Assembly Concurrent Resolution 99 begins with: this measure would call upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance, upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy, and upon the people of California and the institutions of California with great moral influence to model equitable treatment of all people of the state. Sorry, but I feel compelled to print and rebut almost the entire resolution, with questions. This is my version of critical theory.
California lawmakers passed a resolution this month telling “religious groups” — including Christian pastors and churches — to “embrace” the LGBTQ worldview, even if it contradicts the moral values of those religious groups. The resolution overwhelmingly passed the California Senate and House this month. Let’s question the assumptions in the actual text of the resolution.
WHEREAS, The California State Legislature has found that being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ) is not a disease, disorder, illness, deficiency, or shortcoming. The legislature has “found”? Tell me, where did you find that truth? You didn’t mention sin either, but I’m sure that’s just an oversight. It’s good to know that you folks were elected to be the moral arbiters of sexuality.
WHEREAS, Major professional associations of mental and physical health recognize that being LGBTQ is part of natural variations that occur in sexual orientation and gender identity, and recommend responsive services that foster self-acceptance and skills to cope with social stigma and discrimination. Like who? “Natural variations?” In gender identity? How many genders did you say? Two, four, 50 or, if we’re in
Great Britain, they’ve found 100!
WHEREAS, Practices or therapies that attempt to create a change in a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity are often referred to as conversion therapy. I’ll let that go, that’s at least accurate.
WHEREAS, Some family, caregivers, and communities promote conversion therapy when a person is known or thought to be LGBTQ. Isn’t it true that most conversion therapy is sought by the patients themselves? It’s a little difficult to do “therapy” involuntarily.
WHEREAS, California law recognizes that performing conversion therapy on young persons is ineffective, unethical, and harmful. Sez you? Some people have benefited. Can you back up such a generalization? Unethical, according to whom?
WHEREAS, Conversion therapy has been rejected as ineffective, unethical, and harmful by leading medical, mental health, and child welfare organizations in the United States. Which ones specifically? “Leading?” Led by whom?
WHEREAS, The stigma associated with being LGBTQ often created by groups in society, including therapists and religious groups, has caused disproportionately high rates of suicide, attempted suicide, depression, rejection, and isolation amongst LGBTQ and questioning individuals. Perhaps you have cause and effect reversed. What if those emotional problems were the result of the lifestyle itself, or the emotional problems that were already there fostered the sexual behavior? Can’t be, right? It’s the therapists and religious groups. So tell me, are all the LGBTQ people happy and well adjusted now that they have the power? I’d like to know.
WHEREAS, The State of California has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological well-being of minors, including LGBTQ youth, and in protecting its minors against exposure to serious harms caused by family rejection and attempts to change sexual orientation or gender identity. “serious harms caused by family rejection.” Now we’re getting into some pretty intrusive territory. Are you setting the table for direct government intervention in families? What Constitution gives any branch or level of government the authority to “protect the psychological well-being” of anyone?
WHEREAS, In a pluralistic society, people differing along spectrums of political and religious perspectives share a common responsibility of protecting the health and well-being of all children and vulnerable communities. What does that mean? Reads like you’re telling churches what their responsibilities are.
Therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, the Senate thereof concurring, That the Legislature calls upon all Californians to embrace the individual and social benefits of family and community acceptance. We’re only suggesting what the family and “community” (whom? Probably the church.) should do—voluntarily. We don’t yet have the power to compel, yet.
Be it further Resolved, That the Legislature calls upon religious leaders to counsel on LGBTQ matters from a place of love, compassion, and knowledge of the psychological and other harms of conversion therapy. Yep, this is a more clear step in the slithering under the tentflap. “LGBTQ matters?” Has sexual preference now become a legislative priority? Hey, I thought you L’s and G’s always said, “keep the government out of my bedroom.”
Be it further Resolved, That in addressing the stigma often associated with persons who identify as LGBTQ, we call on the people of California–especially its counselors, pastors, religious workers, educators, and legislators–and the institutions of California with great moral influence–especially its churches, universities, colleges, and other schools, counseling centers, activist groups, and religious centers–to model equitable treatment of all people of the state. Just wait until you bigots don’t follow our call.
It did not require Gov. Gavin Newsom’s (D) signature because it has no legal force. Republican state Sen. Andreas Borgea said, “When an individual seeks therapy or guidance before a religious leader, whether it be a mosque, a temple, or a church, that’s a private setting. … To disallow or create the pathway where we tell individuals they cannot say certain things should give us pause.“
Indeed, Greg Burt of the California Family Council told the Epoch Times “We believe in free speech. They [the legislators] have every right to criticize our position, but the state government does not have the right to use its power to coerce us to change. And that’s where we believe this resolution is heading.”. I say amen. I wonder if the free speech ship has already sailed.
Now let’s be clear about the implications. I am not criticizing LGBTQ people per se, rather an agenda which is not about respect for their sexuality, but is part of a much larger agenda to replace all vestiges of norms and standards with the tenets of critical theory. C.T. posits that humanity is composed of two groups only—the oppressed and the oppressors. The latter group exercises what C.T. calls hegemonic power—the power to shape and enforce norms, standards and expectations of the culture. The former group consists of anyone who is perceived as not having the power to do that, and the solution is liberation, which consists of destroying the dominant group and replacing it with….that’s the problem, what? I go into a lot more detail in my post “Where have all the Communists gone.” But for my purpose here, understand that non-heteronormative sexuality places them in the category of oppressed. Make no mistake, be not naive, this Resolution 99 IS a powerful salvo against the idea of cultural norms, and specifically against Judeo-Christian norms. It will not stop here.