How we help 'gay' men and women 'Leave Pride Behind'



You may have noticed that corporate America’s enthusiasm for Pride Month has waned.

But business leaders aren't the only ones pulling back from public celebration of “Pride.” Many ordinary people are retreating from full-on support for the demands of the LGBT lobby.

Our Leaving Pride Behind campaign amplifies the powerful testimonies of men and women who have walked away from homosexual behavior and identity.

Most importantly, many people who once identified themselves as gay, lesbian, or transgender have abandoned that identity. In some cases, they have completely reinterpreted their own past behaviors, thoughts, feelings, and political commitments. These brave men and women have left Pride behind.

Over the rainbow

If you’ve sensed that Pride-themed advertising has declined since 2023, you’re not wrong. A new survey finds that 43% of Fortune 1,000 companies are dialing back their external support for Pride Month in 2025. Social media feeds, once filled with rainbow branding, are strikingly subdued this year. No embarrassing displays by nonbinary “influencers” trying to sell beer. No doubt, the business community is responding to the views of the broader public.

A recent survey revealed that nearly 60% of Americans now prefer corporations to stay neutral on political and social issues.

At the same time, many Americans are questioning the goals and tactics of LGBT activism. People are starting to realize the cost of this ideology, particularly when it conflicts with faith, family, and biological reality. People are repelled by the sight of parents losing custody of their children for failing to “affirm” the child’s “gender identity.” Ordinary folk are cheering when J.K. Rowling takes down trans activists online.

'Obergefell' remorse

And people also intuit that redefining marriage in the 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges case opened the door to transgenderism in the schools, drag queen story hours, and much more. As a result, the public is rethinking its commitments to policies such as genderless marriage. Gallup polling shows public support for same-sex marriage has dipped from 71% in 2022 to 68% in 2025. Among Republicans, the drop is even more dramatic — from 55% to just 41% over the past three years.

Even more interesting and significant is the group of people that we at the Ruth Institute refer to as those who have “left Pride behind.” Some in the public refer to this group of people as “ex-gays.” We hesitate to use this terminology, because most of them do not refer to themselves in this way. They might refer to themselves as “once gay.” They might call themselves “overcomers” or “people who have journeyed away from an LGBT identity.”

Many of them do not accept the term “gay” as an identity label in the first place. At most, they regard the term “gay” or “same-sex attracted” as a description of an attribute, which may or may not be permanent. For many people, “gay” is emphatically not an identity. So they certainly do not want to call themselves “ex-gay.”

Stories of transformation

That is why we at the Ruth Institute refer to them as people who have left Pride behind. Our Leaving Pride Behind campaign amplifies the powerful testimonies of men and women who have walked away from homosexual behavior and identity. These interviews include stories of transformation, healing, and faith. They challenge the destructive ideology that sexual orientation or gender identity is permanent and must be celebrated through political activism.

These brave men and women have left Pride behind, not just metaphorically, but literally. They’ve humbled themselves enough to say, “I was on the wrong path. I am willing to take responsibility for myself, my choices, and the totality of my life.” They risk the ridicule and censure of people they thought were their friends.

Amazingly, many of the people who have left Pride behind have also left other baggage. They have had bad things done to them. They’ve left blame behind. They’ve done things for which they are deeply sorry and ashamed. They’ve left toxic shame behind. They’ve done the best they could in deeply trying and confusing situations. They’ve left excuse-making behind.

In short, they have peace in their lives.

Evading the evidence

The LGBT political establishment thinks these people don’t exist. According to the “official voice” of the LGBT community, no one can change sexual orientation. People who say they have changed are either kidding themselves and will surely revert to their natural gay selves any minute, or they weren’t really gay in the first place.

That is a cop-out, evading the evidence rather than confronting it. This attitude is also deeply disrespectful. If corporate America can leave Pride behind, so can once-gay individuals. Personally, I have the utmost respect for those who have chosen to leave Pride behind.

I invite you to visit the Ruth Institute's YouTube channel. Get acquainted with the stories of those who have left Pride behind. Are they all lying or kidding themselves? Decide for yourself. I’m convinced that these are brave and honest individuals who have earned my respect.

Supreme Court will hear challenge to Colorado ban on 'conversion therapy' for non-straight youth



The U.S. Supreme Court indicated Monday that it would hear a First Amendment challenge to the constitutionality of Colorado's 2019 counseling censorship law, which prohibits so-called "conversion therapy" for minors.

The controversial state law, an amendment to Colorado's Mental Health Practice Act, prohibits psychiatrists and mental health care providers from encouraging an individual to reconsider their sexual preference or to "change behaviors or gender expressions."

Under the law, a mental health professional who fails to indulge delusions or affirm homosexual inclination could face disciplinary actions, lose his license, and/or receive hefty fines. The law does not, however, similarly prohibit gender ideologues from encouraging confused children in therapy sessions to embrace the delusion that they are actually members of the opposite sex or to undergo sex changes.

Kaley Chiles, a licensed counselor and practicing Christian who specializes in trauma but has also helped minors with eating disorders and gender dysphoria, filed a federal lawsuit in September 2022, alleging that the censorship law violates the Free Speech Clause and Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment as applied to her.

'Their faith and their relationships with God supersede romantic attractions.'

Court documents indicate that Chiles has long worked with "adults who are seeking Christian counseling and minors who are internally motivated to seek counseling." Her clients, many of whom found her through referrals from churches or word of mouth, apparently uphold a biblical worldview that includes "the concepts that attractions do not dictate behavior, nor do feelings and perceptions determine identity"; that "their faith and their relationships with God supersede romantic attractions"; and that "God determines their identity according to what He has revealed in the Bible rather than their attractions or perceptions determining their identity."

Chiles indicated that she does not try to help minors alter their sexual preferences or identity if they are not seeking change. Rather, "she seeks only to assist clients with their stated desires and objectives in counseling, which sometimes includes clients seeking to reduce or eliminate unwanted sexual attractions, change sexual behaviors, or grow in the experience of harmony with one’s physical body."

'It is beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech.'

While she has yet to receive a complaint, the plaintiff alleged that the Colorado law has chilled her speech and adversely impacted both her counseling and ability to help minors.

The case, Chiles v. Salazar, made its way to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, where a Biden judge and Obama judge affirmed a lesser court's ruling in a 2-1 vote that the ban regulated Chiles' conduct rather than her speech.

Chiles' attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom filed a petition with the Supreme Court in November, asking whether "a law that censors certain conversations between counselors and their clients based on the viewpoints expressed regulates conduct or violates the Free Speech Clause."

ADF president and general counsel Kristen Waggoner stated, "The government has no business censoring private conversations between clients and counselors, nor should a counselor be used as a tool to impose the government's biased views on her clients."

"There is a growing consensus around the world that adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria need love and an opportunity to talk through their struggles and feelings," continued Waggoner. "Colorado's law prohibits what's best for these children and sends a clear message: The only option for children struggling with these issues is to give them dangerous and experimental drugs and surgery that will make them lifelong patients."

A ruling in Chiles' favor would threaten similar prohibitions in 27 states against helping minors overcome their confusion.

When the Supreme Court decided in December 2023 not to hear a First Amendment challenge to a similar "conversion therapy" ban in Washington state, Justice Samuel Alito noted in his dissent that he would have granted the petition for a writ of certiorari, adding, "In recent years, 20 States and the District of Columbia have adopted laws prohibiting or restricting the practice of conversion therapy. It is beyond dispute that these laws restrict speech, and all restrictions on speech merit careful scrutiny."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

SCOTUS To Consider Whether Government Can Strangle Therapists’ Speech

Chiles v. Salazar could prove a landmark Supreme Court ruling that prevents the government from forcing counselors to endorse gender ideology.

‘Chilling Effect’: DCNF Reporter Details Harris VP Frontrunner’s Push To Enforce So-Called ‘Gender Affirming Care’

'Gov. Shapiro’s administration pressured state licensing boards to adopt the policy statement'