By Rick Plasterer in Juicy Ecumenism 

Diverse Religious Perspectives

A brief submitted by the Anglican Church in North America, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Coalition for Jewish Values, and the National Association of Evangelicals emphasizes that the term “conversion therapy” originally meant only physical treatments to eradicate homosexuality. But the American Psychological Association’s 2009 report represented a “sea change” in counseling people reporting their homosexuality or gender dysphoria. It made “sexual orientation change efforts” (SOCE) or “sexual orientation and gender identity/expression change efforts” (SOGIECE) cover any counseling that did not affirm reported same-sex attraction or gender identity, and condemned all such efforts as dangerous, even though some people reported being benefitted by SOCE.

The brief maintains that what it calls “exploratory therapy,” which these organizations say they practice, is neither “affirmative” (supportive of same-sex attraction or opposite sex identity) nor “conversion” or “reparative” therapy (which seeks reorientation to opposite sex attraction or identification with one’s biological sex). It simply seeks to provide clients with “a safe therapeutic space to discuss how their current values ha[ve] shaped and informed how they view their sexuality in ways not understood by many [n]onreligious clinicians.” But because it might involve moving away from homosexuality or transgenderism, it is not “affirmative” and thus was banned in Colorado. It would seem, however, that a committedly Christian counselor would have to decline further conversation if the client feels he or she should move toward some LGBT identity, which again would have been illegal under MCTL, because of its viewpoint discrimination.

The Manhattan Institute, the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team, the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty, and Dr. Dovid Schwartz observed in their brief that proper identification of males and females is essential to the practice of Judaism. A Jew experiencing gender dysphoria must identify with his or her biological sex to participate in the life of the community, but licensed counseling to help with this for a Jewish minor was illegal under MCTL. This “is a serious burden on the exercise of Judaism.” There are many situations in Orthodox Jewish religious life where biological sex is important (a ritual haircut for boys on their third birthday, wearing the kippah (skullcap) and tzitzit (ritual fringes) for the first time, girls reciting a morning blessing thanking God that they are women, and “strictures that govern all areas of Jewish life, from marriage, sex, and privacy to prayer and even death and burial.” Laws that prohibit counseling to identify with one’s biological sex “inhibit the free exercise of Judaism by burdening Jewish patients, therapists, and communities.”

The impact on the practice of Islam is similarly grave. “Belief in the distinct biological sexes is not only rooted in sacred teachings but goes to the very core of religious exercise. Rules governing decency, modesty, and seclusion apply to all Muslims and require clear distinctions between men and women … Prohibiting therapy that would make patients more comfortable with their biological sex interferes with religious free exercise, which Muslim therapists would consider to include helping fellow Muslims fulfill Islam’s obligations. It also contradicts Muslim therapists’ religiously driven mission to alleviate pain and suffering. It imposes a set of values that are alien to Islam and violates the principles of proper care.” Although these claims were cast in terms of religious freedom, which the court did not consider, they easily translate into claims of free speech, and MCTL’s censorship and viewpoint discrimination. The brief further noted the separate seating areas for men and women in prayer, and the male-only obligation for Friday prayers. A minor child growing up in Islam will naturally want to participate in this and may want counseling illegal under MCTL.

An Islamic therapist associated with the Islam and Religious Freedom Action Team very persuasively said:

“In professional counseling, it is in our code of ethics to work with the values of our client. Denying clients this service is contradictory to our very mission to elevate [sic] [i.e., alleviate] human suffering and contradicts our code of ethics because we are saying they are not entitled to help, in essence imposing another set of values on them. A Muslim therapist who is not allowed to assist clients with issues related to gender and sexuality in congruence with their and the clients’ beliefs would actively be harming the client.”