I want to be happy for the people of California. After disappointing us with the disgusting Prop 8 ban on marriage equality, it seems the Golden State is finally coming around. A ban on forcing LGBT kids to go through gay conversion therapy (sometimes called ex-gay therapy) just passed the State Senate.
Torturing kids with backward religious-based ideas parading as medical treatment may finally be a thing of the past. Or not. Isn't there a little thing called, ahem, freedom of religion in the United States?
Hold your applause, folks. We may have a problem.
I will admit right off the bat that I am no constitutional law expert. And I'm aware that many of the so-called "reparative" therapies used on gay minors can be led by members of the medical profession -- even though the practices have been condemned by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). In that arena, the law should have power to step in.
But the gay conversion therapy ban, SB 1172, "would prohibit a mental health provider from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts, as defined, with a patient under 18 years of age." It gets tricky when they start to define "mental health provider," because many clergy in this day and age have dual certification in the counseling field. You can tell a psychiatrist they can't do something.
But can you tell a pastor who happens to be a registered counselor that he can't? How do you draw the line between the two?
If you can, is there really any point to this law? It seems way too easy to skirt.
The National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), the group that buys into and peddles the pseudo-science behind the conversion therapies they claim can cure gays of their homosexuality, regularly partners with religious groups. They take it from the realm of medical quackery and push it under the much more nebulous umbrella of religious practices.
So here lies the conundrum. I agree with the APA. Ex-gay therapy is wrong, cruel, even dangerous in some instances. Not only is the pseudo-science behind it shoddy, but it is morally reprehensible to tell a child that the way they were born is a problem.
But as it stands right now in America, parents do have the power to make choices about their kids and religion. And there are a lot of good reasons to protect that basic right. I may have felt like Sunday school was cruel and inhumane when I was a teenager, but I certainly don't think my parents should be carted off to jail for it. Unfortunately, it's hard to parse out "good" church from "bad" church.
So taking your gay kid to your pastor for a "conversion" makes you a crappy parent, but if we want to protect parents' rights to all the other, much more appropriate religious practices in this country, this is going to be a tricky one to get rid of in the religious realm.
How would you feel if you were told your pastor couldn't talk to your kid about something you believe in?
Image via Guillaume Palmier/Flickr
This Hot Dad Wants to Do Your Ironing
This Hot Dad Wants to Cook You Dinner
This Hot Dad Cooks AND Does the Dishes
Kanye West is Gay?! 
Comments 35
I don't think the distinction is as difficult to make as this piece makes it out to be. If a medical doctor were a preacher, he still wouldn't be able to commit malpractice in the name of his faith. Conversion therapy is unethical; it isn't therapy at all, since it's purpose isn't helping its "patients," but rather, reinforcing religious ideology about gay people, and getting paid to protect the prejudices of their families (if they genuinely wanted to help people "overcome" homosexual tendencies, then they would follow up with their "patients" after "treatment," and compare notes with other practitioners to determine the efficacy of different techniques. They know that doing so would prove beyond all reasonable doubt that all of their techniques are completely ineffective, so they don't bother.) Saying homosexuality can be cured is a medical claim (a demonstrably false one), and the government has every right to regulate medical practices. Preachers could still try to force gay youths to reconcile their sexuality with their faith by being celibate or entering a loveless marriage to please their families, but they wouldn't legally be allowed to make the medical claim that they can change them into heterosexuals, and extort money from deperate, bigoted parents with that false hope.
Do parents have the right to force sex change operations on the kids? How is this different?
It is far more detrimental to a child to teach them homosexuality is right, but I would NEVER tell you to raise your children that way just because I believe it is the right way. Neither should you (or the government) tell me that I cannot help my child in whatever ways I deem appropriate.
Floridamom, Can you please provide evidence for your assertion that teaching a child that homosexuality is right is more detrimental than telling them to pray away the gay?
oh... just so you know.. I'm a wife of 8 years who left her husband after he started sleeping with strange men. Apparently he had done this in college and no one in his family thought to mention this to me.
LittleFrogsMA, I'm not sure what your personal experience has to do with the topic at hand but I am sure am sorry that it happened to you. It's a hurt no one should ever have to go through.
Nope. I will not provide proof of my assertion. It is in fact those who are trying to change the very foundation of our society (the family) who are required to do the explaining. If you can prove to me that there are very, very good reasons to alter the family from that which it has been since the beginning of time then you will win me over. The burden is on those who wish the change, not the other way around.
I don't like this kind of "treatment" either. But there are Christians who don't actually want to be gay, and I think they have a right to get counseling if they want it. One problem I have is that it was never scientifically proven that you can be born gay. They tried to prove it, but the media sort of forgot to mention that they failed. I wouldn't tell anyone not to be gay, it's their choice. But why do they have to be born that way to make it ok? Can't you justify their actions any other way?
If a person believes that it is wrong to be gay, they can teach that to whomever they choose. But can they take action and attempt to "cure" people, when the action is harmful? And until a child is considered legally responsible to make their own choices, it is the duty of both the parent and the state to ensure that as little harm as possible comes to the child. If you want to teach something to your child, that is one thing (the realm of belief), "curing" is another (harmful action).