The whole world is debating the merits and vices of "reparative therapy," with one camp claiming that it can cure all ills and the other that it will inevitably lead to suicide and self-loathing.

I hope they both someday realize that their hyperbole is laughable.

But on a subject where for years people called names and told stories, the debate just hit a new level. Last month California passed a law stating that mental health professionals could no longer engage in any effort to help a client under age 18 with his or her sexual attractions, under threat of being subject to professional regulatory bodies (losing their license to practice).

The specific words of the law (California SB 1172) are:

“Sexual orientation change efforts” means any practices by mental health providers that seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation. This includes efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.

865.1. Under no circumstances shall a mental health provider engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a patient under 18 years of age.

865.2. Any sexual orientation change efforts attempted on a patient under 18 years of age by a mental health provider shall be considered unprofessional conduct and shall subject a mental health provider to discipline by the licensing entity for that mental health provider.

This is bad.

I don't advocate reparative therapy as a method of curing homosexuality. I agree with the tenets listed elsewhere in the law that men and women need to find peace, love, and acceptance within and without, and that same-gender attraction is not, in itself, a sin... and hence does not make anyone less worthwhile. I also agree that love within the home, and reconciliation with self-worth, are crucial for the aversion of practices leading to the syndemic of homosexuality - drug abuse, sexual abuse, depression, suicide, and HIV.

At the same time, not every homosexual child is a victim of massive self-loathing or so vulnerable and impressionable that he needs to be protected from external ideas. Young men and women who have developed their own sense of self-worth, who love themselves completely, and who have the complete support of family and community, mental health professionals can help them address issues outside of their own ability. To those young men and women - I was 17 when I went to college, for example - living according to their most deeply held personal feelings can be better achieved with the help of others in the community - including mental health professionals. Especially those who are already dealing with clinical depression or other disorders. This law effectively bars professionals from that network of support if a source of distress is sexual in any nature. And while internal attractions, the existence of a sliding scale vs binary assignment, nature vs nurture, and sexual mutability is definitely part of the debate, the specific mentioning of the word "behaviors" - as I highlighted in the law - is the truly distressing part of this law.

Any efforts... to change homosexual behaviors.

I know that laws are often stretched to their extreme in courts of law, depending heavily on the methods used by lawyers and judges in assigning meaning to each word. I'm also not a lawyer... but since words and meanings seem to be so fluid in this debate, an imagination is probably all I need. I take things literally (since I'm autistic), so my interpretation will be extremely literal. Either way, in a firefight like homosexuality, I can see this one being put to the test.

Some major issues and potential problems follow.

This law doesn't have religious exemptions or restrict its application to the workday. Which means that if a bishop is a licensed mental health professional, he can no longer counsel young members of his congregation who come to him and want to repent (and hence change) of behaviors involved in homosexual activity.

By extending to any effort to change behaviors, and not including exemptions, this could also be construed to limit mental health professionals from preaching over the pulpit on the topic of homosexuality when there are minors present.

Conversely, if the law restrains professionals from any effort to change behaviors, and applies to discouraging behaviors, it must also restrain them from encouraging behaviors related to homosexuality. As feelings are indicated only in one direction (eliminating or reducing feelings), this would only apply to behaviors.

This could have direct impact on the ability of parents who are mental health professionals to counsel, support, act, and teach their children about homosexuality.

But the most obvious is that parents, and their children, would no longer have the ability to turn to licensed medical professionals for support - effectively encouraging them to go to unlicensed professionals, as the law does not contraindicate the work of unlicensed individuals. These include friends and other associates who, while perhaps well-meaning, may not have the grounding or training in mental health to be able to distinguish positive and negative methodologies. And they rarely have training to support concomitant depression or other negative tendencies that coincide. This law will not change the desire of individuals or parents to find external support in their desires to change unwanted behaviors - it will only force them to search for help outside of the licensed world of mental health.

Those are my concerns at first glance. Some might seem extreme, but knowing the subject, I'm not sure that extreme really exists anymore. Laws have been interpreted as far as language allows - sometimes beyond what seems reasonable.

I'm sort of glad now that I didn't go into psychology or mental health. I'm planning to go to grad school in California. And since I spend much of my free supporting people who want to change their behaviors, and many are young, this would be a major issue.

Edit:

Since writing this post, I've learned that the Pacific Justice Institute has sued for an injunction against CA SB 1127. A brief news article on their case is here: http://www.pacificjustice.org/1/post/2012/10/-new-court-filings-seek-to-halt-gay-therapy-ban.html

And a YouTube video, created by the same organization, is here: http://youtu.be/IB5Km5dCtZk?hd=1 that details how supportive therapy helped one individual.

It's apparent from the case and the issues highlighted in the press release (specifically the right of religious organizations to offer counseling that matches their beliefs) that this is a potentially a big issue. What was interesting to me was that my non-legal-background-pure-conjecture may actually have something in common with legal opinions.
Continue reading at the original source →