-
Click here to listen to this article - Share via
See more from the L.A. Times in Google Search. Set us as preferred
I had a difficult time reading the gut-wrenching accounts from the parents of gay children who are part of the Supreme Court case about conversion therapy bans and freedom of speech.
All claim their family relationships were seriously damaged by the widely discredited practice, and that their children were permanently scarred or even driven to suicide.
The case, Chiles vs. Salazar, arose from a 2019 Colorado law that outlaws conversion therapy, whose practitioners say they can change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity to align with heterosexual and cisgender norms. The therapy is considered harmful and ineffective by mainstream medical and mental health organizations.
At least two dozen other states have similar laws on the books, all of them good-faith attempts to prevent the lasting harm that can result when a young person is told not just that they can change who they are, but that they should change because God wants them to. The laws were inspired by the horrific experiences of gay and transgender youths whose families and churches tried to change them.
The case was brought by Kayley Chiles, a licensed counselor and practicing Christian who believes, according to her attorneys, that “people flourish when they live consistently with God’s design, including their biological sex.”
Colorado, incidentally, has never charged Chiles or anyone else in connection with the 2019 law.
Chiles is represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian law firm known for its challenges to gay and transgender rights, including one brought to the Supreme Court in 2023 by Christian web designer Lorie Smith, who did not want to be forced to create a site for a gay wedding, even though no gay couple had ever approached her to do so. The Court’s conservative majority ruled in Smith’s favor. All three liberals dissented.
As for conversion therapy, counselors often encourage clients to blame their LGBTQ+ identities on trauma, abuse or their dysfunctional families. (If it can be changed, it can’t possibly be innate, right?)
In oral arguments earlier this week, it appeared the conservative justices were inclined to accept Chiles’ claim that Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy amounts to viewpoint discrimination, a violation of the 1st Amendment’s free speech guarantees. The liberal minority was more skeptical.
But proponents of the bans say there is a big difference between speech and conduct. They argue that a therapist’s attempt to change a minor’s sexual orientation or gender identity amounts to conduct, and can rightfully be regulated by states, which, after all, lawfully impose conditions on all sorts of licensed professionals. (The bans, by the way, do not apply to ministers or unlicensed practitioners, and are generally not applicable to adults.)
Each competing brief whipsawed my emotions. The 1st Amendment is sacred in so many ways, and yet states have a critical interest in protecting the health and welfare of children. How to find a balance?
After reading the brief submitted by a group of 1st Amendment scholars, I was convinced the Colorado law should be ruled unconstitutional. As they wrote of Chiles, she doesn’t hook her clients to electrodes or give them hormones, as some practitioners of conversion therapy have done in the past. “The only thing she does is talk, and listen.”
Then I turned to the parents’ briefs.
Linda Robertson, an evangelical Christian mother of four, wrote that she was terrified when her 12-year-old son Ryan confided to her in 2001 that he was gay. “Crippling fear consumed me — it stole both my appetite and my sleep. My beautiful boy was in danger and I had to do everything possible to save him.”
Robertson’s search led her to “therapists, authors and entire organizations dedicated to helping kids like Ryan resist temptation and instead become who God intended them to be.”
Ryan was angry at first, then realized, his mother wrote, that “he didn’t want to end up in hell, or be disapproved of by his parents and his church family.” Their quest to make Ryan straight led them to “fervent prayer, scripture memorization, adjustments in our parenting strategies, conversion therapy based books, audio and video recordings and live conferences with titles like, ‘You Don’t Have to be Gay’ and ‘How to Prevent Homosexuality.’ ”
They also attended a conference put on by Exodus International, the “ex-gay” group that folded in 2013 after its former founder repudiated the group’s mission and proclaimed that gay people are loved by God.
After six years, Ryan was in despair. “He still didn’t feel attracted to girls; all he felt was completely alone, abandoned and needed the pain to stop,” his mother wrote. Worse, he felt that God would never accept him or love him. Ryan died at age 20 of a drug overdose after multiple suicide attempts.
As anyone with an ounce of common sense or compassion knows, such “therapy” is a recipe for shame, anguish and failure.
Yes, there are kids who question their sexuality, their gender identity or both, and they deserve to discuss their internal conflicts with competent mental health professionals. I can easily imagine a scenario where a teenager tells a therapist they think they’re gay or trans but don’t want to be.
The job of a therapist is to guide them through their confusion to self-acceptance, not tell them what the Bible says they should be.
If recent rulings are any guide, the Supreme Court is likely to overturn the Colorado conversion therapy ban.
This would mean, in essence, that a therapist has the right to inflict harm on a struggling child in the name of free speech.
Bluesky: @rabcarian
Threads: @rabcarian
More to Read
Insights
L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.
Viewpoint
Perspectives
The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
The author expresses deep concern about the documented harm caused by conversion therapy, describing the practice as widely discredited by mainstream medical and mental health organizations and noting that research has linked it to increased depression, PTSD, and suicidal thoughts[2]. Through the story of Ryan Robertson, a young man who died at age 20 after years of attempting to change his sexual orientation through therapy, prayer, and religious conferences, the author illustrates how conversion therapy practitioners encourage clients to blame their LGBTQ+ identities on trauma or dysfunction, leading to profound shame and despair.
The author acknowledges the complexity of balancing First Amendment protections with child welfare, admitting to being momentarily swayed by First Amendment scholars who argued that because Chiles only talks and listens rather than using electrodes or hormones, her speech should be protected. However, the author ultimately concludes that states have a critical interest in protecting children’s health and that conversion therapy amounts to harmful conduct that can rightfully be regulated, particularly since these bans do not apply to ministers or unlicensed practitioners and generally exempt adults.
The author expresses concern that the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared inclined during oral arguments to view Colorado’s ban as unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination[3]. The author worries this ruling would essentially grant therapists the right to inflict harm on struggling children in the name of free speech, arguing instead that mental health professionals should guide teenagers through confusion toward self-acceptance rather than imposing religious teachings about what they should be.
Different views on the topic
Chiles and her legal team argue that Colorado’s Minor Conversion Therapy Law constitutes viewpoint-based censorship that discriminates against certain conversations between counselors and clients, contending that the law allows counselors to encourage minors to transition genders but prohibits them from encouraging minors to accept their bodies or de-transition[1]. During Supreme Court oral arguments, attorney James Campbell argued that subjecting such bans to only rational basis review “would allow states to silence all kinds of speech” and could “transform counselors into mouthpieces for the government”[3].
Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim Mooppan, representing the Trump administration, emphasized that there is no long historical tradition of state regulation of medical treatment based solely in speech, as distinguished from Chiles’ talk therapy[3]. This position challenges the state’s argument that conversion therapy should be regulated like other medical treatments, suggesting that verbal counseling deserves different constitutional protections than procedures involving medication or physical interventions.
Justice Samuel Alito characterized the Colorado law as “blatant viewpoint discrimination” and raised concerns about whether medical consensus can be “taken over by ideology,” citing historical examples such as when medical professionals believed children with Down syndrome should be institutionalized shortly after birth[3]. This perspective questions whether current medical consensus against conversion therapy represents genuine scientific agreement or ideological positioning, suggesting that states should not have broad authority to determine which viewpoints mental health professionals can express to clients based on contested claims about professional standards of care[1].
More From the Los Angeles Times
Podcasts
Greenline Housing Foundation has become something of a “first aid kit” for Eaton fire survivors, offering financial services that range from temporary housing grants to land banking that have helped some families fund their paths back home.
California once bet big on offshore wind to help power its clean-energy future, but the Trump administration is now paying developers billions to walk away from their projects. As California’s remaining offshore-wind leases hang in the balance, the state is fighting back in court.
The Hillside Strangler murders terrorized Los Angeles in the late 1970s. The killers were a pair of sadistic cousins. One confessed. The other was set to stand trial—until L.A. prosecutors flinched.
