Gay Patriot Header Image

California Versus Free Speech

Posted by V the K at 9:46 am - April 18, 2018.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America

The California Legislature is fast-tracking a bill that would make it illegal to publish, sell or exchange any book critical of transgenderism or not critical of the idea that sexual behavior can be changed. I am not making this up.

California’s legislature is poised to approve one of the most serious attacks against freedom of speech ever contemplated in U.S. history this week. Assembly Bill 2943 is legislation that would place that state in an Orwellian society by banning books, speech, and commercial services that would (in the state’s subjective view) help or encourage any willing consumer to overcome same-sex desires or gender confusion.

In the bill, California makes a legislative declaration that “Contemporary science recognizes that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender is part of the natural spectrum of human identity” and that so-called “change efforts,” including merely speaking a different viewpoint, constitutes unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices under the state’s consumer protection laws.

They are claiming that promoting (or even discussing) the idea that humans can choose to control their own sexual behavior is “consumer fraud,” because it’s obviously impossible for any human being to manage their sexual urges. Except for straight intoxicated college men, who are expected to behave like chaste monks.

I note that the California Legislature is not banning books or speech on how cancer can be cured with crystals, or explaining the “health benefits” for women of stuffing rocks into their vajayjays.

Share

19 Comments

  1. they are going to make it a crime to criticize transgenderism. another thing that use to be legal made a crime by the people concerned about mass incarceration.

    Comment by salg — April 18, 2018 @ 9:56 am - April 18, 2018

  2. So, I am homosexual, but choose to live a celibate, asexual life. Will I be arrested for talking about my choice to control my own body? Isn’t control of one’s own body a tenet of leftist dogma? And really, how can they get away with such a law? The Constitution should override it.

    Comment by TADFORD2 — April 18, 2018 @ 10:44 am - April 18, 2018

  3. It has the smell and feel of sharia. California sure is at the forefront of stupid.

    Comment by MikeyParks — April 18, 2018 @ 11:40 am - April 18, 2018

  4. I am not making this up.

    No, but the author of the article might be; or at least engaging in breathless hyperbole, the kind I assume she detests when the left does similarly.

    I read the bill; I’m not a lawyer nor did I do a detailed analysis, but it seems to me this is a standard anti-conversion therapy bill, specifically tailored for the Nanny State Of California. I don’t see it as covering books or publications (unless ‘prescribed’ by a therapist) and not as sweeping as the author [who is affiliated with a think tank at Colorado Christian University, with its own biases] seems to think it is.

    Of course the Alliance Defending Freedom wishes to portray sexual orientation and transgenderism as a moral failing or dysfunctional upbringing which is potentially curable as opposed to something innate and an essential core of someone’s being. Their rationale is because there is, as of yet, no such thing as a “gay gene”. That is their right to believe that, but as the text of the bill notes, standard mental health experts disagree.

    What this particular piece of legislation seems to be about is to prevent the ability to profit off of what are most likely fraudulent therapies, such as those promoted by the late Joseph Nicolosi, co-founder of NARTH [National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality]. I don’t see anything in the bill that would prevent churches, for example, from offering counseling towards the same end so long as they did so gratis.

    Considering that the bill is cosponsored by Scott Weiner, the State Senator for The Castro (and previous GP pin-up boy), and himself a lawyer, I can’t imagine that there are major constitutional issues with the bill as currently presented. Of course, there will likely be challenges based on the consumer regulation of mental health services, as well as a free speech challenge to the prohibition on promoting conversion therapy by any means. While it’s nice that there are organizations watching the wacky California General Assembly and their output, sometimes they are blinded by their own biases. That doesn’t help in calling attention to the truly egregious practices of the same body.

    Comment by RSG — April 18, 2018 @ 11:54 am - April 18, 2018

  5. So, sex conversion therapy is okay, but not sexuality conversion therapy?

    Comment by Karen — April 18, 2018 @ 12:09 pm - April 18, 2018

  6. The Constitution guarantees each state a republican form of government. IMHO California’s jungle primary violates that provision. Passing such a law that blatantly violates both their state Constitution as well as the federal Constitution gives reason to dissolve their legislature and reorganize the state, temporarily treating it as a territory with a military Governor appointed by POTUS.

    Comment by Gospace — April 18, 2018 @ 12:49 pm - April 18, 2018

  7. As California hurtles towards pension Armageddon, I’m happy to see that its statesmen statesbeings have their priorities, er, straight.

    Speaking of governments with their priorities right where they need to be, Mark Steyn’s latest podcast is good:

    https://www.steynonline.com/8591/long-night-of-the-knives

    Comment by KCRob — April 18, 2018 @ 6:24 pm - April 18, 2018

  8. The article is typical right-wing scaremongering.

    It has solely to do with conversion therapy, not with speech, books, etc.

    I live in Indiana. The General Assembly here could pass a law tomorrow stating that Scientology is a fraud and not a religion; however, I would still be able to pick up a copy of “Dianetics” at my local bookstore (or on Amazon).

    Comment by Paul — April 18, 2018 @ 8:06 pm - April 18, 2018

  9. @8 – Paul, you have a point. But I find it odd that the CA legislature would “fast track” something like this.

    What happened to choice? Geez – when we hear about a 6-yo boy that wants to be a girl (or vice-versa), we’re supposed to weep with joy. If someone wants to “convert”, shouldn’t it be their choice to try (pointless as I think it may be)?

    There’s an argument to be made that sex-reassignment is harmful (elevated suicide rates, for example) and no one dares to fast track any studies or legislation about that.

    https://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939

    Comment by KCRob — April 18, 2018 @ 10:14 pm - April 18, 2018

  10. If gay or bi men/women choose to live a chaste life from the LGBT lifestyle or choose not to participate in same sex attraction, there should be options and resources for them without being harassed by state or federal government. It’s their choice.

    Comment by pawfurbehr — April 18, 2018 @ 10:37 pm - April 18, 2018

  11. Pointing out Marxist Californian authoritarianism, isn’t scaremongering. Paul is missing the basic points of the matter. Is it scaremongering when loss of freedom is called out? Libs hate it when we fight back or point out the stupidities that they ALL support. Get rid of your mirrors, Paul. It’ll help living with such self-loathing.

    Comment by Hanover — April 18, 2018 @ 11:22 pm - April 18, 2018

  12. I personally have doubts as to the efficacy of conversion therapy. I don’t think it’s so much “curing teh gays” as it is teaching gay men and lesbians to avoid acting on sexual urges with the same sex. I’m not sure enough research has been done into sexuality from the perspective of the physical sciences for us to be able to really discuss what determines sexual orientation.

    I do fear, however, that there is a non-zero chance that this bill could be used by pedophiles to avoid reprisal. Call me paranoid, I’ve just seen too many cases of things Leftists promised less than 10 years ago get reneged upon.

    Comment by Sean L — April 19, 2018 @ 6:56 am - April 19, 2018

  13. @10: Celibacy is NOT the same thing as conversion therapy.

    Plenty of straight men chose not to act on their heterosexual desires…you may know them as Catholic priests.

    Comment by Paul — April 19, 2018 @ 8:10 am - April 19, 2018

  14. isn’t transgenderism the ultimate in sexual conversion?

    Comment by salg — April 19, 2018 @ 9:52 am - April 19, 2018

  15. If someone wants to “convert”, shouldn’t it be their choice to try (pointless as I think it may be)?

    It’s their choice.

    Yes, it should be their choice (futile though it might be)—but it should be an informed choice. Which is why I think a better solution would be to approach the issue like anti-abortion activists have: pass an informed consent law, which mandates information (the kind which is already delineated in the bill, plus perhaps the additional material KCRob has posted) be given to anyone who elects to undergo such therapy. This would surely undergo challenges, but since there is no Roe v Wade for conversion therapy, it would likely be upheld. But never leave it to legislative extremists to use a flyswatter when a case of insecticide (made from the spent grounds of organic fair-trade coffee lovingly used by baristas paid a living wage) will do.

    I’m not sure enough research has been done into sexuality from the perspective of the physical sciences for us to be able to really discuss what determines sexual orientation.

    It has not, and will not likely be done for some time. Which actually supports the goal, if not the actual means behind the cited legislation. After all, if you don’t know what causes something, how can you possibly “cure” it? Conversion therapy is the mental health version of alchemy. There’s always a huckster willing to say they can make it happen, but tangible results have yet to be found.

    I don’t think it’s so much “curing teh gays” as it is teaching gay men and lesbians to avoid acting on sexual urges with the same sex.

    I think it has more to do with making the ‘curers’ seem meritorious in the eyes of God—and making a buck at the same time. Years ago when still at ABC News, John Stoessel did a story on conversion therapy, specifically focusing on NARTH and Joseph Nicolosi. Aside from coming across like an opportunistic weasel, it was pointed out that conversion therapists charge thousands of dollars for the ‘cure’ and JS’s conclusion was that it was a way for unscrupulous therapists to make lots of green from desperate individuals.

    Comment by RSG — April 19, 2018 @ 11:32 am - April 19, 2018

  16. @ 13, Paul I wasn’t talking about or advocating conversion therapy douche bag.

    Comment by Pawfurbehr — April 19, 2018 @ 11:36 am - April 19, 2018

  17. In my opinion, bottom line here is not about transgenders it is about control. The overreach of the state is becoming tyrannical. Your attempt to make it seem reasonable Paul is just the sort of soothing attempt to calm down the sheep being led to the slaughter or at least to being herded into the “proper” corral, one might expect of a government functionary. It’s just one more hahmless little piece of legislation for ya darlin’.

    Comment by Rex — April 19, 2018 @ 11:53 am - April 19, 2018

  18. Trans IS conversion therapy and needs to be banned on the exact same grounds as the religious kind.

    Comment by Matthew — April 20, 2018 @ 3:28 pm - April 20, 2018

  19. The Tenth Amendment doesn’t override the other nine that precede it, especially not the first two.

    Comment by Matthew — April 25, 2018 @ 7:49 am - April 25, 2018

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.