Courts Put Hold On California’s Reparative-Therapy Ban

ex-gay-truth-wins-out-360x274On Friday, a federal court issued an emergency order putting California’s pending reparative-therapy ban on hold until arguments are heard on an appeal against the measure.

The law, passed earlier this fall and signed by Governor Jerry Brown, was scheduled to take effect January 1, 2013.

But two counselors who practice the discredited therapy, and parents who say their teenage sons benefited from it, are asking for an injunction against the ban, which only applies to minors.

They are being represented by attorneys from Liberty Counsel, an anti-gay legal group.

Friday’s ruling doesn’t invalidate the law, though—it only stalls its enactment until a different court rules if it violates parents and therapists’ First Amendment rights.

“This law is politically motivated to interfere with counselors and clients,” said Liberty Counsel director Matt Staver. [It’s] an astounding overreach by the government into the realm of counseling and would have caused irreparable harm.”

Earlier this month, Judge William Shubb issued an injunction against the ban while it worked its way through the courts, but only for the three counselors involved in the case before him.


Get Queerty Daily

Subscribe to Queerty for a daily dose of #conversiontherapy #ex-gay #ex-gaytherapyban stories and more


  • hyhybt

    As I understand it, the law doesn’t have any punishment attached; it leaves that to the therapist’s professional organization.

    So what does the law actually DO that couldn’t be done without it? Such organizations already have the right to toss people out for unethical practice, do they not?

  • Guillermo3

    @hyhybt: The problem,hyhybt, is that many of these monsters,in many places are recognized[bought their way into?] their professional organizations as ethical,effective practitioners.It’s like professionally authorized therapeutic brain-washing,torture Similar to “Re-Education camps in Cuba,orChina,or Nazi Aryanization of untermenschen.

  • hyhybt

    @Guillermo3: …in which case, the new law is worthless, because it leaves punishment in the hands of the organizations you claim have been bought off.

    Why does it so consistently happen, when I ask questions, that people “answer” them with statements that don’t even address the question I actually asked?

  • Ellipse Kirk

    Nothing weird about a stay until review.

  • jwrappaport

    I’m confused about something – why was there a stay order for this but none for Proposition 8?

  • hyhybt

    @jwrappaport: Perhaps because P8 was a constitutional amendment, and therefore presumed constitutional? Perhaps because weddings held after its passage would be too questioned?

Comments are closed.