Court Prevents California Ban on Gay Therapy from Immediate Implementation

12/25/12

The California ban on controversial gay conversion therapy that was scheduled to come into effect from January 1, 2013, has hit a roadblock. The law was signed by California’s Democrat Governor Jerry Brown in September. However, the constitutionality of the law was challenged, and even though the lower court had sided with the state, on appeal, on Friday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco granted a temporary injunction against implementation of the law pending litigation. The appeals court ruled late Friday that the ban on gay conversion therapy that seeks to reverse homosexual leanings in children by controversial methods, cannot be implemented until the constitutionality of the law is decided.

This December, U.S. District Court Judge Kimberly Mueller had denied an injunction against the law by interest groups including the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality and the American Association of Christian Counselors and other individuals.

The interest groups then appealed Mueller’s decision leading the Court of Appeals to grant a brief stay pending its decision on the matter.

California Attorney General Kamala Harris said, “California was correct to outlaw this unsound and harmful practice, and the Attorney General will vigorously defend this law. At the same time, as expected, interest groups against the law welcomed the temporary injunction.

Liberty Counsel released a statement on Friday with their lead counsel Matthew Staver saying, “The minors we represent have not and do not want to act on same-sex attractions, nor do they want to engage in such behavior.” The Liberty Counsel holds that their patients “are greatly benefiting from counseling.”

However, California state attorneys filed an amicus on behalf of the law mentioning, “The statute is based on a scientific and professional consensus reached decades ago that homosexuality is a normal expression of human sexuality … and not a disease, condition or disorder in need of a ‘cure.’”

The case in the 9th Circuit is David H. Pickup et al. vs. Edmund G. Brown et al., 12-17681.