Proposed California legislation would limit change therapies for unwanted homosexuality.
Urgent! - Action Needed!
A bill has been introduced in the California legislature that would threaten the right of individuals with unwanted homosexual attractions to receive therapy.
Senate Bill 1172 introduced by openly gay Senator Ted Lieu, will be reviewed at a hearing in Sacramento on Monday and NARTH has sent an official delegation to speak to the bill and lobby legislators.
For many years gay activists have been trying to convince the public the homosexual attractions cannot be changed. Since the evidence proves otherwise, they then moved on to trying to convince us that change therapies are "dangerous", but once again even the American Psychological Association agrees that no such evidence is available. Now in what is apparently a move of desperation they are trying to accomplish through fines and sanctions aimed directly at individual clients and their therapists what they could not accomplish through misinformation.
If you want to read the legislation for yourself complete information about the bill can be found by clicking:
While this is a direct assault on everyone's freedom it is also a not so subtle attack on religious liberty. Individuals of faith often seeking to live lives congruent with their religious convictions are often motivated to seek help for their homosexual attractions. This type of legislation would in effect criminalize those formerly ethical relationships between a client and their therapist unless those interactions were supervised by agents of the state.
Contact the Governor
Official NARTH Statement on California SB 1172
You can read the entire official NARTH statement on SB 1172 by clicking on the link below.
Help us reach our goal to raise $15,000 to fight this abusive legislation!
We pledge to keep you updated on our progress.
We need your help.
Sending a delegation to Sacramento is expensive. Fighting this kind of abusive legislation costs money.
Please [...] make a donation today and help us in our efforts to protect client rights.
Your children and grandchildren will thank you for protecting their freedom to choose!
NARTH is a non-profit education and research organization. Your donations are tax-deductible.
NARTH | www.NARTH.com | 1-888-364-4744 | 5282 So. Commerce Dr. D-272 | Salt Lake City | UT | 84107
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)