On California's bill to outlaw Sexual Orientation Change Efforts by minors: "An Open Letter to Senator Lieu"

Dear Senator Lieu,

I am writing as a psychiatrist, psychotherapist and published research scientist who has practiced and lectured in both private and academic settings (e.g. Yale, Harvard Universities) including teaching constitutional law and civil liberties (Princeton). For scientific, clinical and legal reasons I strongly oppose SB 1172.

First, as a matter of content, it is false to claim that homosexuality is immutable, and/ or that attempts (professionally guided or not) to change one's sexual orientation are harmful. Claims that science has demonstrated harm are false. Indeed, very large population-based studies performed all over the world demonstrate that even spontaneous change predominantly (in both absolute and proportional numbers) from homosexuality to heterosexuality is a statistical (though not universal) pattern in development.

At the beginning of my career I would not have credited this to be so, but I slowly learned that it is so.

You may find here a detailed analysis of how the scientific record has been misrepresented on this subject, even in US Supreme Court cases: http://www.narth.com/docs/TheTrojanCouchSatinover.pdf.

My testimony to the Massachusetts Senate Committee on the Judiciary, SB199, may be found here: http://data.opi.mt.gov/bills/2005/Minutes/Senate/Exhibits/jus12a120.pdf

Second, as a matter of legal and ethical principle, liberty itself enshrines the right of self-determination.This is a principle America has been properly forced to learn from the plight of women, racial and ethnic minorities and, indeed, gays and lesbians. It is these groups, especially the latter, who ought properly be at the forefront of the effort to protect the right of all individuals to pursue their personal destiny and sense of fulfillment as they see fit--not effectively to outlaw others' conviction of what constitutes happiness with respect to private sexual activity (Vide Justice Kennedy's comments in Lawrence v. Texas)-- whether that conviction is based on religious or non-religious belief. They should be the most eager among all to defend the right of people to be assisted in such pursuits, even in what some apparently claim to be a foolish (I.e., mere "minority-within-a-minority") pursuit. Not so many years ago they themselves were effectively denied this right on the basis of what has now come to be understood as simple "animus". Does not the same principle hold here?

When I was a child, I well recall the outrage in the (my) Jewish community when the American Nazi party planned a march in Skokie, Il (a next door town south of the town where my family lived, among them many refugees and holocaust survivors). I remember how proud I was that the ACLU came to the defense of the right of the loathsome Nazis to march, regardless of the offense to the many survivors in Skokie. The same nobility of principle ought guide the severest critics of so-called SOCE.

It goes without saying that nonetheless, I do not believe there is any fair comparison to be made between SOCE and Nazism. On the contrary, I have known and assisted many individuals, both men and women, in making the transition they desired from homosexuality to heterosexuality. But from the perspective of our American way of understanding rights, those factual successes are secondary.

Thank you for your service and consideration. Please feel free to have your staff contact me should you wish further information.

Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., Ph.D. [with very minor spelling edits]

"...liberty itself enshrines the right of self-determination.This is a principle America has been properly forced to learn from the plight of women, racial and ethnic minorities and, indeed, gays and lesbians." I don't agree with "liberty" being defined as homosexual self-determination. I hold that real liberty is freedom from evil, of which the sexual confusion that is homosexuality is a part. However, I do agree that it is wrong to violently or coercively deal with the issue. I also completely agree with the point that it is hypocritical of the homosexuals to seek to outlaw minors seeking help with unwanted same-sex attraction or to become informed regarding ALL of the scientific and philosophical, moral, ethical, religious, etc., aspects.

My feeling is that the letter is too politic, but I understand the idea of not offending the confused and fascist minded while attempting to disabuse that one of his utterly false ideas concerning SOCE (Sexual Orientation Change Efforts).

I do not buy into the idea that SOCE, per se, is harmful. I am sure that people being exposed to new factual information simply have different reactions for a whole host of reasons and that many just aren't equipped to cope. That does not mean that SOCE should be banned but rather that better methods of SOCE should be found and used.

I have been given to understand that not one formal complaint was ever brought against NARTH for instance for any harm. In addition, certainly people undergoing other treatments for mental states have experienced discomfort and those treatments have not been held up for banning to the level SOCE has. There's something clearly wrong that, that is the case.

I mark it up to false homosexual-propaganda and the homosexual's disease (homosexuality itself; wickedness) clinging within and dictating to the individual, whose true nature is being severely suppressed by virtue of prior abuse, conditioning, and other aspects.

I completely disagree that homosexuality is not a mental illness. It most certainly is. It was a grave disservice to humanity that mental healthcare was taken over by sexual anarchists to the direct detriment of the natural family.

Call me old-fashioned. That's fine. The old way, the pre-homosexual way, was superior teaching and guidance to what we have now.

Mark my words, all of the pro-homosexuality will result in some really bad outcomes that the homosexuals won't be able to mask or obfuscate. I would have thought HIV/AIDS would have been enough, but obviously it's going to have to get much worst before the people turn away from the confusion, before they can see the iniquity in stark enough contrast to real righteousness.


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)

  • Subscribe

  • Tom Usher

    About Tom Usher

    Employment: 2008 – present, website developer and writer. 2015 – present, insurance broker.

    Education: Arizona State University, Bachelor of Science in Political Science. City University of Seattle, graduate studies in Public Administration.

    Volunteerism: 2007 – present, president of the Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project.

    This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.