On Monday, December 3, 2012, U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb issued a preliminary injunction against the State of California which blocks California SB 1172 from taking effect on January 1, 2013 concerning three parties to a law suit against the state.
SB 1172 is designed to make it illegal for California licensed mental healthcare practitioners to treat minors in California for the minors' unwanted same-sex attraction (homosexuality) and regardless of whether or not such minors suffer from same-sex attraction as a result of homosexual sexual abuse perpetrated upon them.
Judge Shubb ruled that the First Amendment rights of the plaintiffs concerning Reparative Therapy would be violated under SB 1172. "Even if SB 1172 is characterized as primarily aimed at regulating conduct, it also extends to forms of (conversion therapy) that utilize speech and, at a minimum, regulates conduct that has an incidental effect on speech," wrote Shubb.
SB 1172 proponents based the legislation on anecdotal information about supposed causal links between the therapy and risk of suicide and depression. The judge said the reasoning is based on "questionable and scientifically incomplete studies." Many people remain depressed and even suicidal after other therapies that are not banned. Regardless, SB 1172 did not take into account the many thousands of people who have benefited and are satisfied with the treatment they received.
Judge Shubb noted the plaintiffs would likely prevail in getting the law struck down on constitutional grounds.
"We know we will have to have another hearing on the merits, but to be able to get a preliminary injunction at this stage is very telling as to the final outcome, and I'm very encouraged by it." -- Brad Dacus, President, Pacific Justice Institute, which represents the plaintiffs: psychiatrist Anthony Duk, therapist Donald Welch, and Aaron Bitzer.
Lawyers for California claim current versions of Reparative Therapy practiced by authentic therapists has been rejected as unproven. That is false propaganda. If it were unproven, there would not be thousands who testify as to the radical changes in their lives concerning unwanted same-sex attraction.
You will also note that homosexual activists have largely insisted to this point that the treatment is always harmful while the mental health associations they cite say that it may be harmful, not has been proven harmful. No proof of harm has been forthcoming, only statements of people who want others to conclude that their depression was caused by the treatment, by not being affirmed in their homosexuality.
However, even if those people did suffer depression by not being affirmed, that does not address the rights of those who suffer depression at being affirmed in homosexuality but who know they were heterosexual before they were homosexually abused — had homosexuality conditioned into them just as Pavlov's dogs were conditioned to salivate at the ringing of a bell.
See also: "Sandusky Laws": California SB 1172 & Other Evil Homosexual Plans (contains additional relevant links at its bottom)
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)