Anyone in California and get email for opposing AB 2943

[cinepro]

13 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Even Evergreen was not promoting conversion therapy, despite the attempts by the AP to make it sound that way. The focus was on overcoming behavior and decreasing desire. Desire is different from attraction. 

There is a lot of misinformation and lack of education around the topic. 

 

If "desire is different from attraction" is what you're basing your defense on, then I will abstain from responding out of respect for the defenseless.

 

[JAHS]

7 minutes ago, kllindley said:

The bill defines “Sexual orientation change efforts” as “any practices 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” 

So a Bishop encouraging a gay person to remain celibate in order to be a member in good standing would be included in this? Or is it only if some kind of financial transaction is made in efforts to help the person change behavior?

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, cinepro said:

 

If "desire is different from attraction" is what you're basing your defense on, then I will abstain from responding out of respect for the defenseless.

 

Oh, it's certainly not the base of the argument. However, If you can't distinguish between finding a woman attractive and desiring to commit adultery with her, then I get how you would see that position as indefensible.

[kllindley]

2 minutes ago, JAHS said:

So a Bishop encouraging a gay person to remain celibate in order to be a member in good standing would be included in this? Or is it only if some kind of financial transaction is made in efforts to help the person change behavior?

As far as it is currently written, a number of legal scholars say yes, if there is any sort of financial involvekeht, such as tithing. 

[cinepro]

38 minutes ago, kllindley said:

Oh, it's certainly not the base of the argument. However, If you can't distinguish between finding a woman attractive and desiring to commit adultery with her, then I get how you would see that position as indefensible.

So by your definition, if I said that I found Chris Hemsworth attractive and I'm a man, would you say that I have Same-Sex Attraction?

Or is "attraction" when used in the phrase "Same-Sex Attraction" really a synonym for "desire", making the attempt to try and distinguish between the two a disingenuous distraction?

Edited May 7, 2018 by cinepro

[bluebell]

31 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So by your definition, if I said that I found Chris Hemsworth attractive and I'm a man, would you say that I have Same-Sex Attraction?

 

I think it would depend on whether or not you found Hemsworth attractive or if you were attracted to Hemsworth.

[JAHS]

1 hour ago, kllindley said:

1 hour ago, JAHS said:

So a Bishop encouraging a gay person to remain celibate in order to be a member in good standing would be included in this? Or is it only if some kind of financial transaction is made in efforts to help the person change behavior?

As far as it is currently written, a number of legal scholars say yes, if there is any sort of financial involvekeht, such as tithing. 

Hard to believe a donation like tithing would be included.   According to the year-end tithing statement, "The Church provided no goods or services in consideration, in whole or in part, for the contributions detailed below but only intangible religious benefits"

Wouldn't helping someone with their gay behavior be considered tangible and therefore donations for intangible benefits would not really be considered a financial transaction?

[kllindley]

3 minutes ago, JAHS said:

Hard to believe a donation like tithing would be included.   According to the year-end tithing statement, "The Church provided no goods or services in consideration, in whole or in part, for the contributions detailed below but only intangible religious benefits"

Wouldn't helping someone with their gay behavior be considered tangible and therefore donations for intangible benefits would not really be considered a financial transaction?

Well, I would hope so. And having a lay ministry probably further strengthens protections for the Church. But it could certainly apply to anyone purchasing materials from Deseret Book, or even from the Church distribution center. 

[kllindley]

46 minutes ago, cinepro said:

So by your definition, if I said that I found Chris Hemsworth attractive and I'm a man, would you say that I have Same-Sex Attraction?

Or is "attraction" when used in the phrase "Same-Sex Attraction" really a synonym for "desire", making the attempt to try and distinguish between the two a disingenuous distraction?

I think you may be genuinely misunderstanding the distinction we are making. I apologize for not being more clear. 

There are three main points that seem to get conflated. 

1) Many would say that if you find another guy attractive, that makes you gay. Or at least bisexual. That is the problem with our current understanding of sexual orientation and attraction. No one really knows what we are talking about. There is no consensus between academics, legislators, and the general public on what terms mean and how accurate or useful they are. I can't overstate how much this is a big deal when it comes to making these types of policies. 

 

[kllindley]

2) In 12 years of personal experience with people, I have always seen a difference in saying "I experience same-sex attraction" and "I desire to engage in gay relationships" Some people who can say the first would also say the second, but many would not. That is why I think it is disingenuous when people try to delegitimize the term same-sex attraction. It is a perfectly accurate descriptor. 

Again, this is no different than a heterosexual male being able to acknowledge that a woman not his wife is sexually attractive, and not feeling a strong desire to engage in adultery with her. Do some men experience that desire? Of course. Do all? 

3) I'll admit that many people affiliated with Evergreen, and to a large extent the organization itself did advocate that it was possible (though not guaranteed) to reduce the attractions themselves. I think that this was generally understood not to be a change in "orientation," but a decrease in the frequency and intensity of the attraction. In this it was probably used in a way that referred more to desire than to attraction, per se. 

I know thousands of men and women who have based their lives on this distinction. You may not understand it, you may not agree with it, but to simply dismiss us all as a disingenuous distractions seems to be pretty harsh.

[mfbukowski]

On 5/6/2018 at 11:31 AM, provoman said:

Members in at least one stake were sent an email that includes a copy and paste from focus on the family promoting opposistion to a proposed law that would outlaw conversion therapy?

Nope, didn't get it

[Amulek]

18 hours ago, provoman said:

I wonder if the Church promotes or supports conversion therapies.

Well, I spent two years in the Pacific Northwest, working to convert Druids, Wiccans, Satanists, and even the occasional OCC member. 

But I don't think that's the kind of conversion therapy you're talking about. 

 

[mfbukowski]

4 hours ago, nuclearfuels said:

Doesn't sound like an official email.

Not sure CA is coming back regardless of whether that law passes or not.

People are leaving in droves for taxes alone.

Gas Is $3.50 per gallon at the cheapest and median price of a house in LA County is 580k

Sell it, buy 2 in Provo, and live cheaper on rental income and social security.

It's a fad for Mormon baby boomers

Our Ward alone has lost several families doing this.

Last one out bring the statue of Moroni.

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by mfbukowski

[Calm]

3 hours ago, cinepro said:

 

If "desire is different from attraction" is what you're basing your defense on, then I will abstain from responding out of respect for the defenseless.

 

One can have attractions that one desires one didn't have.  One could desire something one isn't attracted to...for example one might desire to be heterosexual while having homosexual attractions.

I see attraction as a more subconscious/gut response to the world while desire is how we reason about our attractions and place value on them.

Edited May 7, 2018 by Calm

[cinepro]

2 hours ago, kllindley said:

2) In 12 years of personal experience with people, I have always seen a difference in saying "I experience same-sex attraction" and "I desire to engage in gay relationships" Some people who can say the first would also say the second, but many would not. That is why I think it is disingenuous when people try to delegitimize the term same-sex attraction. It is a perfectly accurate descriptor. 

 

There is a wise saying, "No matter how thin you slice it, it's still baloney."

Apologists and other defenders of the Church wield a great power.  And that is the power to define words as they see fit.  But the danger in using this power is that when we are careless, we may redefine words in ways that appear to be helpful, but end up doing more damage than the regular definition we are so desperately trying to avoid.

This is a good example.  You can define "attraction" however you want, but if you try to define it in a way that "attraction" (as used in "Same Sex Attraction") isn't actually implying a homosexual (or homo-erotic?) aspect of desire, then the phrase "Same Sex Attraction" no longer means anything.  Even President Nelson would no doubt acknowledge that there are handsome men that he could label as "attractive", but who is going to then argue that President Nelson "suffers" from "Same Sex Attraction?"

People with "Same Sex Attraction" aren't labeled that way because they have the ability to discern attractiveness in people of their same gender.   Because that would mean everyone has Same Sex Attraction.  And if I gathered a group of Mormon men who all self-identified as having "Same-Sex Attraction" and then put out pictures of different women and they were all able to identify Gal Gadot as being more "attractive" than Peggy Wood in the Sound of Music, I couldn't then claim that I had cured them of their "Same-Sex Attraction." 

"Same-Sex Attraction" is, by definition, a romantic attraction, and even a sexual attraction, to people of the same sex.  No one who doesn't feel that desire would ever consider themselves to have "Same-Sex Attraction" in a million years.  If you don't believe me, go and ask your Bishop if you recognizing that Brad Pitt or Blake Lively are "attractive" (use whichever is appropriate) make you someone with "Same-Sex Attraction."  I guarantee he will laugh, or at least look at you like you're off your rocker.

If we all want to agree that the phrase "Same-Sex Attraction" means absolutely nothing, then I will definitely be the first to agree with that, and we can all move on to referring to them as Gay and Lesbian or whatever real term they actually use to refer to themselves.   Because ironically, the Church is already there, and this is one area where the apologists might have to catch up.

 

 

 

 

Edited May 7, 2018 by cinepro

[kllindley]

12 minutes ago, cinepro said:

Same-Sex Attraction" is, by definition, a romantic attraction, and even a sexual attraction, to people of the same sex.  No one who doesn't feel that desire would ever consider themselves to have "Same-Sex Attraction" in a million years.  If you don't believe me, go and ask your Bishop if you recognizing that Brad Pitt or Blake Lively are "attractive" (use whichever is appropriate) make you someone with "Same-Sex Attraction."  I guarantee he will laugh, or at least look at you like you're off your rocker.

If we all want to agree that the phrase "Same-Sex Attraction" means absolutely nothing, then I will definitely be the first to agree with that, and we can all move on to referring to them as Gay and Lesbian or whatever real term they actually use to refer to themselves.   Because ironically, the Church is already there, and this is one area where the apologists might have to catch up.

Dude, are you intentionally trying to misunderstand and complicate things or is it really that hard for you to engage an entire thought. I can't tell if you are trying to misrepresent me or if you really don't understand.  

I'm not talking about being able to recognize attractiveness. I'm not trying to redefine anything. You continue to ignore the next part of my comments. Do you ever have sexual attraction to someone other than your wife? 

[california boy]

15 hours ago, JAHS said:

So a Bishop encouraging a gay person to remain celibate in order to be a member in good standing would be included in this? Or is it only if some kind of financial transaction is made in efforts to help the person change behavior?

This bill is a consumer protection bill  that only prohibits profiting from reparative therapy.  There are many similar consumer protection laws both in California and on the Federal level where companies fraudantly make claims that are not true.  There is no restriction against counseling or any other form of non profit intervention. 

I think it would be helpful to actually understand the basis for this consumer protection bill itself and the overwhelming evidence that qualifies this practice as consumer fraud.

SECTION 1 of Bill AB 2943.

The Legislature finds and declares the following:

(a) Contemporary science recognizes that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender is part of the natural spectrum of human identity and is not a disease, disorder, or illness.

(b) The American Psychological Association convened the Task Force on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation. The task force conducted a systematic review of peer-reviewed journal literature on sexual orientation change efforts and issued a report in 2009. The task force concluded that sexual orientation change efforts can pose critical health risks to lesbian, gay, and bisexual people, including confusion, depression, guilt, helplessness, hopelessness, shame, social withdrawal, suicidality, substance abuse, stress, disappointment, self-blame, decreased self-esteem and authenticity to others, increased self-hatred, hostility and blame toward parents, feelings of anger and betrayal, loss of friends and potential romantic partners, problems in sexual and emotional intimacy, sexual dysfunction, high-risk sexual behaviors, a feeling of being dehumanized and untrue to self, a loss of faith, and a sense of having wasted time and resources.

(c) The American Psychological Association issued a resolution on Appropriate Affirmative Responses to Sexual Orientation Distress and Change Efforts in 2009, stating: “[T]he [American Psychological Association] advises parents, guardians, young people, and their families to avoid sexual orientation change efforts that portray homosexuality as a mental illness or developmental disorder and to seek psychotherapy, social support, and educational services that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support, and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth.”

(d) The American Psychiatric Association published a position statement in March of 2000, stating:

“Psychotherapeutic modalities to convert or ‘repair’ homosexuality are based on developmental theories whose scientific validity is questionable. Furthermore, anecdotal reports of ‘cures’ are counterbalanced by anecdotal claims of psychological harm. In the last four decades, ‘reparative’ therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure. Until there is such research available, [the American Psychiatric Association] recommends that ethical practitioners refrain from attempts to change individuals’ sexual orientation, keeping in mind the medical dictum to first, do no harm.

The potential risks of reparative therapy are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients who have undergone reparative therapy relate that they were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed.

Therefore, the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment such as reparative or conversion therapy which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation.”

(e) The American Academy of Pediatrics published an article in 1993 in its journal, Pediatrics, stating: “Therapy directed at specifically changing sexual orientation is contraindicated, since it can provoke guilt and anxiety while having little or no potential for achieving changes in orientation.”

(f) The American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs prepared a report in 1994 1994, stating: “Aversion therapy (a behavioral or medical intervention which pairs unwanted behavior, in this case, homosexual behavior, with unpleasant sensations or aversive consequences) is no longer recommended for gay men and lesbians. Through psychotherapy, gay men and lesbians can become comfortable with their sexual orientation and understand the societal response to it.”

(g) The National Association of Social Workers prepared a 1997 policy statement, stating: “Social stigmatization of lesbian, gay and bisexual people is widespread and is a primary motivating factor in leading some people to seek sexual orientation changes. Sexual orientation conversion therapies assume that homosexual orientation is both pathological and freely chosen. No data demonstrates that reparative or conversion therapies are effective, and, in fact, they may be harmful.”

(h) The American Counseling Association Governing Council issued a position statement in April of 1999, stating: “We oppose ‘the promotion of “reparative therapy” as a “cure” for individuals who are homosexual.’”

(i) The American School Counselor Association issued a position statement in 2014, stating: “It is not the role of the professional school counselor to attempt to change a student’s sexual orientation or gender identity. Professional school counselors do not support efforts by licensed mental health professionals to change a student’s sexual orientation or gender as these practices have been proven ineffective and harmful.”

(j) The American Psychoanalytic Association issued a position statement in June 2012 on attempts to change sexual orientation, gender, identity, or gender expression, stating: “As with any societal prejudice, bias against individuals based on actual or perceived sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression negatively affects mental health, contributing to an enduring sense of stigma and pervasive self-criticism through the internalization of such prejudice.

Psychoanalytic technique does not encompass purposeful attempts to ‘convert,’ ‘repair,’ change or shift an individual’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. Such directed efforts are against fundamental principles of psychoanalytic treatment and often result in substantial psychological pain by reinforcing damaging internalized attitudes.”

(k) The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry published an article in 2012 in its journal, Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, stating: “Clinicians should be aware that there is no evidence that sexual orientation can be altered through therapy, and that attempts to do so may be harmful. There is no empirical evidence adult homosexuality can be prevented if gender nonconforming children are influenced to be more gender conforming. Indeed, there is no medically valid basis for attempting to prevent homosexuality, which is not an illness. On the contrary, such efforts may encourage family rejection and undermine self-esteem, connectedness and caring, important protective factors against suicidal ideation and attempts. Given that there is no evidence that efforts to alter sexual orientation are effective, beneficial or necessary, and the possibility that they carry the risk of significant harm, such interventions are contraindicated.”

(l) The Pan American Health Organization, a regional office of the World Health Organization, issued a statement in May of 2012, stating: “These supposed conversion therapies constitute a violation of the ethical principles of health care and violate human rights that are protected by international and regional agreements.” The organization also noted that reparative therapies “lack medical justification and represent a serious threat to the health and well-being of affected people.”

(m) The American Association of Sexuality Educators, Counselors and Therapists (AASECT) issued a statement in 2014 stating: “same sex orientation is not a mental disorder and we oppos e any ‘reparative’ or conversion therapy that seeks to ‘change’ or ‘fix’ a person’s sexual orientation. AASECT does not believe that sexual orientation is something that needs to be ‘fixed’ or ‘changed.’ The rationale behind this position is the following: Reparative therapy, for minors, in particular, is often forced or nonconsensual. Reparative therapy has been proven harmful to minors. There is no scientific evidence supporting the success of these interventions. Reparative therapy is grounded in the idea that nonheterosexual orientation is ‘disordered.’ Reparative therapy has been shown to be a negative predictor of psychotherapeutic benefit.”

(n) The American College of Physicians wrote a position paper in 2015, stating: “The College opposes the use of ‘conversion,’ ‘reorientation,’ or ‘reparative’ therapy for the treatment of LGBT persons. . . . Available research does not support the use of reparative therapy as an effective method in the treatment of LGBT persons. Evidence shows that the practice may actually cause emotional or physical harm to LGBT individuals, particularly adolescents or young persons.”

(o) In October 2015, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration of the United States Department of Health and Human Services issued a report titled “Ending Conversion Therapy: Supporting and Affirming LGBTQ Youth.” The report found that “nterventions aimed at a fixed outcome, such as gender conformity or heterosexual orientation, including those aimed at changing gender identity, gender expression, and sexual orientation are coercive, can be harmful, and should not be part of behavioral health treatment.”

This is the rational behind the law:

(q) California has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals.

(r) California has a compelling interest in protecting consumers from false and deceptive practices that claim to change sexual orientation and in protecting consumers against exposure to serious harm caused by sexual orientation change efforts.

 

And this is what it would take to make this law invalid.

In the last four decades, ‘reparative’ therapists have not produced any rigorous scientific research to substantiate their claims of cure.

 

This is not a bill to deny anyone the ability to seek counseling in dealing with being gay.  This is a consumer protection bill that would prevent profiting from this practice.  The church and any other organization or individual could continue to preach and practice reparative therapy.  They just can't profit from this fraudulent practice.  Since curing someone of being gay is no longer a belief of the Mormon Church, the effect would be absolutely zero.

 

Edit:  Sorry.  Not sure what is causing the strike through lines.  I have edited it twice to get rid of these, but when I repost it, the lines once again appear.

Edited May 8, 2018 by california boy

[kllindley]

I'd love to believe that. But if the bill is really trying to target conversion therapy, them why wouldn't the authors take the extra dozen lines to clarify that?

Even the LA Times is able to recognize that the bill, as written, has the potential to be used against religious belief.

Quote

 

Would that include churches or other religious groups that sold, advertised or even recommended books that propagated the idea that believers can use prayer to overcome "same-sex attraction"? That's what several conservative organizations and commentators are arguing. They have the Constitution on their side. The 1st Amendment clearly protects their right to preach, and encourage adherents to follow, religious doctrine on sexual morality.

Supporters of the bill scoff at this critique. A fact sheet provided by Assemblyman Evan Low (D-Silicon Valley), the sponsor of AB 2943, asserts that the bill "does not apply to the sale of books or any other kind of goods" and that the Bible "would absolutely not be banned." Yet the bill itself makes no such declaration. And the existing Consumer Legal Remedies Act clearly applies to the sale of goods such as books, videos and other educational materials — including those sold by churches and other religious groups.

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

Another complaint by critics is that, while the bill permits therapies that "do not seek to change sexual orientation," it defines "sexual orientation change efforts" to include attempts to alter not only romantic attractions but also "behaviors or gender expressions." Under this broad definition, wrote David French in the National Review, "if ... a sexually active gay man or woman sought counseling not to change their orientation but rather to become celibate, then the services and goods provided in that effort would violate this statute.

Many Californians obviously reject the idea that gays and lesbians shouldn't engage in sexual activity. But many religious groups (including the Roman Catholic Church) teach that sex is permissible only within heterosexual marriage. The 1st Amendment protects their right to counsel adherents to live by those teachings.

Quote

 

Finally, it's true that AB 2943 covers only sexual orientation change efforts that result in the "sale or lease of goods or services" and thus wouldn't affect a lot of religious communications in which no money changes hands. But what if a minister urged someone he or she was counseling to buy a book or enroll in a religious seminar that charged a registration fee? Treating that activity as consumer fraud would raise serious constitutional questions.

It's possible that the critics of this bill are being alarmist, but the language of the legislation is ambiguous enough to justify at least some of their concerns. The Senate can allay them by amending the bill to make it clear that it can't be used against books or religious preaching or counseling about sexuality.

 

 

[Kevin Christensen]

So does 12 Step Recovery count as a legally questionable practice?  

Over the past 12 years I got to know several men who weren't trying to change their orientation (I know several who could not begin to count their sexual partners), but wanted very much to change their obsession, so they could live a less painful life.  The essence of addiction is an increased craving combined with impeded judgement. The brain of an addicted person has been tricked into treating their object of desire as equivalent to survival.  (On this, see Pleasure Unwoven: The Science of Addiction).  And they all reported that successful recovery from addiction (which, unlike reparative therapy, is not a bogus Skinnerian attempt to point their desire in a religiously approved direction while leaving the underlying increased craving and impeded judgement untreated) allowed them to live much happier lives, improved their relationships with their families.  There is a huge difference between having a desire and being able to weigh consequences, and to decide with those in mind, and having a desire that ignores consequences, and employs reason as servant for obtaining, rationalizing, and cleaning up after itself.  Addicts characteristically believe that sex is their most important need (see Patrick Carnes), and they always justify themselves via a set of grievance stories (see any Recovery Literature).  Put a group of addicts together (and addiction is not rare, but common), and you have the basis of a political platform.  They collectively defend their ability and opportunity to act out (their "most important need",  something felt so deeply as to be for them "equivalent to survival"), notably by telling grievance stories about other people, without demonstrating any notable concern for what might be painful self-examination.  And the people I know in 12 Step groups all recognize that the key to understanding and changing their situation is not the direction of their acting out, not a God-given orientation beyond judgement, consideration or criticism, but rather, the obsession to act out in whatever form.  A person who has healed from obsession has not changed their orientation.  They are just able to choose what they do, or do not do, based on a consideration of what consequences they prefer.  Should people be legally barred from exploring such options?

Or what about a person I know who, after a decade or so of living in her third lesbian relationship, left that lifestyle, and married in the temple?  As far as I know, counseling and recovery played no part whatsoever in her decision.  She simply decided to leave after lengthy experience.  Indeed, the first step in her decision to leave, a relationship that came before the current temple marriage, is remarkably telling about what her experience in that community had become, but is not my story to tell.  Would anyone who simply approved of her decisions, say the leaders who asked Temple Recommend Questions, be at legal risk?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

[provoman]

16 minutes ago, Kevin Christensen said:

So does 12 Step Recovery count...

Would anyone who simply approved of her decisions, say the leaders who asked Temple Recommend Questions, be at legal risk?

FWIW

Kevin Christensen

Canonsburg, PA

 

Great question Kevin.  If the 12 steps are for promoting staright lifestyle then I would say it appears California would deem it questionable but nit fraudulent if monies are not involved.

 

It also seems that California's approach is that no one who identfies as lgbtq would ever identify as not lgbtq. So it appears that for the person you mentioned and several people I know who were homosexual relationships that Ca would PROHIBIT thise people from seeking counseling concerning their previous homosexual lifestyle and adjustment to a heterosexual lifestyle.

 

As for Temple recommends and the proposed bill. Enemies of the Church promote a "I did not PAY [actual monies or likekind], therefore I am barred from the Temple."  So I have no doubts an eneny of the Church woukd try to press fraud against the Church.

[cinepro]

There seem to be two aspects to this issue.

One is the principle of counseling gay and lesbian people to try and change their orientation, and the other seems to be the way in which the proposed law is written.

California unfortunately has a history of lawmakers introducing poorly worded and ill-conceived laws that have (purportedly) noble intentions, but are fumbled in the execution.

For example, this law from 2016:

With so many bills in California, it's no surprise one truly horrible law slipped through unnoticed

The lawmaker had one of the greatest solutions to the problem of their slipshod legislation:

Quote

It wasn't until Gov. Jerry Brown's signature was drying on the bill last month that independent booksellers suddenly realized the new law was so broad that it could criminalize them if they didn't have a certificate for every book autographed by an author. Booksellers and authors protest that such a requirement would be so expensive, it would render author signings impractical. When they expressed their concern, Chang said the new law wasn't intended to apply to author-signed books, and bookstores should simply ignore it when it goes into effect Jan. 1. But if the language of the law appears to apply to them, it is irresponsible and inadequate merely to tell them to ignore it. 

(Emphasis added)

So if that's the level of competence and thought being exhibited by lawmakers here in California,  I don't begrudge anyone for fearing the unintended consequences of poorly written legislation.

Edited May 8, 2018 by cinepro

[Thinking]

7 minutes ago, cinepro said:

I don't begrudge anyone for fearing the unintended consequences of poorly written legislation.

This.

[kllindley]

4 minutes ago, cinepro said:

There seem to be two aspects to this issue.

One is the principle of counseling gay and lesbian people to try and change their orientation, and the other seems to be the way in which the proposed law is written.

California unfortunately has a history of lawmakers introducing poorly worded and ill-conceived laws that have (purportedly) noble intentions, but are fumbled in the execution.

For example, this law from 2016:

With so many bills in California, it's no surprise one truly horrible law slipped through unnoticed

The lawmaker had one of the greatest solutions to the problem of their slipshod legislation:

So if that's the level of competence and thought being exhibited by lawmakers here in California,  I don't begrudge anyone for fearing the unintended consequences of poorly written legislation.

Yes. And about 90% of my concern is the second part. Some advocates of the bill are insisting that they are not trying to impact the practice of helping people live in harmony with their values. One guy said: Does not refer to counseling for how a LGBTQ individual can modify their behavior to live life as a Christian if they so choose."

I have no problem with that. Claiming that a therapy or other experience can change orientation is fair to label as fraud, in my opinion. 

[Daniel2]

On ‎05‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 8:11 AM, RevTestament said:

I think this shows ultimately what this "war" is about. It's not a war about the right to have a sex change or the right to have a homosexual relationship, but a war over the minds of the people. It has clearly become a war over thought. I can't believe a state legislature would even pass such a bill. i would kick them all out on their cans for trying to take away my right of free speech.

I'm not sure the above is accurate.

Does individual citizens' freedom of speech allow them a right to proclaim and subsequently act as though they are medical experts, able to administer controlled substances, perform surgical procedures, or act as psychologists overseeing therapy?

Are efforts to regulate disproven and/or dangerous medical therapies really protected under the umbrella of "freedom of speech"?

Does (or should) "freedom of religion" truly allow adherents to administer disproven and/or dangerous medical practices, or are there limits to "freedom of religion"? 

How far does "freedom of religion" extend, in the medical field?  Should religious adherents be able to commit suicide or assisted suicide, a la "Heaven's Gate"?  What about other harmful practices...?

I think there are well-intentioned people on all sides, and it isn't helpful in trying to portray those who's views differ as entirely unreasonable.  I think the same is true for those on 'my' side of the fence.

Legislation is often a tough process.  It works it's way through drafts and versions trying to avoid legal loopholes and other results that are contrary to the intended outcomes (i.e. the law of unintended consequences).  From what I've read so far, it sounds like the bill needs more work to ensure the goals of the bill is accomplished while preserving those religious actions/behaviors that are and should remain legal.

 

Edited May 8, 2018 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

On ‎05‎/‎07‎/‎2018 at 9:50 AM, RevTestament said:

Well, when they outlaw all the books talking about the practice of witchcraft, I'll say the world is coming to hell in a handbasket. But I am sure they would rather outlaw the sale of Bibles for condemning the practice of man lying with man, than outlaw books on witchcraft.

Let's not devolve into unfounded fear-mongering or irrational claims.  Suggesting that anyone is attempting to outlaw The Bible is a pretty significant charge.  I don't know of anyone seeking to outlaw the sale of The Bible, including any LGBT civil rights advocacy groups, NOR the sponsors of this current bill. 

Critics are concerned that may be an unintended outcome, but that certainly isn't anyone's intent, nor have I seen any compelling evidence that's the case.

Edited May 8, 2018 by Daniel2