Today CA Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a ban on so-called cures for homosexuality. Brown referred to such cures as "quackery" and added "This bill bans non-scientific 'therapies' that have driven young people to depression and suicide." (via CNN)

  • Donald Petersen

    Thumbs up, “Moonbeam.”  You’re still my kinda guy.

    • Boundegar

      Yea but he just vetoed a domestic workers’ Bill of Rights, which is pretty disgusting.

  • fuzzyfuzzyfungus

    As much as I like the obvious good intentions of the bill, I have to admit that my first reaction was “So, child abuse was previously legal in California?”. Some of the things done under the auspices of degayification programs should really not have needed special-case bans…

    • danimagoo

      We also shouldn’t have to have laws protecting the rights of ethnic minorities, women, etc., but we do. Unfortunately, laws have to be really specific to prevent people from being dicks.

    • Brainspore

      I have to admit that my first reaction was “So, child abuse was previously legal in California?”

      Sadly, I believe this practice remains legal in the other 49.

    • bzishi

      It will be interesting to see how this ends up in the courts. Perhaps they should tie this to the law that prevents local communities from banning male infant genital mutilation in California. I would love to see the courts rule that the physical or psychological harm of a child is not something protected under religious freedom and that any physical or psychological harm inflicted, even under the guise of religion, is considered child abuse.

      • Donald Petersen

        Methinks yer tar brush be too wide.  The horror that was visited upon mine own wee, defenseless peeper on that evil December day in 1969 may, to some, appear to be as reprehensible a manifestation of Child Abuse as any addressed by the aforementioned legislation signed by Governor Brown.

        But if it was, I have long since forgiven my captors and torturers, and to this day send them birthday cards and Christmas presents, and allow them to dandle my own innocent and (no doubt temptingly) uncut offspring upon their knees.  ’Cause they’re actually loving and responsible and open-minded and accepting parents.  Or maybe I’m just a bighearted saint for forgiving those wicked, cruel, benighted weiner-whackers.

        In any case, it’s my own preference to categorize child abusers differently, lest good intentions be laughed out of the courtroom.  Surely plenty of people regret and bemoan their circumcisions, performed wholly without their informed consent.  Those guys can present whatever case they want.  But it strikes me as a vastly different issue than trying to brainwash gay kids straight.

        • Antinous / Moderator

          Moderator note:  This digression is now closed to business.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/KV3PDLBSUEJ3YCGEWYUGDQ664E Leo

    Aw so you mean I gotta go across the border if I ever turn gay and wanna un-gay myself? Cause gayness comes and goes, you know.

    • jorgenfleisterman

      “Cause gayness comes and goes, you know.”

       Just like a vehemently anti-gay pastor in a rural truckstop gas station men’s room.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Cooper-DiBiase/100000445446098 Cooper DiBiase

         Hey, no need to generalize here.  I mean, it could be some GOP hack, too.

  • Chuck

    Sounds like this subject could be potentially interesting for a while.  Judging from the article, it looks like there are already some people saying, “HEY!  THOSE TREATMENTS HELPED ME!  WHO ARE YOU TO SAY I DON’T HAVE THE FREEDOM TO ABSTAIN FROM MY GAY SIDE?”  (OK, maybe I’m not accurately quoting anyone in the article.)

    My more rational thought processes tell me that certain people should have the right to seek these treatments out if they so choose, but I also have a very intense and meaner “damn them with freedom” mentality that came about from a years-long war with certain perfect Christian boys who were frequently upheld as the highest examples of manhood and “straight” living (you can probably take a guess about some of their behaviors — totally “not gay”).

    • Antinous / Moderator

      My more rational thought processes tell me that certain people should have the right to seek these treatments out if they so choose…

      Or you could read the article…

      The legislation — which the state Senate passed in May, Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law this weekend and will take effect January 1 — prohibits attempts to change the sexual orientation of patients under age 18.

      • Chuck

        Ah — I did read it kind of quickly.  I probably biased my reading comprehension by first searching for quotes by critics of Brown’s decision.  (But still, it was in the second paragraph.  Should have processed it a little better.)

    • Chuck

      Now my mean and nasty side is brain-storming related legislation…

      How about a new law that would prohibit fertility clinics from performing artificial insemination on a woman if employees of the clinic have reason to believe the husband is a closeted homosexual?

      Or how about a law that would impose a divorce on any man-woman marriage where one or both of the partners is discovered to be a closeted homosexual?  (Bisexuals would get a pass.)

      Both laws would probably be ruled unconstitutional on their first day in court.  But I’d kind of like to see the protests against them.:-)

      • Brainspore

        I don’t see how either of those laws could possibly be considered “related legislation.”

        • Chuck

          Related in the sense that they might cause certain conservatives to scream “THOSE LIBRULS ARE FORCIN’ US TO GO BACK TO BEING GAY!  …  Not that I’m gay, or anything.  I’m talking about other people.”

  • Steven McNally

    So glad that someone is taking action against crazies inflicting this under the veil of ‘religion’.

  • Andy Reilly

    This law only stops registered therapists from using this as a “medical” practice. And that is the way it should be. Harmful practices should not be forced on minors by medical professionals. And licensed professionals who do this should be punished as in any malpractice. Religions are still free to do horrible things to minors as long as their parents want it and they do not practice it under the guise of medicine. 

    • ookluh

      In short: Religion, still just as sucky as ever.

    • ocker3

      However now they can’t try and pretty it up by saying that an eminent psychiatrist is part of the program

  • JhmL

    Now they’ll never come for your uncool niece. Good one, Brown.

  • niktemadur

    Somewhere, in my mind and yours at least, Mr Alan Turing is smiling today.

  • http://lemoutan.blogspot.com/ Lemoutan

    I hope they don’t also ban so-called cures for homeopathy. Or for anything else beginning with hom.

    • edgore

      I was cured of homeopathy by using just the tiniest bit of it!

      • http://lemoutan.blogspot.com/ Lemoutan

        If they ban it, without banning its its cure, it will become more powerful than we can possibly imagine.

  • http://profile.yahoo.com/MF7MS6J2INA663O6NMTOF2BQNM Katherine

    I want this to hold up in court but I’m worried it won’t. Let’s put the religious and psychological abuse aside for a second. Technically, there’s a lot of unproven quackery out there that may or not be harmful. Homeopathy in nearly all forms comes to mind. Home birth is another very controversial health practice with fuzzy data to support it. Heck, the research on transgendered children and teens is scant, and a few of the most cited studies turned out to be bunk. I would hate for such kids not to ger treatment, though. I will have to read the law more carefully since the article wasn’t very clear. If California is specifying that this reparative therapy woo is NOT supported by established medicine and therapists may not present themselves as such, thunderbirds go. I also support banning minors from participating, as there are many treatments, medical or woo, for which children do not qualify. If they are banning it based on it being woo alone, then a lot of other things qualify for banning as well. As a result, this would be thrown out of court. I hope the law is written in an airtight way that makes it repeal-proof.

    • Brainspore

      I want this to hold up in court but I’m worried it won’t. Let’s put the religious and psychological abuse aside for a second.

      The abuse aspect is exactly what makes this different from other forms of quackery. It’s not just that research doesn’t support this kind of “therapy,” it’s that research indicates that it is a dangerous and psychologically damaging practice to force on children.