Enter your email address to receive our daily LGBT news roundup

You're free to unsubscribe at any time.

Confusion for California’s gay ‘cure’ ban after judges issue opposite rulings

Post your comment

Comments on this article are now closed.

Reader comments

  1. These are two distinct rulings which makes it hard to compare them. One is the legality of the legislation as a whole, the other 1st Amendment rights for 3 people. It’s apples and oranges to find a correlation between them.

    BUT I do think that the 1st Amendment finding by Shubb is a complete error. Since the precedent is not one of free speech, but of an assumed right to compel an audience for that speech, something that no one can or should (or does) have. Those snakeoil “psychologists” may say what they want, they have no right to force minors to listen.

    And his ruling on studies showing higher than average suicide/depression in LGBT youth is also going to be found in error. Those studies are pretty definitive and backed up by both statistics and peer review. (Hilarious that he should question veracity of studies, when there is NO proof that “gay cure” therapy is anything but a fallacy sold to idiots)

    I would guess Shubb’s ruling will be slapped and Mueller’s will stand.

    1. Cardinal Capone 5 Dec 2012, 12:10pm

      It couldn’t be relevant to the error, I suppose, that, according to another site, Shubb is a Mormon.

      1. Mmm. Possible. But need to be mindful that, if offering that, it opens the door to those who say that Judge Walker Vaughn couldn’t give a legitimate ruling on Prop 8 because he is gay (not that I equate religion with sexual orientation – but THEY would if given the opportunity).

        I just believe that his 1st Amendment interpretation is suspect and in grave error. They have no more right to prosthelytize to minors than I have to demand a 10 minute segment on Fox News to air my views. We may speak, we may not demand an audience. I think – gut feeling – his findings are very a wrongful interpretation as a point of law.

        Proving his opinion is coloured either way is likely a non-starter.

        1. Cardinal Capone 5 Dec 2012, 12:59pm

          Well if his findings of fact are so contrary to the evidence, that his decision is like a “perverse verdict” by a jury, either he was seriously misled by counsel, or there must be another explanation.

  2. Hopefully some sense will be applied at the next hearing. Gay Cure amounts to no less than torture. The idea that kids are being forced into this by their parents is horrifying.

  3. barriejohn 5 Dec 2012, 11:26am

    Shubb was nominated by G W Bush and Mueller by Barack Obama. I’d never have guessed!

  4. There is no confusion. The ban goes into effect on January 1. Exempted from the ban will be two therapists and one aspiring therapist (the plaintiffs in the first lawsuit in which the judge granted a temporary injunction against enforcement of the ban against THEM).

  5. Ex gay therapy kills LGBT people.

  6. Judges can be homophobes too.

These comments are un-moderated and do not necessarily represent the views of PinkNews. If you believe that a comment is inappropriate or libellous, please contact us.

Top commenters this week

Latest stories

See all