California's Ban On Ex-Gay Therapy For Teenagers

In September, California's Governor Jerry Brown signed into law SB 1172 which banned ex-gay therapy for minors within the state. A laudable goal indeed. Regardless of ones views on the success, legitimacy or rights to exist of reparative therapy, there is just something rather disturbing about parents sending their kids to such therapists just because of who their children find attractive.

Whilst I will happily support the rights (on libertarian grounds) of LGBT people who freely seek to "change" or "control" their sexuality, I am personally deeply opposed to parents sending their children to such programmes or pressuring their kids into "volunteering" for them. These places have a history of sexual abuse against clients and a very low "success" rate (I'd argue nearly zero but that is just based on my own bias).

However I find attempts to legislate against it bizarre, simply because of the inconsistency. There are plenty of other forms of "therapy" that aren't just useless but harmful. Homeopathy, for example, has zero effect beyond a placebo and can cause real treatment to be delayed. Of course this only manifests itself on the public stage in those truly severe cases where a child actually dies, but I'm sure that parents who use homoepathy on their children are extending (if not worsening) suffering for minor ailments quite unnecessarily.

Or take "sex addiction" therapy. Is sending your heterosexual son off to "sex addiction" therapy because he likes to look at porn, jerk off or some other minor teenage transgression really "effective"? I doubt it. But I suspect plenty of Christian parents do send their children off to such, often Christian led, therapy or prayer sessions.

Why are LGBT kids more worthy of protection from heartless (and often stupid) parents than any other? The inconsistency is not lost on ex-gay proponents. Joshua Johanson, poster child for the Mormon ex-gay community, makes the point on "sex addiction" in this podcast. By banning ex-gay therapy for minors but ignoring other harmful therapies, we end up making such people look like martyrs.

Now I'm sure many who have fought for this ban are also opposed to the other forms of "therapy" highlighted above (along with many others!). They'd probably happily agree this is only a partial success. But sadly it may also be an illusionary one. A court is currently considering a legal challenge to the ban and has temporarily overturned it for those "therapists" leading the challenge. It will be remarkably easy for them to fight this ban as there still hasn't been sufficient academic study highlighting the harms of this therapy and this LGBT only approach allows them to claim religious persecution.

The lesson here may be pursue a broader protection for kids from their parent's stupid healthcare decisions (a tricky subject all round of course!) and creating a stronger body of evidence showing exactly how harmful these therapies can be. I must make it clear, I really am opposed to ex-gay therapy for kids. I just do not see how legislating for it alone helps protect them from it forever.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Best Couple Of Days For #EqualMarriage Yet? #C4EM #Prop8 #USElection

Yes, yes PME2013 totally beat me to publishing on this (and is far more eloquent than I am!) but I have other links and other news!

It doesn't seem possible, but 4 years have really passed since Proposition 8 was approved by the voters of California. Every leftie liberals happy day as Obama was originally elected was given a little dent.

Now it wasn't all bad. We got Prop 8: The Musical, which has Kathy Najimy in it. That almost made it all worth it.



I jest, of course, but it was US election day yesterday and, along with the Presidential election and various other federal and state elections, there were 4 states holding marriage equality pertinent votes.

In Maine an initiative to introduce marriage equality (into a state that had previously voted it down in a referendum) was put to the voters. In Washington and Maryland successful legislation was put to a popular vote before being implemented. In Minnesota there was an attempt to constitutionally redefine marriage as between a man and a woman.

In Maine the initiative passed, finally bringing to an end NOM's argument against marriage equality; "Gay marriage has never been approved in a referendum of the people!".

The earliest gay and lesbian couples could marry will likely be early January. The Secretary of State's Office has 20 days to certify results, Gov. Paul LePage has 10 days to approve them, and after that, there's a constitutionally mandated 30-day waiting period for the law to take effect, according to the Secretary of State's Office.

The opponents in Maine have conceded.

In Maryland marriage equality was approved (I highly recommend the video on that link) and marriages should begin in January 2013.

In Minnesota the attempt to ban equal marriage was defeated in a closely fought contest. Despite this not having any material effects on the lives of Minnesotan LGBT folk, it does have the feeling of being a watershed moment. It feels like the turning of the tide.

The results are still not fully in for Washington. At the half way mark, the yes to marriage equality side are winning but it's close and there are no guarantees. Looking at the breakdown I think there are still a fair few anti-equality votes to come in. But if it is successful Washington will become the 9th state of the Union to approve marriage equality (almost 20%!) and marriages could start as early as December the 6th!

Meanwhile in Europe....

Yesterday Spain Constitutional Court upheld marriage equality in the country after a challenge from members of the ruling People's Party. In France the French Cabinet has approved a marriage equality and adoption bill for debate in January 2013.

And then in Australia....

Slightly more frivolous stuff but last night Big Brother viewers chose the latest Australian winner and he promptly proposed to his boyfriend live on air (his boyfriend said yes!). Hopefully this will raise the profile of the campaign for marriage equality there.

But wait there is more....

Remember Prop 8? Well it was overturned by the courts in California as being unconstitutional. It has made its way slowly up the chain and on November 20th it (along with several other equal marriage cases) will be considered by the United States Supreme Court. We should hear on November 26th if they make a decision and if so what that might be.

A lot has changed in 4 years. Let's hope it keeps on changing.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

A New Danger From Civil Partnerships?

Opponents to marriage equality from both the LGBT community and the anti-LGBT groupings often complain that LGBT folk don't need marriage because they already have civil partnerships which gives them all the rights they need.

If we ignore the obvious argument that this isn't quite true, we must face the fact that civil partnerships (as a separate institution) allow politicians to far more easily undermine those rights at any time. This week this is exactly what has happened in Queensland, Australia.

Unlike with marriage where LGBT folk are either "allowed" access to this institution or forbidden it (and sometime forbidden after being allowed such as in California, USA), the separate institution of civil partnerships allows politicians to tinker with which rights they will allow and which they won't at any time without consequence for the majority of the population of their jurisdiction.

This puts LGBT people's relationships at far greater risk than when covered by a gender neutral marriage law. It's far harder to demote LGBT's marriages to some sort of "not quite marriage" at any moment without risking legally undermining all marriages. Sure you can ban same-sex marriages completely but even then, in most cases, marriages performed before the ban are left unaffected. It'd take a cruel politician to destroy someone's marriage after the event! But in the case of civil partnerships it seems quite acceptable for politicians to giveth and then taketh away willy-nilly.

Another compelling reason to fight for marriage equality instead of (or as well as) civil partnerships.

There is, of course, an even better way to protect relationships from Government meddling.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

The Prop Ruling #prop8

Ruling here

None of the factors the court weighs in considering a motion to stay favors granting a stay. Accordingly, proponents' motion for a stay is DENIED. Doc #705. The clerk is DIRECTED to United States District Court For the Northern District of California enter judgment forthwith. That judgment shall be STAYED until August 18, 2010 at 5 PM PDT at which time defendants and all persons under their control or supervision shall cease to apply or enforce Proposition 8.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Prop 8 Trial: Same Sex Marriages Can Go Ahead #prop8

Following last week's ruling that California's Proposition 8 amendment to it's Constitution was unconstitutional, we now have Judge Vaughn Walker's response as to whether or not same sex couples can marry in California pending any appeal of his decision.

Del Martin and Phyllis Lyon were the first to marry in San Francisco City Hall in 2008

It's been agreed... marriages can proceed! This is very good news for those couples in California desperate to gain the status they deserve. However it makes the battle for marriage equality in California that much more dramatic as, if Judge Walker's decision is overturned, it might lead to an annulment of the marriages made from today onwards.

Let's celebrate the personal joy Judge Walker's decision today brings to many thousands of couples (such as Eric Ross and fiance Doug). And hope that American justice comes down in defence of individual liberty rather than in defence of the rights of a majority to enforce it's own personal morality upon others without legitimate reasons.

In related marriage equality news, but on this side of the pond, the Lib Dem Conference marriage equality proposal has been published and I thoroughly approve of the wording and intent. My concerns regarding it's intent to get rid of civil partnerships were without merit, and it has gone even further proposing we recognise international heterosexual civil unions. Very, very good.

Mexico's Supreme Court has ruled all Mexican states must recognise marriages conducted in the Federal District (that's Mexico City for you and me). And Costa Rica's (a country I have an unreasonable fondness for based irrationally on the Jurassic Park books) has ruled that there can be no majority rule on individual liberties (in this case civil unions), a result which is eerily similar in justification to Judge Walker's original ruling.

All in all... a good few days in the marriage equality fight.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Some Wonderful Prop 8 Smackdowns

I don't know what's happened since Judge Walker announced his ruling in the Prop 8 trial, but I like it. Suddenly the pro-marriage equality types have found their legal voice and in polite ways are destroying the anti-marriage equality arguments. Here's a two on-screen examples:

Ted Olson on Fox News

David Boies on Face The Nation:



If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

Perry Vs Schwarzenegger: The Facts Of The Ruling

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

The "findings of fact" seem to be the most compelling part of Judge Walker's ruling in Perry vs Schwarzenegger, and are worth reading. Here are the best:

1. Marriage is and has been a civil matter, subject to religious intervention only when requested by the intervenors.

2. California, like every other state, doesn't require that couples wanting to marry be able to procreate.

3. Marriage as an institution has changed overtime; women were given equal status; interracial marriage was formally legalized; no-fault divorce made it easier to dissolve marriages.

4. California has eliminated marital obligations based on gender.

5. Same-sex love and intimacy "are well-documented in human history."

6. Sexual orientation is a fundamental characteristic of a human being.

7. Prop 8 proponents' "assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is contrary to the weight of the evidence."

8. There is no evidence that sexual orientation is chosen, nor than it can be changed.

9. California has no interest in reducing the number of gays and lesbians in its population.

10. "Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful marital union."

11. "Marrying a person of the opposite sex is an unrealistic option for gay and lesbian individuals."

12. "Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive expression of love and commitment in the United States.
The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic partnerships."

13. "Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit, have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the stability of opposite-sex marriages." Source

For why the facts will be important for the battles ahead, see here.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist

What can the Prop 8 fight teach us in the United Kingdom?

California and the United Kingdom are completely different in both social and legal terms. The fights for marriage equality in the two different jurisdictions may as well be held on different planets. In California it is organised and “militant” against powerful, organised opponents. Here in the United Kingdom it's disorganised and... well.. most gay men, lesbians and bisexuals don't really care, it's brutally honest I know but we must not deceive ourselves. Despite what the loony homophobes might say, the LGBT “community” in the UK is not “militant” and is quite happy to just get on with life. The hurt wounds have been bandaged over the last decade and few have much fight left in them. Our opponents are weaker than in the USA and, perhaps, more unready for any fight.

Which gives those of us still fighting for equality a pause for thought. What can we learn from California's Prop 8 campaign in 2008?

It's not about getting an organised campaign in the same way as California. I just don't think there's the groundswell of feeling necessary for that. And it's not about money. What it is about is knowing what the opponents of marriage equality will do in order to keep equal rights from those who want them.

In California, Prop 8 supporters (as evidenced by this recent report) were quite willing to fear-monger and spread lies to get their way. If we are to ensure that their allies don't try the same here, during the run up to any legislative action to get marriage equality, we must be prepared to pre-empt and counter these lies.

The main lie was all about religious freedom. In California Prop 8 advocates claimed, erroneously, that marriage equality would force religious organisations to hold same sex marriages on their premises. Of course, as the treatment of divorcees in the Catholic church shows, this is patently untrue. Marriage equality is, however, a religious freedom issue; there are now several religious orders that want to conduct same sex marriages. The Government's ban is what is hurting that freedom, not the prospect of marriage equality.

Another tactic is the “won't somebody think about the children” defence. In California the following advert was used to support the ban on marriage equality:



As you can see it works on the basis of appealing to the residual fear and prejudice in even the most kind heterosexual parents. “Your children will be taught it's okay to be gay. Homosexuality is a choice. Your child might turn gay.” It is important we get out and say that this is not an education issue. Homosexuality is not a behaviour that can be taught. This is an issue about the freedom for adults to marry who they wish. It's a message that must be clear and must be heard loudly.

It is important we ensure our Parliamentarians are contacted NOW so that these issues are clear in their minds. That is why I keep going on about writing to your MPs and other representatives. If you really support marriage equality then you simply must do it. If we don't tell them our side, you can be damn well sure the Churches and other religions will tell them theirs.

It is also important to rebut arguments. Don't let these arguments stand, be it in newspaper adverts or on comments on blogs. Respond and correct, politely of course, wherever you encounter erroneous arguments. Don't delay or think someone else will do it.

If you feel benevolent and particularly generous, this writer always appreciates things bought for him from his wishlist