Huffpost Gay Voices
The Blog

Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors

Wayne Besen Headshot

Judge William Shubb's Injudicious View of 'Ex-Gay' Therapy

Posted: Updated:

In an odd court decision released Monday, federal judge William Shubb temporarily blocked California from enforcing S.B. 1172, a groundbreaking law that prohibits anti-gay therapists from trying to turn gay minors straight. However, the order was quite narrow, applying only to the three plaintiffs who sued to overturn S.B. 1172. Shubb wrote, "Even if SB 1172 is characterized as primarily aimed at regulating conduct, it also extends to forms of (conversion therapy) that utilize speech and, at a minimum, regulates conduct that has an incidental effect on speech."

It seems that Judge Shubb is a bit confused about the First Amendment. He appears to believe that it gives mental health providers license to say whatever they want, even if it is not in the best interest of clients. Such thinking makes a mockery of medicine and fails to distinguish between normal laypeople and trusted practitioners. It treats medical and mental health experts as if they are op-ed columnists or talk radio hosts, with their personal views superseding their professional opinions. Apparently, the judge seems blissfully unaware that the toxic words of a biased shrink can sometimes be as harmful as a scalpel in the wrong hands. The wounds of "ex-gay" survivors are real, devastating and can sometimes last a lifetime. However, it seems that the judge believes that words are just words, regardless of intent or content or the entrusted authority of those delivering them.

Shubb also appears unduly concerned that enactment of S.B. 1172 would disrupt the livelihoods of Christian therapists Anthony Duk and Donald Welch, as well as that of Aaron Bitzer, a so-called "ex-gay" who is studying to become a reparative therapist. He wrote, "Because plaintiffs have also shown that they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of an injunction, that the balance of equities tips in their favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest, the court grants plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction." However, their careers should be derailed, in the same way that disbarring a crooked attorney or imprisoning a financial whiz who creates illegal pyramid schemes should affect their job prospects.

Without a doubt, reparative therapy brazenly stands in direct opposition to standard mental health guidelines. It erroneously portrays homosexuality as a mental illness and gay people as mentally ill. For example, convicted felon Arthur Abba Goldberg of Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality (JONAH) says, "Every person that we work with is really a heterosexual person who may have a homosexual problem." The question is why Shubb would imprudently enable such embarrassingly unprofessional conduct. Does he think it's reasonable or responsible "therapists" billing themselves as experts to tell vulnerable 13- and 14-year-old gay kids that they are nuts and suffering from a curable malady?

Furthermore, I'd like to know specifically which part of reparative therapy the good judge endorses. Is it the part where a client is made to pretend his testicles are oranges and then suck out the juice to ingest his manhood? Is it the practice of telling clients to get naked in front of a mirror and touch themselves to help with body-image issues? Is it the idea of male clients calling friends "dude" and drinking Gatorade to increase masculinity? Is it the creation of a "masturbation action plan" to help with same-sex urges? Maybe it's the technique where clients are told to wear a rubber band and snap it on their wrist whenever they find someone attractive? Or could it be that he thinks it's healthy to give exorcisms to LGBT youth? It could be that he identifies with the part where male clients tell their wives, "I need to be the man of the house. Let me be the man of the house. Dominant women only demasculinize men." Or maybe Judge Shubb is attracted to the exercise in which a client severely beats an effigy of his mother with a tennis racket while deliriously screaming her name.

Shubb should fully understand that when he protects reparative therapists, he is wholeheartedly promoting and endorsing such outlandish quackery. It becomes particularly damaging when such demented "therapeutic" techniques are practiced on LGBT youth.

Finally, Shubb appears sympathetic to the dangerous argument that faith-based doctors are entitled to get a free pass when it comes to ethical and humane treatment for its adherents. "This court would be hard-pressed to conclude that SB 1172 is content- and viewpoint-neutral," wrote Judge Shubb. "Accordingly, because it appears that SB 1172 lacks content and viewpoint neutrality, it is likely that it must ultimately be assessed under strict scrutiny."

What an absolutely silly argument. Our laws make the distinction between dangerous religious viewpoints, such as the idea that man should be put to death if he engages in homosexual acts, and civil laws that protect LGBT people from stone throwing zealots. The same is true for reparative therapy, in that a therapist can personally hold antiquated views but is not entitled to inflict barbaric practices at the expense of his client's mental health and well-being.

This trial is not over. If Judge Shubb wants to protect his legacy, he should stop providing a platform for lunacy disguised as legitimate therapy.