Are we now to say that homosexuals have no constitutional right of privacy to engage in therapy to refrain from buggery?
Posted on 08/09/2013 5:51:28 AM PDT by xzins
New Jersey counselors are about to find out whether they will lose the legal right to help minors address same-sex attraction. Earlier this summer, the New Jersey legislature passed a bill banning counselors from working with minors struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions. The bill now sits on Gov. Chris Christie’s desk. Christie has been tight-lipped on his stance, leaving parents and counselors wondering whether he will veto the bill, sign it, or ignore it until it automatically becomes law early next week.
New Jersey is among only a few states to consider such a ban. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania have similar legislation pending, and California passed a ban last year.
The California law prohibited any reparative therapy for minors struggling with same-sex attraction, and forced adults receiving the therapy to sign a release form agreeing that the counseling is possibly ineffective and dangerous. Both the Pacific Justice Institute and Liberty Counsel filed legal challenges in California, contesting the law’s infringement on First Amendment rights. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals put the law on hold while the case moves through the courts.
The nearly identical New Jersey law would prohibit counseling “to change a person’s sexual orientation, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behaviors, gender identity, or gender expressions, or to reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward a person of the same gender.” It is not an overall ban on counseling for same-sex attraction issues—the bill clarifies that it does allow “counseling for a person seeking to transition from one gender to another.”
The bill’s supporters say the government has a right to prohibit such counseling because it could cause emotional problems. The chief of staff for Assemblyman Tim Eustace, who sponsored the bill, said supporters believe this kind of counseling for minors qualifies as child abuse. He said they do not believe the ban is unconstitutional, because the state regularly regulates what counselors can do.
But the New Jersey Family Policy Council disagrees. It’s president, Len Deo, told CitizenLink the ban usurps parents’ rights: “Most parents want to assist their children—this legislation invades the intimacy of the family.”
Mat Staver, Liberty Counsel’s founder and chairman, said the bill “is so broad that parents would be prohibited from seeking help for their son who developed unwanted same-sex attractions after being molested by the likes of Jerry Sandusky. This law would inflict serious damage to children, parents, and counselors.”
During the legislative debate, Christie said, “I’m of two minds just on this stuff in general.” He said he is generally a skeptic of bills that restrict parents’ ability to make decisions on how to care for their children, but he thinks there may be exceptions. This could be one of them. Kevin Roberts, a Christie spokesman, gave little clue about Christie’s frame of mind now, saying only that he doesn’t think the governor supports conversion therapy.
IOW, Christie is just another social liberal pretending to be conservative. There is no such thing as a liberal conservative.
I don't care if the person is deciding between the Mets & the Yankees, between creamy & crunchy peanut butter, or Bellagio & the Venetian.
Gay issues are all the rage right now but as they continue to mistake legal recognition for societal acceptance we should all remember: THIS IS THOUGHT CONTROL. NOTHING MORE, NOTHING LESS.
Let me get this straight ... The law would prohibit counseling for people who have an unwanted same-sex attraction, but allows counseling for boys who want to become girls?
Christie ought to veto this bill on the simple grounds that this kind of sh!t is a complete waste of time for a legislature in a state facing so many truly pressing issues.
Can you ban something for which there is no research evidence that it causes specific harm? If the EPA attempts to ban something, like saccharin, for which the data is equivocal, it can be challenged.
minors struggling with unwanted same-sex attractions.
If the attractions are unwanted then counseling should be given! Also it should be up to the PARENTS not the government!
:: prohibit counseling “to change a person’s sexual orientation ::
So, will the gay spanish teacher that keeps youngsters after school for “counseling” be subject to arrest also as he tries to convince John-John that his derriere is a play-house for men like him??
Are we now to say that homosexuals have no constitutional right of privacy to engage in therapy to refrain from buggery?
Sounds like a “right to choose” issue to me; banning it would remove a homosexual’s right to choose therapy to try to have the condition corrected.
"But, but, I don't want to feel this way."
"Too bad, the government says you have to feel that way."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.