I recently came across an op-ed in the Los Angeles Times with an intriguing title: “Conversion therapy for gays is awful, but so is California’s bill to ban it.” Despite the article having been written back in 2018, the points brought up by its author are still highly relevant to ongoing clashes between religious freedom and the LGBTQ agenda. Before going into the substance of the article, readers should be briefly brought up to speed on the state of conversion therapy restrictions in California and the nation.
In 2012, my home state of California became the first in the nation to ban the practice of “conversion therapy” when Governor Jerry Brown signed Senate Bill 1172 into law. SB 1172 prohibited mental health providers from engaging in attempts to change the sexual orientation of a minor. Some critics of the bill pointed out that the bill’s loopholes were obvious, since the majority of conversion efforts are carried out by unlicensed individuals affiliated with religious organizations and not covered by the definition of “mental health providers.” In addition, two California lawsuits were filed as soon as the bill was enacted, challenging its constitutionality. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals combined the two cases and ultimately upheld SB 1172. Among its findings, the court stated that “despite parents’ fundamental right to make important medical decisions for their children, parents do not have the right to opt for treatments the legislature deems harmful.” As of this month, 24 states in the union have enacted bans on “conversion therapy” for minors. The three most recent instances have come in the form of executive orders given by the governors of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Minnesota.
In California, the next development in “conversion therapy” bans came in 2018, with the introduction of Assembly Bill 2943 by State Assembly member Evan Low. AB 2943 sought to close some of the loopholes of SB 1171 by applying therapy bans to any practitioner, regardless of licensure, participating in the advertisement or sale of services aimed at changing sexual orientation. Labelling “conversion therapy” as a form of consumer fraud, proponents of AB 2943 aimed at legitimizing its extension of restrictions beyond minors to adults. The bill’s obvious proposition that “government knows best” for adult consumers, not only the young, proved hard to swallow even for some apparent “allies” of the gay lifestyle.
The author of the LA Times op-ed I mentioned begins the article with the following disclaimer of his own feelings on the matter: “That a tiny market for conversion therapy to ‘cure’ homosexuality still exists today is deeply sad, even infuriating.” The article continues with remarkably level-headed objectivity, however, as it explores the seemingly inevitable implications of implementing a bill with such sweeping injunctions. The wording of AB 2943 included banning “efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.” As the op-ed author notes, these restrictions would presumably thwart the attempts of uncoerced adults simply seeking what they deem to be the most responsible option to resolve sexual and mental difficulties that may be interfering with their family life. And indeed, if prison inmates can receive state-funded sex reassignment surgery, why should a free adult be prevented from working with a trusted peer to manage their own sexual appetites?
Concerns over AB 2943’s expansive wording by Christian advocacy groups in California led to unexpected shelving of the bill later in 2018. According to California Family Council, AB 2943’s sponsor Evan Low, in a show of good faith, met personally with pastors, professional counsellors and former homosexuals involved in LGBT ministries. Rather than push the bill on to the Governor’s desk, Low apparently opted to recalibrate his approach and avoid alienating powerful faith leaders. The mark was clearly missed, however, as indicated by a California Family Council report only one year later, which announced Evan Low’s intention to argue for Assembly Concurrent Resolution 99. ACR 99, which was passed by the California Assembly Judiciary Committee in June 2019, calls upon “religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy”.
Although ACR 99 is not legally binding, critics object to the resolution’s vague language, which seems to thinly veil the threat of renewed legislative efforts along the lines of AB 2943. Critics are concerned that ACR 99’s wording could easily be construed to seriously inhibit the activities of religions institutions and leaders helping those struggling with unwanted same-sex attraction. Although this issue might appear to be the result of poor drafting, the chosen verbiage is more likely part of a new strategy to assert control over religious leaders. In fact, Assembly Member Low essentially admitted this when he remarked, “My intent is still to stamp out conversion therapy, but rather to do it in a more deliberate fashion, enlisting the support of evangelical and faith leaders.” The suggestion of concerted ideological infiltration into Christian organizations suggested here is anything but comforting. Christian organizations should at least be granted the dignity of preserving the integrity of their own convictions, and even the outlawing of acting upon these convictions seems preferable to subtler forms of manipulation. As waves of the LGBT agenda continue to break upon the last bastion of our constitutionally protected freedoms of religious liberty and free speech, we should consider where we are prepared to draw the line as citizens and voters.
About The Contributor
