SB 1172 Can't Withstand Plain, Logical Scrutiny (SB 1172: Ban on Homosexual-Conversion Therapy for Minors)

The following covers several viewpoints raised in an article, "'Conversion Therapy' May Hinge on Pot Precedent," by Scott Graham. The Recorder. March 8, 2013. Law.com.

...David Pickup says he developed same-sex attractions after being molested as a youngster by an older boy. SOCE, he says in a declaration, "helped save my life. It helped me get rid of all the shame that I had for experiencing homosexual feelings and actually led to the lessening and dissipation of my homosexual attractions."
[...]
That perspective troubles people like James Guay, who underwent SOCE therapy at age 16 and testified last year in favor of SB 1172. SOCE begins with the presumption there's something "flawed or evil" about homosexuality, says Guay, who's now a marriage and family therapist. Teens are pressed to identify abuse by a parent or other person that may never have happened, he says. When they aren't "cured," patients are told they're "not praying hard enough, not trying hard enough." The shaming is powerful, he says, "when it's something so fundamental to who we are."

James Guay's point is flawed. "Teens are pressed to identify abuse by a parent or other person that may never have happened...," he says. However, the word "may" clearly indicates that it also may have happened regardless of whether or not a teen is "pressed." Regardless though, SB 1172 doesn't differentiate between therapy where a teen is "pressed" versus where a teen is simply asked without any preconceived notion or coercive action on the part of the therapist. Gauy ignores the situation where the teen is asked, not pressed, not coerced, but actually was homosexually or otherwise abused or neglected and reveals that to the therapist and subsequently makes a breakthrough to reduction of unwanted same-sex attraction, which reduces the teen's (even younger minor's) confusion and suffering, an outcome at least as constitutionally important as the interest of homosexual youth who may not wish to undergo coercive treatments.

Gill proposes that SB 1172 be held to a higher standard of review than rational basis. While not using the words "heightened" or "intermediate" scrutiny, she argues that SB 1172 meets a "reasonable regulation" standard because it is consistent with the norms of medical practice, and preventing harm to children outweighs the therapists' interests in providing SOCE.

There are two huge flaws with this. 1) The alleged harm comes from coercive treatments whereas the law seeks to block all treatments coercive or not. 2) It is not solely the therapists' interests that are at stake but the children's interests where those children do not want to suffer from same-sex attraction. Keep in mind that same-sex attraction, while not always, does come from homosexual sexual abuse of minors.

The law professor amicus group essentially advocates both the AG's and the ACLU's positions. "SOCE enjoys no more First Amendment protection than the hawking of snake oil," writes their lawyer, Jon Eisenberg, of counsel at Horvitz & Levy. But if the First Amendment does apply, he adds, the law would be subject only to intermediate scrutiny. "It cannot be at the level of strict scrutiny, because SB 1172 does not discriminate on the basis of content or viewpoint."

This argument is also fatally flawed for several reasons. For one, it puts SOCE on the level of snake oil as a treatment. However, SOCE has actually worked for thousands of people in diminishing and/or eliminating their unwanted homosexual attraction.

See: Conversion Therapy May Hinge on Pot Precedent.

For additional information, see also: "SB 1172"

Donate


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.