Today there is a hearing in the Senate Health Care Committee on HB 2451 which would ban sexual orientation change therapy for minors. The bill makes it professional misconduct for a licensed professional help a minor reduce or eliminate same-sex attraction. Even if the client requests the therapy. Even if the therapy is being done by a pastor inside a church.
The truth is, even the people supporting this bill wouldn’t support it if it were about anything other than homosexuality.
It violates so many of their first principles.
They used to say with such conviction that the government shouldn’t get between a girl and her doctor. But in this case they feel compelled to protect the girl from some doctor. After all, what if the doctor gives the girl advice we don’t like. Someone must be there to protect her.
They used scream from the rooftops about the need for a clear wall of separation between church and state. It protects the state from the church and the church from the state, right? Turns out that wall of separation may be evolving into more of a gate that locks on one side. Of course they have the key.
I’m sure Thomas Jefferson said something about a gate once too. And when he did, he almost certainly was thinking about the need for future benevolent governments to protect children from their parents, their therapists, and the church. The wall of separation was only going to work for so long. So much good to do and so little time.
Remember when they were telling florists that it’s illegal to deny gay customers services they wouldn’t be requesting if they weren't gay; things like floral services for a same-sex wedding. I think they called it discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. What? They’re still saying that?
Turns out they aren’t always opposed to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In fact, it appears that they like it quite a lot so long as it will prevent gay kids from getting services that they don’t think gay kids should want.
Just less than a year ago, the city of New York made it illegal to sell soda and other sweetened drinks in quantities larger than 16 oz. They banned it because it’s bad for you.
You’ll recall that the public was outraged. Mayor Bloomberg was accused of meddling in issues that shouldn’t be his concern because he was meddling in issues that shouldn’t be his concern. Since then a New York appeals court ruled that the ban was unconstitutional now the high court in New York will rule.
But is it really that much different to ban certain kinds of therapy that some people want because you’re convinced that it’s bad for them? Or maybe they’ll revise the proposal to stop parents from buying soda for their kids. That should go well.
Of course this bill is motivated by good intentions. If you accept their premise that reducing or eliminating same-sex attraction is impossible, it makes some sense. Don’t punish the left-handed kids for being left-handed, right?
But that analogy falls apart in light of all the people walking around whose lives have changed in this way.
This bill is fundamentally about the right of self-determination. Should an individual be able to determine for themselves the kind of person they want to be. Should an individual be able to decide that they want to make choices consistent with a certain value system, regardless of how they feel at the moment? Should they be able to seek professional help in doing so?
Can I get an Amen from all the wives whose husbands are dealing with sex addictions?
We all know the answer to that question if we’re talking about any other subject. But in this case, I guess it’s different.