California governor bans gay 'cures'

Printer-friendly version

Author:

mittfh

Blog About:

Politics / Politicians / Legislation / Elections

Taxonomy upgrade extras:

General Audience (pg)

Like this post:

California has become the first US state to ban unfounded therapies that attempt to turn gay teenagers straight.

"These practices have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin or quackery," said state governor Jerry Brown in a statement to the San Francisco Chronicle. He signed a bill outlawing the therapies on 29 September.

Source: New Scientist, based on San Francisco Chronicle.

Click Like or Love to appropriately show your appreciation for this post:

Comments

Banning Mental Abuse

I wonder how many lives have been ruined by that so-called therapy? It's just brainwashing with a fancy name applied to it.

Portia

I would classify it as abuse,

I would classify it as abuse, personally.

I'll get a life when it's proven and substantiated to be better than what I'm currently experiencing.

and the people who support it

refuse to see the other side of the argument. With that process, can you turn a straight person gay? You even bring up that possibility and they go all up in arms that it is to stop bad behavior and can't change how a person is, yet they want the gay people to change how they are.

I've always thought that any family that forces a child into this deserves to be investigated for child abuse. It's brainwashing, that's all it is.

Lives ruined?

It is not healthy for the patient to be told that their lives are ruined. According to the "experts" I suffered unspeakable abuse, but today, I am a mostly happy, vibrant, generous, helpful woman. We can heal. If we do not then the abuser wins and I take great pleasure in proving them wrong.

G :)

Yay! ^_^

How long before the rest of the country progresses?

We're 'working on it...'

http://www.nj.com/njvoices/index.ssf/2012/09/conversion_ther...

And the law may face constitutional challenges on issues of parental or religious rights, or free speech. The state would have to show its compelling interest to protect children, or argue that talk therapy can be regulated as commercial speech â€” or, perhaps, as a medical procedure. On the flip side, a plaintiff attacking the statuteâ€™s constitutionality would have to prove this therapy is beneficial, said Harold Cassidy, an experienced trial attorney.

Thomas Healy, a constitutional law professor at Seton Hall Law School, believes the proposed law would be most vulnerable on free speech grounds because it â€œreally strikes at the heart of what psychiatrists do, which is to talk people through issues.â€

Not an easy fix, as frustrating as that may be. Perhaps some progress can be made by doing what what folks have already found successful; teaching away the ignorance, aye?

To be alive is to be vulnerable. Madeleine L'Engle
Love, Andrea Lena

It's in a similar...

It's in a similar category to laws around birth control. Legislating a "medical procedure". If they can make a law that goes one way, it can be turned around to "require" it later... Isn't that a thing for nightmares!

Annette

Thank god or not?

Everyone might find agreement here; including believers of all faith or no faith at all?

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

The 'state' that maintains it holds the authority to 'bestow' rights inevitably will also claim the authority to take them away, including the right to self-determination. Hopefully our process here will get it right.

To be alive is to be vulnerable. Madeleine L'Engle
Love, Andrea Lena

I hope so....

I hope so as well... And, I'll do all I can to make sure...

But, an occupational hazard is thinking through questions like this. Just look at the abortion issue... And how things have changed since Rowe v. Wade...

We must be ever vigilant to maintain our liberties!

Annette.

Just a thought...

Since homosexuality is no longer considered a 'mental illness,' perhaps this issue is better suited as an ethical issue addressed by some entity other than a group of politicians?

To be alive is to be vulnerable. Madeleine L'Engle
Love, Andrea Lena

Uhuh....

There are usually "ethical" boards around... In this case, the practitioners "ignore" the boards "suggestions" as they have no power to enforce. But, the question again becomes "who defines good and bad"...

A quick look at the makeup of the US Supreme Court will show you nine people with very different views on many issues. How often have we seen 5:4 majorities in the past few years?

Seriously, I do wish a logical answer could be found - that would be acceptable and not "corruptible". That is ONE reason the Supreme Court justices appointments are "for life" so they are "supposedly" not "corruptible"...

And, don't get me wrong, banning this practice IS something I think is a GOOD thing. That it took a LAW to get it banned in a SINGLE state disturbs me no end. (Heck, we all know that the clinic run by the spouse of a US Senator practices this form of "therapy".)

As has been pointed out elsewhere, even those who practice it, apparently don't see that "coercing" a gay person straight and making a straight person gay are the same thing. They will uniformly say the first is helping, while the second is hurting the person. *sighs*

A frustrated, Annette

Supreme Justices and incorruptibility...

Single Individual counterexample to the argument of life terms on the court lending to incorruptibility: Clarence Thomas.

Just to lend further weight to your point there, if I understand you correctly.

-Liz

Successor to the LToC
Formerly known as "momonoimoto"

Psychiatrists

Andrea quoted the following:

Thomas Healy, a constitutional law professor at Seton Hall Law School, believes the proposed law would be most vulnerable on free speech grounds because it â€œreally strikes at the heart of what psychiatrists do, which is to talk people through issues.â€

The difference is that most psychiatric work, the patient is there voluntarily. Many of these so called "cures" the patient is not a volunteer but is coerced. Even if the patient is a volunteer, the psychiatrist is supposed to talk people through their issue, not impose a predetermined outcome on their patient.

To me, the real problem is drawing a line through what medical treatments a parent can insist for their child when it is against the child's wishes. Clearly there are times when it is correct for the medical profession to follow the parent's wishes and other times when it would be unethical. Having laws and regulations in place ensures that the medical professional does resist the parent in those cases.