Court blocks Calif. law banning gay therapy
SAN FRANCISCO A federal appeals court on Friday put the brakes on a first-of-its-kind California law that bans therapy aimed at turning gay minors straight.
A three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued an emergency order putting the law on hold until it can hear full arguments on the issue. The law was set to take effect Jan. 1.
Licensed counselors who practice so-called "reparative therapy" and two families who say their teenage sons have benefited from it sought the injunction after a lower court judge refused the request.
The law, which was passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Jerry Brown this fall, states that therapists and counselors who use "sexual orientation change efforts" on clients under 18 would be engaging in unprofessional conduct and subject to discipline by state licensing boards.
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.
National Center for Lesbian Rights legal director Shannon Minter, whose organization helped fight for the law's passage, said the measure's supporters shouldn't read too much into Friday's order.
"It's disappointing because there shouldn't even be a temporary delay of this law, but this is completely irrelevant to the final outcome," Minter said.
Earlier this month, two federal judges in California arrived at opposite conclusions on whether the law violates the Constitution.
On Dec. 4, U.S. District Judge Kimberly Mueller refused to block the law after concluding that opponents who have sued in her Sacramento court to overturn it were unlikely to prove the ban on "conversion" therapy unfairly tramples on their civil rights.
The opponents argued the law would make them liable for discipline if they merely recommended the therapy to patients or discuss it with them. Mueller said they didn't demonstrate that they were likely to win, so she wouldn't block the law.
Mathew Staver, chairman of the Christian legal group Liberty Counsel, appealed Mueller's decision to the 9th Circuit and said he would seek an emergency injunction to keep the law on hold until its constitutionality is determined.
Mueller's decision came half a day after U.S. District Judge William Shubb handed down a somewhat competing ruling in a separate lawsuit.
Shubb said he found the First Amendment issues presented by the ban to be compelling. He ordered the state to temporarily exempt three people named in the case before him — two mental health providers and a former patient who is studying to practice sexual orientation change therapy.
Popular on CBSNews.com
- Firsthand look at MTA mega-digs 11 Photos
- Disruptive man on United jet taken off flight
- 94-year-old Minn. man linked to Nazi atrocities
- Feds digging in Mich. field for Jimmy Hoffa's remains
- Church shooting in Ogden, Utah not a random act of violence Play Video
- Former hitman testifies at "Whitey" Bulger trial
- Day care worker accused of drugging snacks for nap-time
- Orca spotted off Calif. coast Play Video
Opponents say reparative therapy has no medical value and could be harmful to the patient, while supporters say it is their right. That's almost exactly the arguments made by both sides in the abortion debate. Of course, neither side wants to use the legal arguments of the other on abortion to attack and defend reparative therapy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow. We've seen the First Amendment used to provide a basis for all kinds of different actions, such as flag-burning. And of course, if someone has a foul mouth and exercises it in front of you kindergarden or grade school children, well, that's just tough because that person is merely exercising their "First Amendment Rights". I'm kinda surprised that SCOTUS didn't use the First Amendment when deciding Roe vs. Wade instead of some presumed right to privacy.
I fully expect in the near future to see the First Amendment used as a defense for someone punching out someone else. After all, the puncher was just expressing his/her opinion of the punchee. :)
Humans generally have more control over when they engage in sex. However, all animals, including humans, reach orgasms through exciting their sex organs (genital areas). How they to do this is definitely a matter of CHOICE.
I doubt that men or women ejaculate through their mouth or rectum, so I wonder, do they have to take turns reaching an orgasm?
Men and women fall in love with a particular person for many reasons, including having the same likes and dislikes, but sexual attraction is generally the major factor in two people joining together for life.
I have absolutely no objection to two men marrying or two women marrying if they so choose, but being attracted to the same sex is neither natural nor innate. And to claim such is totally ridicules.
I also firmly believe that children, being raised in a same-sex home, will be unduly influenced to follow the same life style as their "parents".
state intervention needs to be centered on child abuse
----------
That's exactly why this should be banned - it's child abuse.
The PARENTS are the ones who need the counseling. Sex is innate, not learned.
Did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? --------------------------------------------------------
Slow, I generally agree with many of your comments but I totally disagree with this one.
You state "Sex is innate, not learned".
The definition of "innate: "Present at birth but not necessarily hereditary; acquired during fetal development".
Unlike hunger, sexual desires are NOT present at birth. Small children are not even aware of their gender until they grow older. They play with other children with equal attraction. Being a boy or a girl doesn't matter to them at that time.
Just like with religion; children are deeply influenced by their surroundings and being raised by same-sex couples will definitely influence these children's feelings as they grow.
There have always been homosexuals throughout history even though society forced them to remain closeted. There have also been many with homosexual tendencies that CHOSE to live a heterosexual life.
You ask, " Did you CHOOSE to be heterosexual? The answer to that is a definite YES. Everyone chooses to do everything they do in life, albeit from inner-desires.
Now I ask you are you homosexual or heterosexual?
??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I did not in any way choose my sexual orientation. I turned out to be strongly, unflinchingly heterosexual not because I was exposed to some "lifestyle" growing up but because IT JUST HAPPENED. I fact I remember in 6th grade actually sitting down with my parents to ask them why I was starting to have different feelings towards girls as opposed to boys.
Most of the gays I know grew up in nurturing, two-parent Ozzie & Harriet families who didn't make any attempt to force a particular orientation on any of their children. One comes from a family with 5 boys. They were all raised pretty much the same way so how is it that his four brothers are married with children but he's not? He himself said there was no overt difference in their upbringing but he knew he was gay as early as middle school. Quite frankly, all of them are in long-term stable and committed relationships, it's just that one of them involves another guy. Why should I care about what they do in the privacy of their own homes? NO REASON.
It should be reflected upon in the same manner that if you are Tom Cruise and you want to indoctrinate your child Suri to believe she needs to spend a lifetime being audited and being told psychotherapy itself is evil - that you can do that with your minor child and the courts will uphold that right -
Parents are asking for the same consideration - at the end of the day - state intervention needs to be centered on child abuse - child neglect - based on an agreed societal standard -
Here - the homosexual community is trying to enforce their value system within the private lives and homes of individuals while continually begging the same court system to give them a pass to adopt children, conceive children artificially and by surrogacy and indoctrinate those same children according to their core values with absolutely no interventions into their privacy.
They have to extend to other parents the very rights they rigorously pursue for themselves - and our society is going to increasingly find that they are totally unwilling to do so.