They haven't banned me over on "The Atlantic" yet, and I got up early. So, I just finished going after Erwin Chemerinsky (Dean, UC Irvine School of Law) over there.
For those of you who don't know, "The Atlantic" is a supposed highbrow, rather-"liberal" publication that many movers and shakers in "intellectual" circles read. It's gone downhill though since the Internet has taken over; but also, my magnet for truth has greatly increased, so I don't think as much of "The Atlantic" anymore, regardless.
Here's the link to his nonsense article (opens in a new window/tab): 'Gay Conversion' Therapy Is Not Protected Free Speech - Erwin Chemerinsky - The Atlantic. Here's the link to my rebuttal commentary there.
The following is my full comment (in case they delete it; I been heavily censored and even banned in more places than I can remember):
"The ultimate question for the courts is whether the California legislature was reasonable in concluding that conversion therapy is a form of mental health treatment that is harmful and ineffective. In light of all available evidence and the conclusion of every reputable professional organization, the answer is clear." Erwin Chemerinsky, you're the dean of the UC Irvine School of Law and concluded with that?
I tell you, if you were in my "Constitutional Law 101" class and turned in this article as a legal analysis of this issue, I give you a grade of F. You did zero research on this before writing and posting it. A high school student with no legal education whatsoever could have turned out your article from just glomming together a handful of false-propaganda pieces from various thoughtless and completely unsubstantiated pro-homosexual-activist-website posts.
If you had bothered to actually read District Judge Kimberly Mueller's flawed ruling on SB 1172, you might be somewhat qualified to speak to this issue. As it is, you completely ignored the operative and salient points in the motions, cases, and the law. http://www.realliberalchristianchurch.org/2012/12/04/district-judge-kimberly-muellers-flawed-ruling-on-sb-1172-anti-reparative-therapy-for-minors.html
Even if your analysis were not coming from one who believes he is probably fit to head a law school at a major university, your analysis would still receive a grade of F in "Journalism 101" for completely failing to fact-check what you deemed "all available evidence."
Did you bother to contact those who stand in direct opposition to SB 1172 to ask them about that so-called "evidence"? You did not. The basis of their motions and suits to block and nullify SB 1172 are actually solidly based upon the fact that the supposed evidence is lacking that substantiates a causal relationship between the authentic, non-coercive, non-aversion Reparative Therapy they practice and any depression, etc., and especially not over and above any depression after many other therapies that are not being subjected to this new, low standard being offered up by California.
Do you understand the difference between demonstrated causality and correlation? Do you understand that patients and clients and religious parishioners under counseling often suffer higher anxiety and depression before having breakthroughs? Do you not know that people who leave therapy or counseling prematurely often are thereby set up for depression? Do you not concern yourself with the fact that SB 1172 is based upon this language in the law, "As with any societal prejudice, bias against individuals based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism through the internalization of such prejudice," and that, that language can just as easily be applied to pedophiles, the incestuous, necrophiles, and the whole host of paraphilias?
Furthermore, nowhere in your article did you address the minor children who have unwanted same-sex attraction. You also did not take into consideration heterosexual children subjected to homosexual sexual abuse and who are thereby imprinted or conditioned as a reflex response to the same sex. Your approach makes it illegal to treat those children for their unwanted same-sex attraction foisted upon them and often violently, highly traumatically. It is not just that trauma with which those children need and want help. It's the unwanted, imprinted attraction. They need reparative treatment for that. They need help changing back to what they were before the homosexual pedophiles or pederasts got a hold of them, selfishly preyed upon them, causing disorder in the children's minds.
Did you really do so little reading on the subject that you didn't come across this information before hanging yourself out there as you have? Did you really stick only to pro-homosexuality-propaganda websites and so forth and expect to write a valid article shedding any light on this issue?
I'm not going to mince my words here. The issue is way too important to play softball on it with you. Children's lives depend upon it, and I don't focus on just one side when caring about children. Your article is pathetic. It's a shame that you have power over law students with your attitude and approach and very shoddy, misleading efforts. I suspect you run your college via strict political correctness rather than truth. You are part of the problem. You need to change, and it is possible. http://voices-of-change.org/