Gay Conversion Therapy Ban Blocked By California Court

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Huffington Post

Ugh...

[Antonio the Sixth]

How the hell are these f**king activist judges justifying this sh*t?!?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Disgusting.

[Supersonic]

Fail.

[afleitch]

Because religious belief basically trumps everything regardless of what it does to people. Part of me wishes LGBT folks would make up and worship a god. All those protections would just flow our way.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Fail is right.  Here we are having a debate about the poor state of mental healthcare in this country, and we can't even put a stop to psychologically damaging quack-mental healthcare.

[Ogre Mage]

All three judges hearing this case were appointed by Republicans:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/12/gay-therapy-ban-placed-on-hold-in-california.html

Looks like we may have gotten a bad draw with this one.  The Ninth Circuit is liberal, so we would have a better chance in an en banc hearing.

One caution:  the fact the panel put a hold on the law while they are considering the case doesn't automatically mean they will ultimately rule against it.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

And the Republicans complain about "judicial activism"? Oh my god...

Of course they never complain about right-wing judicial activism. Activist rulings like American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock are perfectly fine with them.

[Holmes]

Isn't this technically just a stay? Not an actual decision in any definition of the word. Either way, it should be up to California to regulate which therapies or medical practices that are practiced in the state.

[Sewer]

The Nutty Ninth strikes again...

[Badger]

The Nutty Ninth strikes again...

But in a diametrically ideological opposite matter than how it's gained that name.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

How is it opposite from its normal viewpoint for it to be in favor of allowing individuals to do what they want, even tho it is disapproved of by a majority of right-thinking individuals?

[Liberalrocks]

Major FAIL !!

[DC Al Fine]

And the Republicans complain about "judicial activism"? Oh my god...

How is it judicial activism? It seems like the standard "No regulation/banning" sort of ruling that courts issue all the time.

[Holmes]

This is not a ruling. ffs people, read.

[Badger]

And the Republicans complain about "judicial activism"? Oh my god...

How is it judicial activism? It seems like the standard "No regulation/banning" sort of ruling that courts issue all the time.

.....and then get accused of judicial activism for.

[bedstuy]

This is just an injunction.  They haven't ruled one way or the other on the merits yet. 

[Brittain33]

I read a pretty compelling piece the other day arguing that anti-gay therapy should be discredited and proscribed by the medical associations, and not by government. Advocates should make their case there. If they win, it makes government action more justifiable.

[Lief 🗽]

ITT: people who don't understand how the appeals process works.

[Marokai Backbeat]

ITT: people who don't understand how the appeals process works.

I understand, I just can't read.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So any idea how the judges will eventually rule? I can't believe there might be idiots to overturn such a law in 2012.

[DemPGH]

As a heterosexual, I say I really wish they'd just let gay people alone. As is demonstrated by nature, homosexuality is perfectly normal behavior. But these people are probably Crusaders, and here's another court that [momentarily] gets out of the way of an injustice. Pathetic.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

So any idea how the judges will eventually rule? I can't believe there might be idiots to overturn such a law in 2012.

I can't believe there are idiots who passed it.  The sole argument against in favor of it is that it stops people from engaging in self-destructive behavior.  Yet there are all sorts of self-destructive behaviors people engage in and banning them has practically never turned out well.  I can see banning the state paying for such 'therapy' under its mental health programs, or banning the providers of such therapy from being a provider at all under state-funded health programs.  I can also see banning parents from sending their minor children to such therapy.  However, a blanket ban has a whole host of constitutional and policy problems.

[Ogre Mage]

So any idea how the judges will eventually rule? I can't believe there might be idiots to overturn such a law in 2012.

I can't believe there are idiots who passed it.  The sole argument against in favor of it is that it stops people from engaging in self-destructive behavior.  Yet there are all sorts of self-destructive behaviors people engage in and banning them has practically never turned out well.  I can see banning the state paying for such 'therapy' under its mental health programs, or banning the providers of such therapy from being a provider at all under state-funded health programs.  I can also see banning parents from sending their minor children to such therapy.  However, a blanket ban has a whole host of constitutional and policy problems.

The California law is not a blanket ban on conversion therapy.  It only applies to people under 18.