When the Legislature last year backed the nation's first ban on gay conversion therapy for minors, lawmakers had in mind the experiences of people such as James Guay.
At 16, Guay's devout Southern California Christian family placed him in therapy in an attempt to put a stop to his same-sex desires. Decades later, he calls the therapy "quackery" and psychological abuse -- and is among many gays and lesbians now defending the new state law in court.
"Parents can teach their children whatever they want," said Guay, now 41, a pastor's son who lived 20 years in San Francisco until moving recently to West Hollywood. "What they don't have a right to is knowingly or unknowingly using the guise of psychotherapy to damage their children."
On Wednesday, a federal appeals court will review whether California's attempt to ban the practice on minors trampled on the rights of families to seek such counseling -- and also whether it improperly threatens professional therapists who risk the loss of licenses and livelihoods if they violate the law.
A group of therapists and parents challenged the law in January, arguing it interferes with religious practices and violates free speech rights by barring gay conversion discussions between young patients and their counselors.
The case has produced a legal standoff between a state's power to regulate what it considers harmful conduct by licensed professionals and supporters of the therapy who insist parents have a right to follow their beliefs in arranging such therapy for their children.
Two Sacramento federal judges have split over the issue, one upholding the law and the other finding it runs afoul of the First Amendment. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put the law on hold while the case proceeds.
The showdown is being closely watched as other states, including New Jersey and Massachusetts, move to enact similar laws. Legal experts say the case poses tough questions because the U.S. Supreme Court has not established much precedent on a state's ability to impose such restrictions on the speech of licensed professionals.
"It hasn't really told us to what extent restrictions are constitutional," said Eugene Volokh, a UCLA law professor. "This is not clear."
Attorney General Kamala Harris' office is defending the law, saying in court papers that major mental health organizations consider the therapy harmful to minors struggling with their sexual identity. State officials also say states have the power to regulate licensed professionals, and "the First Amendment is not a shield for incompetent or harmful professional conduct."
Gay rights organizations have also intervened, arguing the practice stigmatizes gay minors by suggesting they can be converted to straight and that the therapy can eventually bring on depression and even suicide.
"We're talking about protecting young people from really serious risks," said Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights.
But advocates of the therapy argue the state is interfering in private family relations and therapist-patient relationships, insisting minors can be helped in dealing with "unwanted same-sex attractions." In court papers, a group challenging the law says it is so overbroad it would bar a licensed therapist from counseling a minor who had been molested by "the likes of a Jerry Sandusky," referring to the former Penn State assistant football coach and convicted serial child molester.
Another group, "Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays," submitted testimony from people who say they benefited from the counseling, warning the California ban "would coercively deny thousands of Californians ... the health care support they need and desire."
Many gays and lesbians who went through the conversion therapy in their teens strongly feel California does need to abolish it. Guay, for one, says it was a damaging event in his life.
"I thought I was literally going to hell for having these thoughts, feelings and attractions," he said. "It takes years, sometimes decades, to really, truly recover."
No comments:
Post a Comment