Disagree, without reading the text of the bill, because it seems to apply only to "state licensed therapists". That nexus of governmental interaction, the state licensure, to my mind, makes the law constitutional.

"(b) (1) “Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex."

I like that they made it illegal to try to "change behaviors." I wonder if this means that a 17 year old who sexually assaults 8 year olds can't legally be treated for it now. Superb drafting.

Although we have

"(2) “Sexual orientation change efforts” does not include psychotherapies that: (A) provide acceptance, support, and understanding of clients or the facilitation of clients’ coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual orientation-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and (B) do not seek to change sexual orientation."

Clause (B) would probably alleviate my concern on that point.

As for the constitutionality, ehhh. It does seem a close call for the reasons Bob suggests. That said, there are plenty of explicitly religious mental health practitioners. Should be an interesting case.

So the options for state licensed therapists (all therapists have to be state licensed after all) with a religious affilitaion are: A) give up state licensing thereby breaking the law as a mental health practitioner for a religious organization or B) break the law and continue to practice your faith's form of mental health therapy.

No, this will be overturned unless the law provides for an exemption on religious grounds. At that point, it would become tootheless as very few practitioners of gender oritentation therapy *aren't* religiously affiliated.

Wasn't this the plot of X-Men 3?

I tend to agree with you, Draug. It's just that the Supreme Court is pretty unpredictable these days.

Not surprised religious sociopaths are whining about how their right to terrorize people into repressing their sexuality on "religious freedom" grounds. Have you no shame?

And what's with Obi's hate of California. You live in paradise. Appreciate it. Good grief.

@Putin - Read much? How about reading for comprehension? I'm about the only one here who said anything about religious freedom and it being over-turned by SCOTUS and I said it from an outsider's persepctive because I think the therapy is bullshit as well. My best friend was gay. Remember? I have only mentioned Gary a couple doxen times over the years here. Sexual orientation therapy is complete and utter bullshit. But you cannot legislate what a religious organization can do unless you can prove it truly infringes on a non-believer's rights. And even that can be iffy (see the Westboro Baptist Church's "freedom" to picket memorial services for soldiers killed in the line of duty).

Also, who are you calling a sociopath, Putin? Last I checked, your personal hero, Stalin, could truly be called a sociapath based on his pursuit of the murder of more than 50,000 clergy and shoudl have been charged with crimes against humanity.

There's nothing iffy about this. This is psychological terror & indoctrinated self-hatred masquerading as 'therapy'. This is modern day exorcism. It has no place in a civilized country.

I'm calling any religious scum who defends this barbaric practice a sociopath. Religious scum are so predictable, wrapping themselves in the 1st amendment while refusing to abide by the law.

Putin, I agree with the view of the therapy. I'm only pointing out what is bound to happen with this law the first time California tries to enforce it. That's all. SCOTUS, despite some recent rulings, is very reticent to risk walking on religious freedoms. Fuck, they let the WBC destroy the peace at private funerals! It has taken guys like Hell's Angel's threatening to end their entire cult (they came to Cinci planning to picket a funeral here, but our local Hell's Angels, many of whom are Vietnam Vets, said "do it and die!" so the WBC realized that their convictions maybe weren't worth dying for) and some college activists blocking their access to shut them down.

The way you worded it here, it soudned like you were calling one of us (me in particular) a sociopath. So I just wanted clarification. I haven't seen anyone post on this thread yet defending the practice, just pointing out a possible (dare I say probable) outcome.

I don't see why a state is obligated to license junk science just because the applicants claim the junk science is based on religion. There are basic medical standards which even religion can't overturn. What's next, state governments being forced to give medical licenses to witch doctors?

If the ban is struck down then wacko schools like Bob Jones will claim there is now a constitutional right to accreditation if you're a religious nutjob.

WBC can picket funerals from public locations based upon freedom of speech, not freedom of religion grounds.

@Bob - The problem is most funeral homes *and* cemetaries are considered public locations. And even truly private ones, like at a church, are usually near enough to a public location for the protest to take place. A private service should override the "public" aspect of the property in question and a family's right to grieve in privacy should override the freedom (not a right, but a freedom) of free speech.

@Putin - witch doctor's can get licensed by the statein the form of alternative medicine practitioners. And within a native reservation, the tribal healer's are licensed by the native state to practice medicine.

Are WBC dickheads? Yep, and their church is basically a small scale litigation scam. But freedom of speech extends to dickheads, too, which is a pretty good thing, and one we should be more robust about guarding from petty harassments like a bunch of bikers threatening them with physical harm. But all of this is irrelevant to the issue of whether or not a state legislature or board of licensing can demand best practices from those they license, and whether or not they can define such best practices be based upon actual science, regardless of the practicioner's religious beliefs.

I'm under the impression that becoming a licensed practictioner is a bit more rigorous than any random witch doctor wanting and being granted a license.

" A private service should override the "public" aspect of the property in question and a family's right to grieve in privacy should override the freedom (not a right, but a freedom) of free speech."

WBC gets around that by standing far enough away from the memorial not to be seen or heard. Anyway the point stands that the WBC issue is a free speech one, not a religious one.

Partly, I think, this will turn on the extent to which you can practice WITHOUT a license. If you just have to practice without a license, fine. But if there's another law preventing this kind of thing from happening outside the context of a licensed professional (which is plausible, as you could call it practicing therapy without a license) then I'd think the combination of the laws is fairly likely to take a bath.

From what I've heard most of the people practicing the "gay cure" therapies are not licensed as therapists. Instead its done in some round about way like the new age medicine and angel healer people. While a challenge is certain I think the law has a good chance of being upheld based on the fact that most psychologists and psychiatrists consider that kind of therapy ineffective to explicitly harmful depending on the study.

In which case, of course, it's interesting that this came up. Did it in fact (were there cases?), or is it just a political statement? The thing is, usually medical boards do this sort of thing, and if it's considered such bad science, I'd have thought the Cal. board in charge of all this would already have done so, or have been about to. A legislature stepping in and directing a medical board seems somewhat unusual, especially in a liberal state. Anyway, 'twill be interesting to see how it all plays out.

"And what's with Obi's hate of California. You live in paradise. Appreciate it. Good grief."

1. Southern California...I dunno, a lot of folks here I meet are like me--we'll talk about how shit the traffic or smog or how hot it can get here or just the utter shallow and vacuousness of Valley Girls and what you can probably imagine from the stereotypical Dumb LA/Hollywood guy/girl...there IS a lot of nice stuff here too, of course, I'm happy it's a Blue State (obviously) and the Theatre District IS very nice...Dodger Stadium IS really very beautiful for a baseball stadium, you really should go if you're a baseball fan and can afford it someday...

So it's a love/hate sort of thing, I think a lot of people are probably like that with their home areas, sort of like family members, you can pick on them a bit, but you still love it, at least somewhat, and no one else can pick on it (though I'm not nearly so "So. Cal Pride!" as a lot of folks here...perhaps because...)

2. I actually live in a REALLY shitty part of LA County, lol...I mean, I tell other Southern Californians and folks at CSUN where I hail from, and I get that same agonized, sympathetic "Oooooooh...ouch!" LOL...it really IS considered one of the worst parts of the county, I mean, it's a short drive to anywhere GOOD, but the immediate area's just a lot of ugly looking desert--not even scenic desert, I mean really scraggly, dirty-looking desert--and some really poor and dangerous neighborhoods and a lot of meth labs, lol...and this portion of LA County ALSO has the "proud" distinction of being the home base and headquarters of...

The Flat Earth Society AND Octomom!

xD

And the sad part is, that DOES almost reflect a lot of the folks out here class/intelligence was, I mean, there are obviously a ton of very nice people here and plenty of sharp folks as well...but every time I tell someone who's been here that The Flat Earth Society is based here, NO ONE is shocked or wonders how they could possibly be based in an area like this...lol.

We basically exist for the sake of an air force base, so its also very low on entertainment (the valley as a whole is dead by about 10pm at the latest most nights) or theatres and the education is always being cut and is poor...t ransportation is AWFUL...a lot of dirt roads...and the economy out here's horrible, Orange County has it bad, but this little subset of LA County has it just as bad if not worse, it's just a really crap area...BUT we produce a ton of Lockheed Martin and Aerospace people because, well, again, we exist for that base, pretty much. For some reason, a lot of nurses live around here and are produced here, too.

So yeah...LA County as a whole, and especially places like Pasadena and Downtown LA and such are nice, things to criticize, but things to criticize everywhere...Northridge, where I spend the day at school before commuting back, is nicer than here, it's sort of an intermediary between the crapper that this place is and LA...also, EAST LA and Whittier and places like that are poor and notoriously violent and dangerous areas, so not good places to be, either...

BUT!
What's that last little nugget of suck for my hometown valley?
Biggest Blue State in the country...
I live in one of the REDDEST districts in the state!
I mean, super-conservative, super-Christian...
You can't go more than a few blocks of habitable land without a new Church popping up!
And only Republicans win out here...
We're SUCH a lost cause, there's no Democratic Party HQ!
I called, figuring I could volunteer out here and put it on my resume for law or whatever...
There's an ABANDONED BUILDING where it used to be...they've abandoned the valley!

xD

So, yeah...

California's nice, Putin (ESPECIALLY Northern California, San Francisco's probably the most beautiful city I've ever been to personally, I wouldn't at all mind living there someday, great to walk around, and the view and sights and entertainment and everything's just great, if a bit expensive) but if you lived in the part of it where *I* do...

Put it this way--

It's more like I go to school in Southern California, and come home to an odd mess of Nevada Desert landscape, Arizona politics, Southern California shallowness, and a Bible Belt mentality towards education, religion, and everything else.

How would YOU like to live there? ;)

Man.... you really DO live in paradise.

Heh. As a resident of urban Los Angeles who's spent time in the more rural parts of the state, I can back up everything obi's saying. Places like Venice and Santa Monica are pretty great - places like Bakersfield and Barstow are holes.

How fucking neutered is the air force if an area that exists for a base SHUTS DOWN by 10 pm? Damn, the air force is just utterly sad. Shameful.

Can I suggest you move to Iowa City, Iowa? Very clean, very friendly people, great university town with a world-class writing program, legalized gay marriage, and very, very few Republicans. Maybe a bit low on the cultural opportunities, but hey, you can't have it all!

They call it the chair force for a reason.

Ok not every sq. mi. of California may be wunderbar, but taken as a whole the state is fantastic.

Southern California is only a paradise if you live within 5 miles of the ocean, don't have to drive anywhere between the hours of 6AM-10AM and 2PM-8PM, and are living off some form of tax-free income stream.

I still don't get why you don't move, Tolstoy. All you do is grumble about your home.

I'm actually planning on it. But it will have to wait for another year or two.

My college roommate grew up splitting time between divorced parents in Oxnard and Modesto, both among the less scenic locales in the Golden State. After living in Berkeley with little to no money, he decided that California sucked and he was desperate to get out of the state for graduate school. Soon after leaving, he concluded that if California sucks, everywhere else sucks worse. He just lacked the experience to realize what he had rejected.

IIRC, obi is from the Lancaster/Palmdale area which isn't that bad. Bakersfield isn't even that bad. There are worse holes like Victorville or Wasco, let alone places that aren't even on highways. Even then, you're still in California.

Oh yeah, Victorville's terrible...Wasco I've never seen...

But yeah, the AV is just a pit, I'm afraid.