Colorado’s Conversion Therapy Ban and Free Speech

Colorado’s ban on “conversion therapy” has been described as a violation of free speech rights. Recently, in a case known as Chiles vs. Salazar, the Supreme Court determined, with an 8-1 ruling, that the state infringed upon the First Amendment by restricting what psychological professionals could say regarding “conversion therapy.”

Some might say that courts often seem to disregard constitutional concerns, treating them as mere obstacles to their agendas.

The term “conversion therapy” itself is, perhaps, a loaded phrase crafted by activists to paint traditional counseling—which aims to help individuals find happiness—as harmful.

The Reality of the Law

Contrary to its supporters’ claims, Colorado’s “stay gay” law did not actually target cruel or coercive practices. Instead, it barred therapists from offering assistance to clients wishing to manage unwanted sexual desires.

Consider, for instance, a married man battling with the urge to engage in an affair with another man, potentially even one who is underage. Or picture a sexual abuse survivor grappling with gender dysphoria, who wants to reconcile with her biological gender rather than undergo risky medical procedures.

The push for this law was heavily influenced by LGBTQ advocacy groups, which echoed similar ban narratives seen in California, labeling orientation-altering therapies as “unscientific” and “harmful.”

Positive Change through Therapy

An organization I am involved with, the Ruth Institute, has offered insights into these matters. They contest accusations against such therapies, backed by academic research, showing that counseling can indeed be beneficial for motivated participants. Many have altered their patterns of sexual attraction successfully.

There exists a collection of experiences from individuals who have transitioned successfully, showcasing that change is possible. Nevertheless, proponents of “stay gay” laws often ignore this reality, operating under a misunderstanding of treatment options.

A Serious Concern for Free Speech

The court didn’t specifically evaluate the psychological implications but highlighted a broader free speech issue in the U.S. Justice Neil Gorsuch remarked, representing the majority, that the First Amendment serves as a defense against forced conformity in thought and expression, and any law that suppresses viewpoints is a detrimental encroachment on the fundamental right to free speech.

This staunch support for freedom of expression is increasingly rare, both in America and other Western nations. For instance, a Finnish pastor is undergoing trial for sharing traditional Christian views on sexuality. Canada is also on the verge of enacting legislation that could penalize “offensive” religious speech.

Across the UK, individuals are facing arrests for commenting on sensitive issues like immigration. Furthermore, the European Union has reportedly levied heavy fines on social media platforms for not suppressing perceived undesirable political comments.

Censorship by Elites

So why do many elites endorse censorship? Perhaps it’s because certain popular opinions can’t stand on their own in a truly free discourse, relying instead on misinformation and politically enforced norms.

As I’ve discussed in my book, “Sexual State: How Elite Ideology is Ruining Life and How the Church Was Right All Along”, these pressures arise when an unstable ideology seeks validation through force and propaganda. Attacking change-promoting therapies serves to undermine any legitimacy in aiding individuals seeking to reduce unwanted same-sex attraction.

Unfortunately, those adhering to traditional Christian values are often sidelined from the therapeutic field, while more progressive beliefs gain traction.

Despite the assertions that there are numerous genders and that sexual orientation is immutable, much of this narrative lacks scientific backing yet is presented as definitive fact by various lawmakers.

A Step Toward Freedom

The Supreme Court’s decision in Colorado marks a significant step in countering groupthink that favors specific ideologies. Laws from other states that engage in viewpoint suppression should also be deemed invalid. This decision has removed a significant barrier in the ongoing discourse surrounding sexual identity.

However, advocates for such regulations are already seeking alternative strategies. The pressures to conform to groupthink, even against judicial rulings, continue to persist, as evidenced by new legislation emerging in states like Colorado and California, proposing lawsuits against therapists for perceived harm from so-called “conversion therapy.”

The autonomy of individuals to pursue the treatment they seek remains precarious. Although a significant legal victory has been secured, the struggle for free speech and choice in therapy is still ongoing.