National
New Calif. law bans ‘gay’ to ‘straight’ therapy for minors
Measure only applies to mental health professionals licensed by state
Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a bill barring so-called ‘conversion’ therapy for gay teens under 18. (Photo by Phil Konstantin via Wikipedia)
California Gov. Jerry Brown signed into law a first-of-its-kind bill on Sept. 29 prohibiting “reparative” therapy that seeks to change a minor’s sexual orientation from gay to straight.
Bill SB 1172, introduced by State Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Los Angeles County), applies only to mental health professionals licensed or credentialed by the state who seek to perform the therapy on someone below the age of 18.
It exempts unlicensed therapists or counselors, including those associated with religious organizations.
Despite the exemptions, Brown and Lieu called the legislation an important step in protecting juveniles from a practice they describe as unscientific and harmful. The law takes effect Jan. 1, 2013.
“This bill bans non-scientific ‘therapies’ that have driven young people to depression and suicide,” Brown told the San Francisco Chronicle. “These practices have no basis in science or medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery.”
In a statement released Sept. 30, Lieu said, “No one should stand idly by while children are being psychologically abused, and anyone who forces a child to try to change their sexual orientation must understand this is unacceptable,” he said.
The nation’s two largest mental health professional organizations – the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association – have long opposed reparative therapy on grounds that no credible scientific studies have confirmed that someone’s sexual orientation can be changed. The two groups have also pointed to studies showing that seeking to change a person’s sexual orientation could lead to depression and other harmful side effects. The groups didn’t take an official position on SB 1172.
But more than a dozen state and national mental health associations did endorse the legislation, including the California Psychological Association, the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, the American Psychoanalytic Association, and the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy.
SB 1172 passed in the California Senate and Assembly by comfortable margins in late August along party lines, with no Republicans voting for it.
Opponents, including the Pacific Justice Institute, announced they plan to challenge the law in court, saying it violates First Amendment free-speech rights. The Pacific Justice Institute said the law also would deny parents the right to choose the type of therapy and care for their children.
The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH), which promotes reparative therapy, issued a statement on its website saying if SB 1172 became law, “licensed therapists in California who would otherwise be willing to assist minor clients in modifying their unwanted same-sex attractions and behaviors will be seriously jeopardizing their professional livelihoods.”
LGBT advocacy groups hailed the law as an important breakthrough in their ongoing efforts to oppose reparative therapy.
“Governor Brown today reaffirmed what medical and mental health organizations have made clear,” said Clarissa Filgioun, board president of the statewide LGBT group Equality California. “Efforts to change minors’ sexual orientation are not therapy; they are the relics of prejudice and abuse that have inflicted untold harm on young lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Californians.”
Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, pointed to research showing that reparative therapy causes “serious, lasting harm” to LGBT youth.
“It is time to safeguard the most vulnerable among us by ending the abusive practice of subjecting lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender youth to damaging attempts to change their sexual orientation or gender expression,” he said.
Some supporters of the bill expressed concern that its sponsors weakened the measure by dropping a provision that would have required reparative therapy patients of any age to sign a consent form acknowledging the therapy’s potential harm and lack of scientific merit.
Another provision dropped from the original version of the bill would have required mental health practitioners to file a report to the state about the reparative therapy they perform. The provision called for the state to keep records on the therapy and issue an annual report about the “risks and limited potential” of the therapy.
“The focus of the bill narrowed to only minors who were succumbing to psychological abuse,” Ray Sotero, a spokesperson for Lieu, told the Blade.
“Additionally, for fiscal purposes, we removed the reporting requirement and focused instead on a ban for children and adolescents as a first, much-needed step,” Sotero said.
A similar bill calling for banning reparative therapy for minors is pending in the New Jersey Legislature.
Brown signed the California measure less than a week after close to 50,000 people signed a petition organized by HRC urging him to sign it. HRC spokesperson Fred Sainz and Equality California spokesperson Stephan Roth said supported the bill all along.
“By way of our petition, we wanted to make sure that he knew that this issue was a tremendously important one to our community and most especially LGBT you,” Sainz said.
New York psychiatrist Jack Drescher, who’s gay and is a former chair of the American Psychiatric Association’s Committee on LGBT Issues, said he has mixed views on the possible impact of laws to ban reparative or “conversion” therapy.
“Most of the people doing conversion therapies are unlicensed, so the bills in California and New Jersey would not affect them as they only concern state-licensed professionals,” Drescher told the Blade.
He said such laws are subject to court challenge, and anti-gay groups supporting reparative therapy could claim a victory if a court overturns a law banning the practice on constitutional grounds.
“On the other hand, in the event the law does pass constitutional muster, it would undoubtedly cast a chilling effect on some unlicensed professionals and perhaps even create a basis to support civil lawsuits against unlicensed practitioners,” he said.
Federal Government
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Proposed spending package would target ‘leftist’ political ideologies
The White House submitted its 2027 budget request to Congress last month, outlining a push for the Federal Bureau of Investigation to “proactively” target what it describes as “extremism” related to gender — raising concerns about the potential for law enforcement to target LGBTQ people.
The Trump-Vance administration’s 2027 budget request, submitted to Congress on April 4, proposes a dramatic increase in national security and law enforcement spending, while reducing foreign aid and restructuring multiple domestic security programs. In total, the administration is requesting $2.16 trillion in discretionary budget authority (including mandatory resources), a 15.3 percent increase over the 2026 proposal.
Central to the proposal is the creation of a new “NSPM-7 Joint Mission Center,” a direct follow-up to the September 2025 National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 (NSPM-7). The directive instructs the Justice Department, the FBI, and other national security agencies to combat what the administration defines as “political violence in America,” effectively reshaping the Joint Terrorism Task Force network to focus on “leftist” political ideologies, according to reporting by independent journalist Ken Klippenstein.
The American Civil Liberties Union has characterized NSPM-7 as a way for President Donald Trump to intimidate his political enemies.
In a press release following the memorandum, Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project, said, “President Trump has launched yet another effort to investigate and intimidate his critics,” and had described the move as an “intimidation tactic against those standing up for human rights and civil liberties.”
The proposed mission center would include personnel from 10 federal agencies tasked with targeting “domestic terrorists” associated with a wide range of ideologies. Among them is what the administration labels “extremism” related to gender, alongside categories such as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” “anti-Christianity,” and “support for the overthrow of the U.S. government.” The document also cites “hostility toward those who hold traditional American views” on family, religion, and morality — language LGBTQ advocates have increasingly warned could be used to frame queer and transgender rights movements as ideological threats.
The mission center is one component of a proposed $166 million increase in the FBI’s counterterrorism budget.
In total, the FBI would receive $12.5 billion for salaries and expenses under the proposal, a $1.9 billion increase. Planned investments include unmanned aerial systems operations and counter-drone capabilities, counterterrorism efforts, and security preparations for the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. The budget also cites 67,000 FBI arrests since Jan. 20, 2026, which it describes as a 197 percent increase from the prior year.
When Congress passed the USA PATRIOT Act in 2001, it also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 2331(5), which defines domestic terrorism as activities involving acts dangerous to human life that violate criminal laws and are intended to intimidate or coerce civilians or influence government policy through violence. That statutory definition has not changed.
However, federal agencies have historically categorized domestic terrorism threats into groups such as racially or ethnically motivated violent extremism, anti-government or anti-authority violent extremism, and other threats, including those tied to bias based on religion, gender, or sexual orientation.
The language in the budget suggests a shift in how those categories are interpreted and applied — particularly by explicitly linking “extremism” to gender and to perceived opposition to “traditional” views — without any corresponding change to federal law. Only Congress has the power to change the definition of domestic terrorism by passing legislation.
The budget document states:
“DT lone offenders will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discretely, and access to firearms. Additionally, in recent years, heinous assassinations and other acts of political violence in the United States have dramatically increased. Commonly, this violent conduct relates to views associated with anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, and anti-Christianity; support for the overthrow of the U.S. government; extremism on migration, race, and gender; and hostility toward those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”
This language echoes earlier actions by the Trump-Vance administration targeting trans people.
On the first day of his second term, President Trump signed Executive Order 14168, titled “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.”
The order establishes a strict binary definition of sex and withdraws federal recognition of trans people.
“It is the policy of the United States to recognize two sexes, male and female,” the order states. “‘Sex’ shall refer to an individual’s immutable biological classification as either male or female. ‘Sex’ is not a synonym for and does not include the concept of ‘gender identity.’”
Appropriations committees in both chambers are expected to begin hearings in the coming weeks.
Puerto Rico
The ‘X’ returns to court
1st Circuit hears case over legal recognition of nonbinary Puerto Ricans
Eight months ago, I wrote about this issue at a time when it had not yet reached the judicial level it faces today. Back then, the conversation moved through administrative decisions, public debate, and political resistance. It was unresolved, but it had not yet reached this point.
That has now changed.
Lambda Legal appeared before the 1st U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston, urging the court to uphold a lower court ruling that requires the government of Puerto Rico to issue birth certificates that accurately reflect the identities of nonbinary individuals. The appeal follows a district court decision that found the denial of such recognition to be a violation of the U.S. Constitution.
This marks a turning point. The issue is no longer theoretical. A court has already determined that unequal treatment exists.
The argument presented by the plaintiffs is grounded in Puerto Rico’s own legal framework. Identity birth certificates are not static historical records. They are functional documents used in everyday life. They are required to access employment, education, and essential services. Their purpose is practical, not symbolic.
Within that framework, the exclusion of nonbinary individuals does not stem from a legal limitation. Puerto Rico already allows gender marker corrections on birth certificates for transgender individuals under the precedent established in Arroyo Gonzalez v. Rosselló Nevares. In addition, the current Civil Code recognizes the existence of identity documents that reflect a person’s lived identity beyond the original birth record.
The issue lies in how the law is applied.
Recognition is granted within specific categories, while those who do not identify within that binary structure remain excluded. That exclusion is now at the center of this case.
Lambda Legal’s position is straightforward. Requiring individuals to carry documents that do not reflect who they are forces them into misrepresentation in essential aspects of daily life. This creates practical barriers, exposes them to scrutiny, and places them in a constant state of vulnerability.
The plaintiffs, who were born in Puerto Rico, have made clear that access to accurate identification is not symbolic. It is a basic condition for moving through the world without contradiction imposed by the state.
The fact that this case is now being addressed in the federal court system adds another layer of significance. This is not a pending policy discussion or a legislative proposal. It is a constitutional question. The analysis is not about political preference, but about rights and equal protection under the law.
This case does not exist in isolation.
It unfolds within a broader context in which debates over identity and rights have increasingly been shaped by the growing influence of conservative perspectives in public policy, both in the United States and in Puerto Rico. At the local level, this influence has been reflected in legislative discussions where religious arguments have begun to intersect with decisions that should be grounded in constitutional principles. That intersection creates tension around the separation of church and state and has direct consequences for access to rights.
Recognizing this context is not an attack on faith or religious practice. It is an acknowledgment that when certain perspectives move into the realm of public authority, they can shape outcomes that affect specific communities.
From within Puerto Rico, this is not a distant debate. It is a lived reality. It is present in the difficulty of presenting identification that does not match one’s identity, and in the consequences that follow in workplaces, schools, and government spaces.
The progression of this case introduces the possibility of change within the applicable legal framework. Not because it resolves every tension surrounding the issue, but because it establishes a legal examination of a practice that has long operated under exclusion.
Eight months ago, the conversation centered on ongoing developments. Today, there is already a judicial finding that identifies a violation of rights. What remains is whether that finding will be upheld on appeal.
That process does not guarantee an immediate outcome, but it shifts the ground.
The debate is no longer theoretical.
It is now before the courts.
National
LGBTQ community explores arming up during heated political times
Interest in gun ownership has increased since Donald Trump returned to office
By JOHN-JOHN WILLIAMS IV | As the child of a father who hunted, Vera Snively shied away from firearms, influenced by her mother’s aversion to guns.
Now, the 18-year-old Westminster electrician goes to the shooting range at least once a month. She owns a rifle and a shotgun, and plans to get a handgun when she turns 21.
“I want to be able to defend my community, especially being in political spaces and queer spaces,” said Snively, a trans woman. “It’s just having that extra line of safety, having that extra peace of mind would be important to me.”
Snively is among what some say is a growing number of LGBTQ gun owners across the United States. Gun rights organizations and advocates say interest in gun ownership appears to have increased in that community since President Donald Trump returned to the White House last year.
The rest of this article can be read on the Baltimore Banner’s website.
Sri Lankan government withdraws support for LGBTQ tourism initiative
In an act of artistic defiance, Baltimore Center Stage stays focused on DEI
Trump budget targets ‘gender extremism’
Susan Lucci on love, loss, and ‘All My Children’
How to navigate shifting tenant expectations
Trump’s war threats trigger rare 25th Amendment discussion
New book celebrates 1970s dance music icons
ROSENSTEIN: Vote McDuffie for mayor of D.C.
A Sondheim masterpiece ‘Merrily’ rolls onto Netflix
