Regulating therapy not the purview of village government

The Wellington Village Council voted 3-2 recently to pass an ordinance that bans “conversion therapy” on minors, claiming that this type of therapy is harmful. However, in 2009, in the American Psychological Association Task Force report on Appropriate Therapeutic Responses to Sexual Orientation, the APA concludes there is no proof of harm done to anyone undergoing sexual orientation change efforts.

Included in this ordinance would be a ban on therapy for minors who are seeking help to overcome unwanted same-sex attraction. Although there is evidence that change therapy has not worked for some individuals, there is also evidence that it has worked for others. This ban now discriminates against a type of therapy that could be beneficial. That’s taking away the rights of minors, parents and therapists.

Outrageously, three people who are not mental health experts have made a decision that affects all of Wellington. This ordinance was way beyond the scope of municipal government, especially since it has been rejected at both the county and state levels. When municipalities start passing ordinances proposed by outside organizations/lobbyists in the face of overwhelming support against the ordinance by its citizens, that is suspiciously wrong. Furthermore, as cities meddle in things that are out of their scope, it short-circuits the political process that’s in place to protect both businesses and its citizens’ rights.

This ban also discriminates against opposing views. One view is that people are born with a given sexual orientation that can never be changed. This may have evidence to support it, but it has no proof. Another view, which also has evidence to support it, is that some people acquire unwanted same-sex attraction and can overcome these feelings.

Passing ordinances based on the first view is viewpoint discrimination. Additionally, many religions subscribe to the second view, and if people want to live out their religious convictions, but are banned from doing so, that’s religious discrimination.

Kudos to Mayor Anne Gerwig and Councilman Michael Drahos for demonstrating courage and integrity as they grappled with this difficult issue. A lack of support for this ordinance is in no way an anti-homosexual sentiment by them or by the residents who spoke against it; it’s just a common-sense view that sees this ordinance as discriminatory and as being out of the purview of local government.