Posted on 05/07/2015 10:39:47 AM PDT by wagglebee
WASHINGTON, D.C., May 6, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- By declining to hear a challenge to a lower-court decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has effectively solidified New Jersey's ban on "reparative therapy," or counseling designed to steer people away from their unwanted same-sex attractions. Republican Gov. Chris Christie signed the ban into law in August 2013.
The New Jersey ban applies only to minors. According to Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays and Gays (PFOX), noncompliance by parents could result in the state taking their children away.
The Human Rights Campaign, a powerful lobby dedicated to redefining marriage and normalizing homosexuality, recently decried reparative therapy as "a range of dangerous and discredited practices" that can "lead to depression, anxiety, drug use, and suicide." In February 2014, activists in favor of normalizing homosexuality demanded that the United Nations classify reparative therapy as a form of torture. Such accusations depend on the assumption that same-sex attractions are innate, unchangeable, and irresistible, despite a lack of evidence to support this theory and an abundance of evidence to the contrary.
But while reparative therapy has been panned in the media and the courts, not all therapists condemn the practice. The Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity in conjunction with the NARTH Institute, for example, strongly advocated for Gov. Christie to veto New Jersey's ban in July 2013. In a statement released at that time, the group emphasized the ban's threat to personal freedom: "The freedom of a gay teen to choose a therapist that honors his or her goals and values is unchallenged. All citizens should expect equal treatment and protection from the law and lawmakers."
The therapists concluded: "The 'bumper sticker slogan' approach which so often characterizes media stories rarely improves the public's understanding of important psychological issues."
The NARTH Institute had joined two New Jersey therapists and the American Association of Christian Counselors in challenging New Jersey's reparative therapy ban, citing concerns about the state curtailing therapists' freedom of speech and religion.
Additionally, Mat Staver, the Liberty Counsel attorney who represented the New Jersey plaintiffs, claimed in a separate but related lawsuit that his client desired to repudiate his same-sex attractions. "Before states began passing legislation banning change therapy, the treatment was driven by the minor's desired outcome," Staver said. "Our client and his family were on the way to that desired outcome, until Governor Christie signed a law prohibiting further treatment. ... Governor Christie has no right coming into the therapy session of this young man and telling him what kind of counseling he can receive."
A federal judge dismissed the challengers' case in November 2013, deciding that "'counseling' is not entitled to special constitutional protection merely because it is primarily carried out through talk therapy."
Christie, who expressed reservations about interfering with "parents on raising their children," nonetheless signed the ban – "reluctantly," he claimed. Yet, Christie rationalized, "exposing children to ... health risks without clear evidence of benefits is not appropriate."
On the point of the state's involvement with how parents raise their children, the Alliance-NARTH statement stressed that "[a]ny society that grants the right to an adolescent to decide to terminate a pregnancy ... cannot rationally suggest that this same adolescent should not have the right to freely participate in conversational counseling to discuss sexuality." New Jersey currently has no parental notification or permission requirement for minors seeking an abortion.
Along with New Jersey, one other state has passed legislation to ban reparative therapy: California, under Democrat Gov. Jerry Brown, in October 2012. (The District of Columbia City Council passed its own ban in December of last year.) The Supreme Court refused in 2014 to hear the challenge to California's reparative therapy ban.
The 2 to 3 percent of the population who actually are sodomites are being used as pawns of the left to impose totalitarianism.
ridiculous
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda or moral absolutes ping list.
FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search
[ Add keyword homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
FreeRepublic moral absolutes keyword search
[ Add keyword moral absolutes to flag FR articles to this ping list ]
The Sex Offender Registry will be the next to go.
I guess New Jersy parents will have to take these kids out of state to get them the therapy they need.
This doesn’t bother me,
but if States can ban counselors from helping minors overcome same-sex attraction then why are they not allowed to define their own marriage laws?
Children molested by pedophiles now won’t be able to get help if they are confused as a result.
Pedophiles are thanking the homonazis.
So the Change the Muslim Presidet brought was... EVIL instead of Justice.
Monetizing the sodomite industry. The politicians can get LBGT & other alphabet contributions by supporting the teaching of perversion in public school and get more funding by appearing to ban people from straightening out the kids they have groomed.
Can you really respect this government?
Note that the law was signed and enabled by one of Obama’s best friends, Kwis Kwistie, GOPe.
Thought control pure and simple.
The content of discussions especially in a counseling setting is none of the court’s - or anyone else’s - business.
bump
This situation brought to you by a REPUBLICAN.
Not a Democrat. A REPUBLICAN Read that as many times as it take to sink in, lesser evil idiots.
My thoughts as well. For better or for worse, it encourages me (in principle) when the Supreme Court refuses to overturn a state decision.
Of course not. They'll just change who goes on it. Such as anyone who tries to keep a predatory pederast off his son, anybody who says "boo" to a lesbian Girl Scout cruiser, or anyone who orates against homosexuality, bestialism, pederasty, pedophilia, incest, or chandelier-swinging profligacy generally. Anyone like Paul of Tarsus, for example, or St. Jude the Obscure, or the High God of Israel, Ontos-On, First Cause, and Pantocrator, Jehovah the God of Abraham. They'll slap Him in the wagon and give Him a rough ride all the way to the precinct house, for slackmouthing against the Sodomites and slandering the Practices of Egypt.
A victory for States’ Rights or a loss for the First Amendment?
Why don’t we just elect the Supreme Court to be the legislature? Why the hell do we need a legislature with them around deciding marriage licenses, counseling sessions, commercial zones, and prayer times. Heck, let’s just make them the emperor’s pals.
Love your tagline!
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.