11th Circuit rules that bans on anti-LGBTQ "conversion therapy" violate the First Amendment

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

[...] and the sex is legendary. Disprove it.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, rather than demands that others disprove it. Have any notable literary works been written about your marital sexcapades? 

[Del Tachi]

And I do wonder whether he would approve of a future decision by a conservative Supreme Court majority to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges.

Firstly, I am at a loss as to what kind of fact pattern would even allow the Supreme Court to categorically reconsider Obergefell.  Secondly, a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage does not require enshrining sexual orientation as a protected class, and I don't think Obergefell attempts to take it there.  Kennedy's opinion describes that the Due Process protection "extends to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy" not only to the "immutable characteristics" that civil rights jurisprudence of the Warren Court often relied on.   

If sexual orientation is an invented concept-and marriage itself, is an invented concept-then doesn't that mean that it's form can be changed again?

Yes, and almost certainly will.  Obergefell only says that marriage (in whatever form) cannot be a right excluded to same-sex couples.   

[Del Tachi]

-SNIP-

I think there's actually a pretty limited area of disagreement between us here; I think we're mainly somewhat talking past each other because we're each "zoomed out" to different levels, so to speak.

The point I initially raised is this thread is if sexual orientation is at least somewhat determined by a variety of biological or environmental factors and their interactions then it must logically follow that manipulation of these factors could (in theory) change someone's sexual orientation.  Conversion therapy only exists because in order to be "reoriented" one must first be "oriented."  If we simply ditched the conceptualization of human sexual preference as "sexual orientation" and saw it (more appropriately, IMO) as a personal choice deserving validity and respect, then would we even have this problem?

Too many uncritical liberals try to have it both ways.  To them sexual orientation is BOTH a biologically-determined characteristic AND incapable of being altered by any possible therapy, intervention or treatment.  That kind of duality doesn't make any sense.  If the more appropriate question is, as you suggest and I agree, whether we should act to change one's sexual orientation, then it's quite easy to see how regulations on conversion therapy could run afoul of Free Speech protections.   

[muon2]

I read the opinion and it looks like part of the problem was the means by which the two counties legislated their bans on conversion therapy. The ordinances distinguished between disallowed therapies that attempt to change sexual orientation or gender identity and allowed therapies to support to people undergoing gender transition. That explicit difference in content allowed and disallowed in the ordinances allowed the judges to invoke strict scrutiny in their analysis of the case.

I think there was a much easier path for the counties to follow and achieve the same result. Rather than trying to isolate specific professional practices for banning, they could have simply invoked the national professional organizations. For instance they could ban any mental health practice by a licensed practitioner not recommended by the leading national professional organization. If that is coupled with the usual restriction on providing mental health services without a license, then there would be a de facto ban on conversion therapy.

The American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association and American Medical Association all oppose the use of conversion therapy. Even the American Association of Marriage and Family Therapy, which would apply to the plaintiffs in the case, says "As stated in previous AAMFT policy, the association does not consider homosexuality a disorder that requires treatment, and as such, we see no basis for such therapy."

[afleitch]

That's super.

The moral/spiritual consequence of being married to my husband is amazing. The love is strong, the mutual support is beneficial to my health, the cuddles rock and the sex is legendary. Disprove it.

Uhm...what?  I'm not trying to disprove it, lol.  I think in your eagerness to get an "own" in on a Deep South, blue avi you've either willfully or ignorantly misread my post

My point is that we shouldn't have to pathologize our same-sex attraction and relationships into an immutable, biologically-dictated "sexual orientation" to validate them.  You have all those things with your husband because you chose them not because you were only "born this way," and you should be proud of that.  The point that you latched onto in my post is only that, like any other choice, there are moral/spiritual consequences (positive or negative) to who we have sex with/date/marry.  And not "consequences" of the Heaven/Hell type mind you, but "this world" consequences involving our mental or spiritual health, community, or kids and family.  We should relish in this moral agency, and stop trying to cheapen our own sexual experience as a deviation from some social/historical norm.   

I did understand you.

If heteronormativity didn't result in the a priori assumption that heterosexuality and it's healthy or unhealthy expression was unchosen and default so that any deviation from that was choice and therefore could also be not chosen I'd agree with you. But that's not the case. So here we are. I had as much choice, in that in all measurable purposes, I had none in having a husband as opposed to a wife as my sister did having a husband as opposed to a wife.

[Calthrina950]

And I do wonder whether he would approve of a future decision by a conservative Supreme Court majority to overrule Obergefell v. Hodges.

Firstly, I am at a loss as to what kind of fact pattern would even allow the Supreme Court to categorically reconsider Obergefell.  Secondly, a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage does not require enshrining sexual orientation as a protected class, and I don't think Obergefell attempts to take it there.  Kennedy's opinion describes that the Due Process protection "extends to certain personal choices central to individual dignity and autonomy" not only to the "immutable characteristics" that civil rights jurisprudence of the Warren Court often relied on.   

If sexual orientation is an invented concept-and marriage itself, is an invented concept-then doesn't that mean that it's form can be changed again?

Yes, and almost certainly will.  Obergefell only says that marriage (in whatever form) cannot be a right excluded to same-sex couples.   

I didn't say that the Court would categorically reconsider Obergefell; I was posing a hypothetical, and it wouldn't be surprising if there were some case, bearing upon the issue of gay rights, that would invite renewed discussion about the issue, either before the Court or elsewhere. I was trying to discern how you frame your viewpoints on conversion therapy with those touching upon gay marriage. And it appears that you adopt what we would call an "originalist" approach to the issue. 

[Coastal Elitist]

I don't support conversion therapy but the court did rule correctly. These liberal activist judges continue to ignore the constitution and rule based on political correctness. The reasons for banning conversion therapy can easily be used to ban gender transitioning which is just as harmful and has shown negative effects as well. In an ideal world both would be banned but since we have the first amendment from a constitutional perspective neither should be.

[Kingpoleon]

I don't support conversion therapy but the court did rule correctly. These liberal activist judges continue to ignore the constitution and rule based on political correctness. The reasons for banning conversion therapy can easily be used to ban gender transitioning which is just as harmful and has shown negative effects as well. In an ideal world both would be banned but since we have the first amendment from a constitutional perspective neither should be.

A court can and has ruled in the past that a harmful enough medical treatment can be banned. Gender transitioning is not “just as harmful” according to the AMA or any serious, professional organization.

[DrScholl]

There was a time when lobotomies were a medical treatment. Should those be allowed because of the constitution?

[(no subject)]

And Republicans keep wondering why 90+% of people from marginalized groups refuse to vote for them...

[𝕭𝖆𝖕𝖙𝖎𝖘𝖙𝖆 𝕸𝖎𝖓𝖔𝖑𝖆]

And Republicans keep wondering why 90+% of people from marginalized groups refuse to vote for them...

Define "marginalized groups", and since that's the topic here, Republicans do much better than single digits among LGBTQ voters.

[(no subject)]

I was exaggerating for comic effect. But, the reality is that modern conservatism isn't an easy sell.

[Figueira]

Completely fair decision.

Tell that to the victims of conversion therapy.

[(no subject)]

these people are so predictable - https://www.businessinsider.com.au/hungarian-mep-resigns-breaking-covid-rules-gay-orgy-brussels-2020-12?r=US&IR=T

[McGarnagle]

Just because something is despicable doesn't mean it should be illegal. Freedom ruling, and will be affirmed by a minimum of 6-3.

You oppose the freedom that LGBTQ individuals should have from "conversion therapy" rackets that are obviously fraudulent.

[John Dule]

Completely fair decision.

Tell that to the victims of conversion therapy.

You don't know enough about my opinion on this subject to be this snarky.