Why the Supreme Court nuked Colorado’s 'Must Stay Gay' law (and what to expect next)



Colorado's ban of so-called "conversion therapy" has finally been exposed for what it really is: an attack on free speech.

In the recent decision Chiles v. Salazar, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that Colorado had violated the First Amendment by censoring the free speech of psychological professionals in the name of banning “conversion therapy.”

Constitutional rebukes by courts are routinely treated like speed bumps by social engineers.

That’s a grab-bag term invented by activists to demonize traditional counseling aimed at helping patients pursue happiness as they see fit.

Cruel denial

In fact, Colorado’s “Must Stay Gay” law didn’t restrict — as its advocates claimed — cruel or coercive treatments. Instead the law prohibited therapists from serving clients who sought help in diminishing unwanted sexual compulsions.

For instance, imagine a married dad struggling with temptations to commit adultery with young, even underage, males. Or consider a sexual abuse victim suffering from gender dysphoria who wishes to accept her physical sex instead of submitting to disfiguring, sterilizing surgery and a lifetime of dangerous hormones.

The LGBTQ lobby pushed hard for this law, akin to an equally draconian ban in California, falsely claiming that any therapy aimed at altering sexual feelings was “unscientific” and “harmful.”

'Changed' for the better

My own organization, the Ruth Institute, filed a detailed amicus curiae debunking such claims, citing published studies by eminent professionals showing that talk therapy with willing clients is often beneficial and virtually never harmful. People do successfully change their patterns of sexual attraction and behavior, with or without therapy.

The Changed Movement collects their stories. We at the Ruth Institute have interviewed many such people. In fact, objective studies show that there are more "ex-gays" than "gays." “Must Stay Gay” laws like Colorado’s depend on legislators’ ignorance of such facts.

'Egregious assault'

But the court didn’t rule on the psychological merits, instead pointing to the more fundamental question of free speech in America. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority:

The First Amendment stands as a shield against any effort to enforce orthodoxy in thought or speech," and any viewpoint-suppression law "represents an 'egregious' assault" on the "inalienable right to think and speak freely" and the "free marketplace of ideas.”

Such a robust attachment to free speech and thought is increasingly rare in America and other Western countries. A pastor in Finland just faced trial for an alleged hate crime for writing a pamphlet summarizing historic Christian teaching on sexual morality. A law soon to pass in Canada would punish “offensive” religious speech, even citations of the Bible. We’ve heard prominent figures such as Hillary Clinton call for civil or even criminal cases aimed at citizens who share “misinformation.”

In Britain, dozens of citizens face arrest every day for posting their opinions about immigration and crime. The European Union has fined the platform X (formerly Twitter) $140 million for refusing to suppress political speech that Eurocrats deem unacceptable.

RELATED: How we help 'gay' men and women 'Leave Pride Behind'

ruthinstitute.org

Politically enforced orthodoxy

Why have so many, especially among our elites, endorsed censorship and even government-enforced speech? Because so many of their preferred policy positions cannot prevail on the merits in the “free marketplace of ideas,” which Justice Gorsuch rightly defended. These fashionable stances rely on media myths, pseudo-science, and politically enforced orthodoxies.

As I show in my book "The Sexual State: How Elite Ideologies Are Destroying Lives and How the Church Was Right All Along," the only way for an untenable worldview to prevail is by massive amounts of force and propaganda. The campaign against change-allowing therapy meets both objectives. It discredits the very idea of therapy to help reduce unwanted same-sex attraction. And it shuts the door to anyone in the helping professions who doesn’t accept every jot and tittle of the sexual revolution’s shifting party line.

Those who hold traditional Christian ethical values must be driven out of the therapy business. There must be nowhere for sexually confused or traumatized people to go, except to those convinced that there are 47 human genders, that gay people are “born that way,” that sexual orientation is fixed and immutable while gender is a shifting social construct.

None of that is supported by the evidence, but it’s sold to the public and low-information legislators as the “verdict of science.”

A brick in the wall

The victory for therapeutic freedom and the First Amendment in Colorado is welcome pushback against the rule of groupthink. It should invalidate laws in other states that constitute “viewpoint discrimination.” One brick has been pulled from the sexual revolutionary Berlin Wall.

But the revolutionaries are already at work looking for workarounds. Constitutional rebukes by courts are routinely treated like speed bumps by social engineers. (Despite SCOTUS’ defense of the Second Amendment, blue-state gun grabbers keep scheming up new ways to undermine this fundamental right.) The very day of the SCOTUS decision, Colorado and California introduced bills to incentivize lawsuits against therapists for alleged “harm” inflicted by “conversion therapy.”

The freedom of your neighbors to the therapy of their choice is still not safe. Despite this important victory at the U.S. Supreme Court, the battle isn’t over.

Clarence Thomas: Celebrate America 250 By Doing Something To Save The Country

'[T]here are too few people who are willing to do what it takes to do the right thing; to sacrifice the popularity, flattery, comfort, and security that are the purchase price for principle.'

6 House Republicans Vote To Block Trump From Enforcing Immigration Law

Six so-called “Republicans” voted Wednesday alongside Democrats to advance legislation that would extend Temporary Protected Status for Haitian migrants despite the Trump administration’s efforts to end the widely exploited program. Republican Reps. Don Bacon (Neb.), Brian Fitzpatrick (Penn.), Mike Lawler (N.Y.), Maria Elvira Salazar (Fla.), Carlos Gimenez (Fla.) and Nicole Malliotakis (N.Y.) voted alongside Democrats […]

Justice Jackson Minimizes ‘Harms’ Leftists’ Anti-Trump Judicial Coup Poses To Executive Power

Jackson's dismissive attitude to the 'real world' harms that lower courts' overreaching actions have on the executive's constitutional authority raises alarm bells.

WATCH: Glenn Beck’s savage open letter torches Swalwell’s hypocrisy after sexual misconduct scandal forces campaign suspension



Last Sunday, Eric Swalwell suspended his California gubernatorial campaign after reports by the San Francisco Chronicle and CNN detailed multiple allegations of sexual assault and misconduct, which he denies. He resigned from Congress the next day amid lost endorsements and staff departures.

Now Glenn Beck reads the open letter he wrote to Swalwell to illustrate the timeless law of reciprocity.

Glenn begins by rehashing Swalwell’s public opposition to Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 2018. Tweeting #BelieveSurvivors, Swalwell argued that multiple accusers meant the allegations were likely true (or Kavanaugh was the “unluckiest person in the world”) and said victims “deserve to be heard” and their allegations investigated.

“Congressman, do you feel the same way today?” Glenn asks. “Because now you have 50 women — 50 — from your office claiming the same thing. ... Should we bring them all in? Should we question them publicly, or is this time different?”

“At the time, you even pushed back on applying strict legal standards in public judgment, noting, ‘The testimony of a single witness can prove any fact,’” he continues.

“So perhaps we just bring in one woman out of the 50 and let her speak publicly and believe her because she, as you pointed out, is a survivor.”

Glenn accuses Swalwell of showing “little to no patience for caution,” putting “little emphasis on presumption of innocence,” and lending “little concern for due process in the court of public opinion” in Kavanaugh’s 2018 hearings.

“And what’s truly sad is, at the time — unlike today — you were not alone. But boy, I bet you feel alone today,” he sneers.

“Isn’t it weird and a bitter symmetry that is happening here?” he asks. “You once argued that accusations carried its own moral force, that patterns of claims pointed towards truth no matter what, and that the accused should open themselves fully to prove their innocence.”

But now, Swalwell asks for “time,” “fairness, and “restraint.”

“The very principles you minimalized are the ones you now invoke,” Glenn says.

Calling him a “destructive, dishonest, selfish, slimy ... force” who “never seemed to care about anything other than [his] own personal agenda,” Glenn grants Swalwell what he was unwilling to grant to others: “The allegations against you, however serious, however numerous, remain allegations.”

However, Glenn isn’t the least bit sorry that Swalwell’s career, ambitions, and reputation have been destroyed.

“There’s no one who deserves to feel that pain more than you,” he says.

He then points out the irony of the progressive Marxist apparatus Swalwell has been instrumental in.

“You were destroying the progressive enemies, and so they protected you. And in that, your arrogance grew. ... You were untouchable. You were invincible — until you become an inconvenience,” he says. “And then Marxists and progressives do what they always do. Ends justify the means. You are expendable.”

The rise and fall of Swalwell, Glenn says, is a perfect example of God’s eternal law: “As you judge, so shall you be judged.”

To hear more of Glenn’s savage open letter to Eric Swalwell, watch the video above.

Want more from Glenn Beck?

To enjoy more of Glenn’s masterful storytelling, thought-provoking analysis, and uncanny ability to make sense of the chaos, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The left's absurd attack on Brooke Rollins



Recently, a simple note from Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins wishing staff a meaningful Easter and reminding them that it was a day to celebrate the “foundations of our faith” has caused those in the secular-state industrial complex to rhetorically crucify the secretary.

The right of a U.S. secretary of agriculture — or any public official — to send a pro-Easter message to staff is not only constitutionally permissible, it is deeply consistent with the text, history, and tradition of the First Amendment.

There’s a difference between hearing something and being made to say it yourself.

The First Amendment safeguards the free exercise of religious practice in public while ensuring that there will be no state-mandated religion. Critics often interpret the Establishment Clause as requiring a strict secular silence from public officials, but that interpretation is historically incomplete.

The Constitution does not demand a religion-free public square; rather, it prevents coercion or official establishment of a national church.

This kind of message is not new. It echoes in older scenes: a president bowing his head at the end of a proclamation, members of Congress listening to a morning prayer before debate begins, a phrase stamped quietly onto a coin that passes through countless hands.

Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that government may acknowledge religion as part of the nation’s heritage. From legislative prayers upheld in Marsh v. Chambers to holiday displays permitted in Lynch v. Donnelly, the court affirmed that ceremonial and traditional expressions of faith are compatible with constitutional principles.

A secretary of agriculture sending a goodwill Easter message fits squarely within this tradition.

Religious references have been woven into American governance since the founding. Presidents from George Washington onward have issued proclamations referring to God and religious observances.

Congress employs chaplains. The national motto, “In God We Trust,” appears on currency. These practices demonstrate that the framers did not intend to purge religious expression from public office, but to prevent its abuse.

Easter, specifically, has long been recognized both culturally and institutionally in the United States. Federal employees often receive time off for Easter-related observances, and presidents frequently release Easter messages reflecting on themes of renewal and hope.

A pro-Easter message that is inclusive in tone — perhaps acknowledging the holiday’s themes or extending goodwill to those who celebrate — does not coerce belief or participation. Employees remain free to disregard the message, just as they are free to observe or not observe the holiday.

RELATED: The trial lawyers come for online free speech

Skodonnell/Getty Images

There’s a difference between hearing something and being made to say it yourself. The First Amendment lives in that space. It protects the employee who quietly appreciates the message and the one who deletes it without a second thought.

Suppressing such expressions, on the other hand, risks creating a different constitutional problem: hostility toward religion. The Supreme Court has cautioned against interpretations of the Establishment Clause that demonstrate animus toward faith.

Neutrality does not mean erasure; it means equal treatment. Allowing a pro-Easter message does not privilege Christianity so long as the government does not exclude or penalize other beliefs.

In a religiously pluralistic society, the goal should not be to eliminate religious references from public life, but to ensure that they are expressed in a way that respects freedom for all.

The secretary of agriculture sending an Easter message — grounded in tradition, delivered without coercion, and consistent with historical practice — falls well within those constitutional boundaries.

A Supreme Court That Doesn’t Stop Birthplace Citizenship Isn’t Originalist

Originalism counts for little if justices can brush aside the historical evidence because it is inconvenient.

Here’s How Sotomayor And Jackson’s Temper Tantrums Are Causing Headaches For Kagan

While Kagan tries to find ways to limit originalist outcomes, her fellow leftists are needlessly making reaching her objective more challenging.

WaPo Thinks SCOTUS Upholding The Constitution Is A Bad Thing

In his new article, Washington Post reporter Justin Jouvenal attempts to convince readers that SCOTUS has waged a war on 'civil rights.'

This New Study Shreds A Phony Media Hatchet Job Against The Supreme Court

A new Pew Research study dismantles a phony line of attack used by media activists to smear the Supreme Court's conservative majority.