December 22, 2012

9th Circuit panel blocks California ban on gay "reparative" therapy.

"The appeals court's order prevents the state from enforcing the law, SB1172, while a different three-judge panel considers if the measure violates the First Amendment rights of therapists and parents."
Earlier this month, two federal judges in California arrived at opposite conclusions on whether the law violates the Constitution.

33 comments:

tim maguire said...

By all means, people who want to talk to their therapist about their desire to stop being gay should be legally prevented from doing so.

Since when do speech bans conflict with the right to free speech?

campy said...

Hate speech isn't free speech.

wyo sis said...

Laws made by the mean girls.
Finally law of the land is hijacked by law of the jungle.

jr565 said...

Hate speech isn't free speech.


how about self hate speech?

Michael K said...

California is finally jumping the shark.

jr565 said...

How is this hate speech but providing therapy for people who think they are a different gender not hate speech.
The premise is that they hate what they are. If we are going to demand that gays not try to change being gay, shouldn't we similarly demand that those wanting to change their sex learn to live with their naturally assigned sex.

In one case we're accomodating someone's desire to change and in the other case we're saying that trying to change that thing is akin to hate speech.

If people want to be gay, then no one is forcing them to go to a shrink and try therapy to make them not gay. But if someone doesn't want to be gay, why are we saying any attempt to acocomadte that view is "hate speech"?

Chip S. said...

Hate speech isn't free speech.

Naturally, speech can only be truly free if it's inoffensive to anyone.

Why didn't Jefferson think of that?

Hagar said...

Hate speech is free speech if coming from the loony left. Otherwise not.

YoungHegelian said...

Hate speech is not only free speech, it is the greatest example of free speech.

Speech that doesn't piss anybody off doesn't need protection, does it?

So much for dissent being the highest form of patriotism.

YoungHegelian said...

What worries me most about this is that the CA legislature, full of lawyers itself, would pass a law like this which just seems to clearly fail constitutional muster.

Our leaders are supposed to, you know, lead, not just assist the loudest part of their electorate in ramming through their prejudices.

Yeah, I know. Where did I ever get that Pollyanna idea from?

David Gray said...

Unfortunately even stupid speech is free speech.

Lem said...

Speech magazines should be banned.

Ambrose said...

California has certainly given these therapists a whole lot of free advertising

chrisnavin.com said...

Well, to some degree, politics follows culture.

California was always a place full of dreamers, big ideas, real egalitarianism there for a while, booming tech and a place for a great science education, among other things. Iit's a real leader in popular culture.

If this last point is still true, then we've got trouble ahead. The Republican party is playing small ball in California, and the culture is awash in cultural relativism, tolerance and diversity.

Practically this has led to the public sector union debacle, no money left, race based special interests using politics as a system of patronage and pie in the sky money grabs, ridiculous environmental and business regulations and green boondoggles.

Just stating the obvious.

chrisnavin.com said...

California, a place where culturally gays and lesbians are more accepted, can't meet its fiscal obligations, seems hopelessly beholden to special interests and its own proposition system. It is imploding to some extent as we speak, having created a kind of coastal progressive utopia that simply isn't practical.

Is that where the rest of the country ought to go?

chrisnavin.com said...

If laws aren't going to come from religion, then they've got to come from somewhere, and I've yet to see a legal, moral and philosophical framework that can balance the inclusion of gays and lesbians and balance religious and economic liberty to my satisfaction as well.

You change the culture significantly enough to end up with a kind of secular liberal framework from the models I've seen (maybe I haven't seen enough).

Take Europe, with admittedly important differences (race and language based nationalism) but the Euro is arguably failing, we've just been through an incredibly violent century and economically and politically, it's a hothouse.

Yet, here we are, having a vast portion of our culture being convinced to follow the logic of extending freedom to another group of people...

...as if the rest will just fall into place.

chrisnavin.com said...

One more thing:

Meanwhile, the rise of the 60's generation through our institutions is coming to fruition, and we're living through a time of incredible political partisanship, serious economic and global challenges, and it feels as though we've forced more and more change upon our legal and political structures at the same time they require more flexibility than before.

Many people driving the change in our society are acting as though they haven't had an effect on the society and its institutions, and as though they still aren't in charge.

All chiefs and no indians.

More change is being asked in the meantime, and that rate of change is being asked to accelerate.

Is this wise and prudent?

ricpic said...

California loves the gaiety so much that it won't allow a gaiety dancer to break ranks "and turn-turn-kick-turn!...you're not kicking!"

traditionalguy said...

The opponents of the gay lifestyle have to STFU or else, says California!

But letting those opponents speak is how you know who they are. Shutting them up is a delusion anyway. Killing them might work, but not forbidding their speech.

edutcher said...

Did the Apocalypse happen and we weren't told?

The 9th Circus making sense?

Can't be.

Where the land of the living meets the Day of the Dead - you're in ...

The Twilight Zone.

Michael Haz said...

A court deciding what kind of medical treatment a person can receive.

We'll see a lot of that beginning in 2014.

If it's okay for a therapist to help someone who is nominally straight come to grips with being gay, it should be likewise okay for a therapist to help someone who is nominally gay come to grip[s with being straight.

Apparently "gay" is supposed to be a one-way, lifetime commitment.

I Callahan said...

Speech magazines should be banned.

At least limit them to a maximum amount of words.

Rustling Leaves said...

Darn, I was hoping this law would set an example. If it is wrong to try to turn gays straight, then it is also wrong to force gender neutrality on biologically normal kids.

Chip Ahoy said...

Oh thank GOD!

I didn't click on those blue words but I am soooo relieved because I was really counting on those guys to help me butch it up a bit.

Gahrie said...

Apparently "gay" is supposed to be a one-way, lifetime commitment.

Kind of like Islam......

Cedarford said...

The gay mafia is trying to force a societal consensus that those with a genetic disposition for being gay vs. alcoholic - are 100% all just delighted with the fabuluousness of it all.
And don't want any effort to "change such misguided people away from the wonderful happy kingdom of gaydom" - what, with all the fabulous creativity and all.

As opposed to alcoholics, who lack an alky mafia that would patiently lecture us on all the high performing alcoholics of arts and letters, all the Oscars and Nobel prizes for literature and oppose any therapy on grounds drunkards get diseases from their lifestyle and die sooner.
Embrace the Grape!
It gave us Richard Burton and Peter O'Toole, and the Star-Spangled Banner, too!
Hemingway and Faulkner and Dylan Thomas.
If society persecutes alcoholism as a treatable condition, we lose the US Grants, the Churchills, the Alexander the Greats! William Shatner and Stephen King did their best works drink - though with Shatner that isn't saying much. James Thurber, Jim Morrison, Errol Flynn.

The list goes on and on.

Shouldn't, like with gays, point out that alcoholism is a "Born that Way" thing and kids thinking of fulfilling their genetic destiny or inclination should be proud and happy with the accomplishments of The Dionysians?

Isn'y there something nobler with Dylan Thomas watering his suffering liver with fine ale and Irish whiskey over Oscar Wilde ramming his cock up the rectums of his young rent boys?
Both were giants in the world of literature and "wit".

harrogate said...

I see no constitutional authority, nor any real reason, to ban this loony practice. In some instances we are going to see parents or other authority figures force minors to go talk to these freaks, but all you can really do about that as a society member is be sympathetic to the kids.

All laws aside, it would benefit society a lot, for more light to be shone on the loony practice. Classic example of something that needs a good broad dose of public mockery.

Michael Haz said...

Reparative therapy is no more looney than the crap pushed by Deepak Chopra.

Tyrone Slothrop said...

I carry no brief for reparative therapy. I don't see how it could possibly work, ever. That said, I also don't understand how the gay lobby can maintain that there should be less freedom, which is what they are arguing when they seek to ban this practice. Their reason for doing so is clear, though. The very existence of reparative therapy makes gays feel ashamed. They would rather not know of any one who would rather not be gay.

whoresoftheinternet said...

Do you think the Age of Obama this will last?

lmao.

Benedict Arnold Roberts can't wait to bend over backwards so Obama can show him the penumbras that this part of the Constitution covers.

Enjoy the decline, bitches!

whoresoftheinternet said...

@Tyrone:

I carry no brief for reparative therapy. I don't see how it could possibly work, ever. That said, I also don't understand how the gay lobby can maintain that there should be less freedom, which is what they are arguing when they seek to ban this practice. Their reason for doing so is clear, though. The very existence of reparative therapy makes gays feel ashamed. They would rather not know of any one who would rather not be gay.

---lmao. The fags oppose this because they are terrified of any hint that fagdom can be cured. Heck, that was the theme of the extremely faggy X-Men films---"oh no, they cured mutantism! like its a disease!"

The entire butt pirate movement is driven by the slogans "Born this way." If it is merely a behavioral tic that can be cured, then gays have to justify why they like being sodomites as opposed to normal breeding humans.

Homosexuality has been recognized for 6000 years as being a drag on society. If it can be cured, pillow-biters lose a lot.

And you're shocked about left-wingers in general being for less freedom? LOL. I got a bridge to sell you.

whoresoftheinternet said...

@Cedarford:

Right. the.fuck.on.

Except don't diss Shatner. That dude is the Chuck Norris of pop culture. He is awesome. We only live in his world by his permission.

Incubus. Twilight Zone. Star Trek. Star Trek films. TJ Hooker. Rescue 911. Miss Congeniality. Shit My Dad Says.

'Nuff said.

Leo said...

so if this sort of speech is protected between a patient and therapist why isn't it protected between a client and an interior designer. Locke v Shore was wrongly decided