Ban on gay change therapy faces first legal test

Associated Press ^ | Nov. 30, 2012 | LISA LEFF

[Free ThinkerNY]

SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) -- A federal judge is considering whether to block a first-of-its kind California law that prohibits licensed therapists from counseling gay minors on how to become straight.

U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller in Sacramento held a 50-minute hearing on the issue Friday and said she intended to issue a written ruling next week.

[gaijin]

Even if the therapeutic behavior is unusual, since both parties consent I cannot see how it should be illegal.

I’m in favor of decreasing intolerance —the government should not regulate in this manner.

Let’s lobby for a more tolerant government..!

[The_Media_never_lie]

So, if a gay minor wanted to be counselled to become hetero, he couldn’t legally?

What if (just for the sake of) a hetero male wanted counselling on how to become gay, would that then be legal?

[xkaydet65]

The petitioners counsel should be asking several questions here. Was the purpose of the law to protect citizens from the quackery of unproven and impossible therapies proposed by charlatans. if so then prove the therapy is quackery and be done with it. However if the law was proposed to prevent an intervention that may succesfully change or redirect orientation then the state is siding with homosexual interest groups over parental control. Would the state side with advocacy groups for deaf and hearing impaired to prevent a parent from choosing a cochlear implant for their deaf child? Would the state deny an abortion to a woman if a genetic test were to be developed to determine sexual orientaion in the womb. or would the state deny the woman the right to have such a hypothetical test performed? These are the questions that should be presented to the court.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

Appointed by Obama. That means she’s not a judge, but one of his cult.

[Berlin_Freeper]

Don’t allow your children to watch TV.

[Lx]

Ugggh. Sacramento again. It’s the only place where I see self important apparatchiks step into crosswalks on busy streets without looking. They may be correct regarding the law but that will be little consolation when they get slammed.

Wouldn’t it be up to the parents to decide this? Of course there is an exception for abortion, no parental consent needed!

[zencycler]

So let me get this straight:

1) I'm a man, I was born this way. But it's a mistake, I want to be a woman. So please Mr. licensed professional, will help me make this change?

No problem there, right?

but 2) I'm a gay, I was born this way. But it's a mistake, I want to be straight. So please Mr. licensed professional, will help me make this change?

Sorry, no can do, they passed a law against that.

[boop]

I think you’ve got it. The default setting is always “gay”.

[fwdude]

What if (just for the sake of) a hetero male wanted counselling on how to become gay, would that then be legal?

In that case, it would be mandatory.

[Psycho_Bunny]

This law is literally child abuse.

[SeminoleCounty]

Laws like this are HomoFascism on Steroids.

The HomoFascists are not upset that this “counseling” does not work....they are upset that it will.

[rightwingintelligentsia]

What if (just for the sake of) a hetero male wanted counselling on how to become gay

All he would need to do is watch Glee.

[fwdude]

Woman judge - it won’t be blocked.

[musicman]

Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!

[LouAvul]

Ah yes, the fags in kalifornia are afraid their supply will dry up.

[ohiobuckeye1997]

How long till being heterosexual IS illegal?

[rbg81]

But, of course, many of these “therapists” won’t hestitate to tell a straight person that all their problems would be solved if they just accepted that they’re ..... gay.

[tuckrdout]

Not long, grasshopper....

[rbg81]

But, of course, many of these “therapists” won’t hestitate to tell a straight person that all their problems would be solved if they just accepted that they’re ..... gay.

[Mrs. Don-o]

As far as I know, therapy to help self-described hetero "sex addicts" get control of their drives and actions, is still considered legitimate. Marital counseling which helps spouses avoid infidelity and find greater satisfaction within the marriaage, is still considered legitimate.

Why would this be different? Doesn't everybody have the right to try to modify their appetites and behavior, to harmonize better with their own life goals and moral values?

[Boogieman]

“Even if the therapeutic behavior is unusual, since both parties consent I cannot see how it should be illegal.”

Well, the opposition argument is that, in the case of minors, they can’t consent. Which, of course, ignores mounds of legal precedent that says parents, being the legal guardians, can consent on behalf of their children.

If this is allowed to stand, then what grounds do parents have to subject their children to any medical treatment? The children can’t validly consent, and the parents would have no right to provide the necessary consent. We may just have to get used to children dying of treatable diseases in California in the future.

Then again, with Obamacare, we’ll all be dying of treatable diseases soon enough.

[conservativefreak]

Even if the therapeutic behavior is unusual, since both parties consent I cannot see how it should be illegal.

"Consumer protection" laws could be used to ban gay conversion therapy on questions of it's efficacy. There's a case in New York about gay men and some of their moms suing counselors on the grounds of the effectiveness of gay conversion therapy. To liberals, gay conversion therapy never works, but there is a fluid continuum of sexual orientation in which people can be at different parts of their life. Their disingenuous and incoherent stance seems to be that wherever you are on the "sexual orientation" continuum you can only change in one direction, to becoming more homosexual.

Second point, if I were a lawyer arguing against this irrational law, I would ask whether banning pedophilia conversion therapy was any different from banning gay conversion therapy.

Liberals could have made this law a little more subtle, regulating anyone who provides gay conversion therapy that they must post notices before any treatment begins stating that the claims they make are not medically verifiable, that the American Psychiatric Association or whatever disagrees, etc.

Even if liberals dispute the effectiveness of gay conversion therapy, outright banning it altogether is really close to banning the freedom of association. This law should be held in suspicion by all Americans, irregardless of their sexual orientation.

[conservativefreak]

Even if the therapeutic behavior is unusual, since both parties consent I cannot see how it should be illegal.

"Consumer protection" laws could be used to ban gay conversion therapy on questions of its efficacy. There's a case in New York about gay men and some of their moms suing counselors on the grounds of the effectiveness of gay conversion therapy. To liberals, gay conversion therapy never works, but there is a fluid continuum of sexual orientation in which people can be at different parts of their life. Their disingenuous and incoherent stance seems to be that wherever you are on the "sexual orientation" continuum you can only change in one direction, to becoming more homosexual.

Second point, if I were a lawyer arguing against this irrational law, I would ask whether banning pedophilia conversion therapy was any different from banning gay conversion therapy.

Liberals could have made this law a little more subtle, regulating anyone who provides gay conversion therapy that they must post notices before any treatment begins stating that the claims they make are not medically verifiable, that the American Psychiatric Association or whatever disagrees, etc.

Even if liberals dispute the effectiveness of gay conversion therapy, outright banning it altogether is really close to banning the freedom of association. This law should be held in suspicion by all Americans, irregardless of their sexual orientation.

[Mr. Blond]

Seems like a 1st Amendment issue to me. Nobody forces these people into therapy.