:
Yes lower court judges are on the side of the public and the laws but the appellate courts have been stacked with conservative hacks and they overrule the lower courts. Then you have the SCOTUS which has been bought by the wealthiest republicans in the country. Hugs
For nearly two days I worried about Tupac, which I call Ron’s cat. I stayed up, I forced myself to do everything needed to make sure he was OK. I nearly fell out of bed twice because he was pushed so tight against me, and I was afraid if I pushed back he would be injured that I was right on the edge of the bed. I fed him in the bed, I let him pee and poop in the bed. I carried him around the house so he wouldn’t have to put his paw down on the floor. Yes, I was trying to be a good daddy. Meanwhile Ron was panicking and crying on the phone that we might have to put the boy down.
Here is my issue I want to share and ask all of the wonderful people who come here. It is not critical and if you don’t want to reply it is OK.
After all of this, All the lack of sleep, and all the effort, as I got home and started to relax, as I started watching other things on one monitor and as I started replying to comments on this monitor … memories started to invade.
I started struggling to deal with Tupac, the kitchen, even the blog. Memories after memories are flooding over me and through me. I was answering comments yet even as I write replies I have to delete some of what I wrote. What is wrong with me! I should be so happy as my husband’s cat is not got a broken leg and I only need to baby him to get him well.
Yet the places my mind is going into my past, my childhood is horrific and blocking everything I am trying to do. I once as a preteen swam out into the middle of a pond to save what would become my only praised love, the black lab and I did not know when I carried her cold shaking form back to the camper my adoptive parents had that I was signing the death warrant of our other dog. Also I had to bargain my damn body for the dog to live. I agreed and went into the camper to be raped repeatedly. Shit why does my mind go to these places they hurt so much?
Why. Suzy Sunshine asked me that question before admitting she had no way or conception how to help me. She tried to hide it but she was shocked and horrified by the few minor things I told her.
Sorry I got so damn distracted. The question is why now knowing Tupac is OK and everything will work out as I sat here at my computer starting to deal with everything … did my mind flood me with horrific memories of my past and of things I can not change? That is what I am struggling with. Please help if you have an idea?
See the rest I have been dealing with all my life. I watched librarians when I was 7 or 8 years old put the books I was reading behind their desk for me tomorrow while only touching me on my head as if they patted me on the back I cried out in pain. But my mind knew this. So why flood my memories with it when I realized Tupac was OK. Why is my mind sending me these memories?
Maybe you all have abilities I don’t. I am sorry if this post upset anyone. I am going back to replying to the wonderful comments. I just wanted everyone to understand what I am dealing with. Hugs
What is shocking is how ill informed some people in the US are. This is part of the dumbing down of the US education system. So many right wing / or maga people are so uneducated and wrong because they believe the misinformation fed them along with the hyper US is always correct and never wrong they are fed by the right wing media that is designed to mislead the maga public ready to accept / follow an authoritarian government meant to make their lives harder while making the lives of the very wealthy even more wealthy. Just listen to the arrogance the person asking the question has even though they are totally incorrect on everything they claim / write to Belle. Hugs
Look up Scott and healthcare. He was CEO of a HMO health denying company that defrauded Medicare / Medicaid for the greatest dollar amount ever defrauded from the programs. He is a very wealthy man because while his company paid a fine he was able to retire with a huge pay out golden parachute. He has no clue what the average person lives like and hates the lower incomes. When he was governor he did everything he could to transfer state wealth to the upper incomes / his business cronies while making the lives of the working people / lower incomes harder while removing social safety nets. Hugs
In order to please tRump and stave off the maga thugs republicans in elected office are trying desperately to change reality. Some are doing it to practice what tRump is able to do which is to make people accept his version of reality even when it is completely false and made up. No one but tRump can do that and he has been doing it since he was a kid. He has the ability to convince himself that what he wants to believe is true is true because he wants it. By the fact he was always wealthy or people thought he was it worked and twice he has had the power of the presidency along with the cult behind him. Other republicans don’t have that ability and can not command the maga cult. But that won’t stop them from trying. Hugs.
Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., is leading a congressional subcommittee reinvestigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The Trump administration has promoted a distorted and whitewashed history of that day’s events.
Andrew Harnik/AP
A new Republican-led congressional subcommittee to investigate the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol held its first public hearing this week. GOP lawmakers used the opportunity to criticize the Biden administration and, at times, promote conspiracy theories about the riot. An NPR fact check has identified multiple false and misleading claims from the hearing, which coincides with a broader effort by the Trump administration to rewrite the history of the attack.
The hearing unfolded against the backdrop of Trump’s mass pardons for the Jan. 6 defendants almost one year ago. Stewart Rhodes, the former leader of the Oath Keepers who was convicted of seditious conspiracy for his role in the attack and sentenced to 18 years in prison, appeared at the front of the audience. Rhodes is one of a small group of former defendants who did not receive a full pardon from Trump, and instead received a commutation. As a result, Rhodes was released from prison but his seditious conspiracy conviction remains on his record.
The official topic for Wednesday’s hearing was “Examining the Investigation into the DNC and RNC Pipe Bombs.” On Jan. 6, just as rioters began breaching the outer perimeter of the Capitol, two bombs were discovered outside the headquarters of the Republican and Democratic national committees, diverting law enforcement resources at a critical moment.
During the Biden administration, the investigation into who planted the bombs stalled, and the lack of an arrest fueled conspiracy theories. Dan Bongino, the conservative podcaster who would later become deputy director of the FBI, said on his show in November 2024 that he was certain the bombs were placed by “either a connected anti-Trump insider or this was an inside job.”
A year later, Bongino told a very different story.
Former FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino confirming the arrest of a suspect in the Jan. 6 pipe bomb case at the Department of Justice in 2025.
Andrew Harnik/Getty Images
While serving as a top FBI official, he appeared at a press conference announcing charges against Brian Cole Jr., a 30-year-old man from Virginia accused of planting the bombs. Cole, who has pleaded not guilty, twice voted for Trump, according to his lawyer. Federal prosecutors allege that Cole confessed and said he believed votes had been “tampered” with in the 2020 election.
Bongino addressed his shifting stance on the pipe bomber case on Fox News in December 2025. “I was paid in the past for my opinions,” Bongino said, “but that’s not what I’m paid for now. I’m paid to be your deputy director.” Bongino left the FBI at the beginning of January 2026 and is set to return to podcasting.
Rep. Barry Loudermilk, R-Ga., who chairs the subcommittee, has made the pipe bomb case a central focus of his inquiry. He repeatedly criticized the FBI for failing to crack the case for nearly five years and said internal documents “paint a dismal picture” of the investigation during the Biden administration.
In one of the few moments of bipartisan agreement, Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., praised the FBI under Director Kash Patel for making an arrest, calling it “a rare bright spot for federal law enforcement over the last year.”
But with the pipe bombing case now moving through the courts — rather than the political arena — lawmakers sometimes veered into claims that did not match the facts.
Trump supporters storm the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021.
Samuel Corum/Getty Images
The claim:
“The Biden FBI did have undercover agents and confidential informants embedded within the rally crowds,” said Rep. Clay Higgins, R-La. “And the Biden FBI did conspire to entrap MAGA Americans prior to J6 and then successfully entrapped several hundred Americans on J6.”
The facts:
Joe Biden was not president on Jan. 6 — Donald Trump was.
At the time of the attack, the FBI was led by Christopher Wray, a Trump appointee.
Joe Biden took office on Jan. 20, 2021, two weeks after the riot, and Wray remained FBI director for the duration of his presidency.
A Department of Justice inspector general report examined the presence of confidential FBI sources in the crowds on Jan. 6 and found that “none of these FBI [Confidential Human Sources] was authorized by the FBI to enter the Capitol or a restricted area or to otherwise break the law on January 6, nor was any CHS directed by the FBI to encourage others to commit illegal acts on January 6.” The report also found no evidence “showing or suggesting that the FBI had undercover employees in the various protest crowds, or at the Capitol, on January 6.”
Higgins’ office did not respond to a request for comment.
Raskin said Trump failed to act decisively to stop the riot and “did nothing to send out the National Guard under his unilateral direct control in the District of Columbia.”
In response, Loudermilk countered that Trump “cannot just send the National Guard unless the National Guard is requested by the legislative branch.”
Referring to former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund, Loudermilk said, “There were multiple requests made by the former chief of police for National Guard before the request to call them was given. And that was only after shots were fired in the Capitol. That request was made to the Department of Defense in the one o’clock hour on Jan. 6.”
The facts:
The president has direct control of the D.C. National Guard, and the Capitol Police requested assistance from the guard prior to the breach of the building. Still, troops did not arrive until hours later.
Loudermilk appears to have jumbled the timeline of the National Guard’s response, which is laid out in reports from both the Capitol Police and Department of Defense Office of Inspector General.
At 1:09 p.m. and again at 1:22 p.m., former Capitol Police Chief Steven Sund asked the House and Senate sergeants at arms to declare an emergency and formally request help from the National Guard. By that point, rioters had breached the outer perimeter of the Capitol grounds and were assaulting police, but had not yet broken into the building.
At 1:49 p.m., Sund called the commanding general of the D.C. National Guard directly to request the assistance of guard troops at the Capitol.
At 2:10 p.m., Sund relayed that he received formal authorization from the Capitol Police Board.
At 2:13 p.m., rioters broke a Capitol window and began flooding into the building.
At 2:44 p.m., Capitol Police Officer Michael Byrd fired a single shot, striking rioter Ashli Babbitt as she attempted to breach a door to the Speaker’s Lobby, where members of Congress were trying to evacuate. Babbitt subsequently died. National Guard troops did not arrive at the Capitol until 5:55 p.m.
In an email to NPR, Loudermilk’s Deputy Chief of Staff Brandon Cockerham said that the congressman’s reference to a request made “only after shots were fired” was an allusion to a later moment in the timeline, when acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller authorized the mobilization of the National Guard.
“I believe the Chairman meant to use the word ‘authorization’ instead of ‘request’ as he was alluding to the authorized mobilization of the D.C. National Guard which came at approximately 3:04 PM,” Cockerham wrote.
Rep. Troy Nehls, R-Texas, criticized police officers who testified before the previous Jan. 6 select committee, which was led by Rep. Bennie Thompson, D-Miss., and former Rep. Liz Cheney, R-Wyo.
“They set out to have a highly pre-scripted hearing, designated to play on the emotions of Americans,” said Nehls. “For example, the hearing with Capitol Police officers Dunn, Gonell, Fanone, Hodges — four Trump haters who gave highly scripted and pre-planned testimonies.”
The facts:
Nehls was referring to testimony by Harry Dunn and Aquilino Gonell, who served with the Capitol Police, and Michael Fanone and Daniel Hodges, who served with D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department.
All four officers have publicly criticized Trump, in large part because of the injuries and trauma they suffered defending the Capitol on Jan. 6.
But their politics are not as simple as Nehls suggested.
Fanone, who was dragged into the crowd and repeatedly beaten and shocked in the neck by a rioter with a Taser-style device, voted for Trump in 2016.
“I was looking for a candidate that supported law enforcement,” Fanone told NPR in an interview last year. “I regret the decision. It was clearly the wrong decision in hindsight.”
Fanone suffered a traumatic brain injury and a minor heart attack due to the assaults on Jan. 6.
Nehls’ office did not respond to NPR’s request for comment.
Scottie's Playtime 
