Here's my comment that I attempted to leave with them (I did post it to my own Facebook Wall):
Wow, talk about one-sided reporting, you have 3 times as many paragraphs clearly for as against. Why don't you do something amazing and ask NARTH members and others who have actually treated people (who are thrilled at the results) to give their official responses to this extremely dangerous legislation?
Do you realize how unconscionable it would be to leave abused children without help, including of course, children who were clearly not same-sex oriented before being abused but who became so as a direct result of abuse.
Also, I find it hard to believe that your comment system has been broken for days but rather suspect it's been closed on purpose by you, Reuters, so you don't have to hear it from us.
This is about SB 1172. It's unconstitutional. It's a violation of the 1st Amendment, which guarantees the free exercise of religion, and it's many Californian's core religious belief that homosexuality is wrong/sinful. If there were a basis for the legislation, that the therapy is harmful or dangerous over and above any other "legal" therapies, then there would be a case for it. However, it has never been determined to be the cause of harm but has proven to be quite effective in diminishing and even eliminating unwanted same-sex attraction.
Therapy is not always a comfortable process, and no one should get up and walk out uncomfortable right in the middle of it and expect to necessarily be just fine thereafter. It's an unreasonable burden on the therapy and is an unjustifiable basis upon which to ban everyone under 18 from being able to partake.
This legislation was thrown together and not subjected to anywhere nearly enough investigation in legislative hearings or elsewhere.
What it is, is the product of false propaganda that cannot withstand close scrutiny. It is the product of SOCEphobic thinking: the irrational fear of Sexual-Orientation-Change Efforts.
UPDATE, 8/29/2001, 1:30 PM PDT, additional thoughts:
How many people go on to commit suicide, for instance, who've undergone treatment for other unwanted psychological situations? Are the homosexualists prepared to ban all of those treatments for those under 18 and regardless of the successes of those treatments where people not only have not gone on to commit suicide but rather have changed and experienced great relief? If the argument is that "experts" have determined that there is nothing inherently harmful in homosex, then where is their evidence? Is it all just anecdotal? Is it all just self-reporting? Have any of the studies, so-called, they've pointed to been free of methodological errors? If so, I'd like to see them; and I've looked.
What SB 1172 is, is a rush to judgment, to condemnation, of those who have successfully, ethically, compassionately, intelligently employed the various techniques used by their fellow therapists and those techniques they have devised themselves.
If there are individual techniques within any Reparative or other therapies that should be stopped because they are unhealthy in both means and ends, then raise those techniques as the issue and not Reparative Therapy as a whole.
If there are religious persons who have misguidedly employed techniques the outcomes of which hold out no hope for the target, then educate those religious persons; but don't paint the whole of the SOCE Movement with one brush.
Why are the homosexualists scrambling to "report" supposed damage after SB 1172 was submitted and only after people started raising a defense of Reparative Therapy. Where was the damage before then? Where were the complaints? How many complaints were lodged on other issues and even by homosexuals? It is not as if the homosexual activists were shy or retiring and suddenly have summoned the "courage."
No, they are now busy drumming up "damage" and "harm" complaints so they may prevent children under 18 in California and then the world from receiving Reparative Therapy no matter the cause of the homosexuality. What it is, is evil.
What needs to happen? The California Senate needs to reject it. If it won't because it has more evil in it than good, more stupidity than intelligence, more ignorance than light, then Governor Jerry Brown needs to veto it. If he too is evil, stupid, or ignorant, than the courts need to strike down the law as unconstitutional. If the courts don't do that, then all Hell will break loose.
That's a prophecy and a promise. It's also a threat, but I'm not the one making it. I say that it is the Satanic spirit that's making it and that homosexualists are myopically inviting it.
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)