New Jersey “Same Sex Therapy” Ban Upheld By Court – Radical Homosexuality On The March?
A district court judge recently made a ruling in favor of New Jersey’s controversial law which outright bans any sort of sexual orientation therapy, and uses the power of law to bar mental health experts from providing these types of mental health services, specifically to minors. Opponents of the law believe that it is a fundamental right for those whom struggle with their sexual orientation to engage in counseling and therapy provided by a licensed professional, yet proponents of the legislation have managed to get it passed in California and in New Jersey, securing the support of both Republicans and Democrats, and even the signature of New Jersey GOP Governor Chris Christie.
In one section, the bill reads: “A person who is licensed to provide professional counseling … shall not engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age…” As the issue was taken to court through two separate attempts to gain a court ruling against the legislation, both rulings have turned out being in favor of the legislation. Opponents cite a constitutional violation in terms of the government banning consensual therapy for minors in regards to sexual orientation, whereas proponents of the law, such as District Court Judge Freda Wolfson who handed down the ruling and stated: “Furthermore, I concluded in King that A3371 does not implicate speech, but rather governs conduct. … Under the reasoning set forth in King, A3371 regulates mental health treatment — albeit in the form for talk therapy — not any particular speech of counselors or therapists involving certain views…” obviously believe that there is no breach of constitutionally guaranteed rights, but rather a simple change in legal conduct.
The issue at hand is whether or not the government has the authority through the Constitution to ban mental health professionals from conducting sexuality-conversion therapy when their younger clients request it, or when their parents believe that it is required. From a moral standpoint, the legislation is cruel in its open discrimination against the moral-led beliefs held by mainstream Christian Conservatives; yet from a legal standpoint, the law seems to be in violation of the rights of young individuals to seek mental health therapy if struggling with same-sex attractions. Would it be acceptable to ban therapists and mental health professionals from counseling young homosexuals who struggle with “fitting in?” Would it be acceptable to proponents of this legislation for us to ban doctors from conducting “sex change” operations? Of course, the left would never accept such proposals, and would swiftly denounce such ideas as “pure bigotry,” yet they believe that it is perfectly fine to discriminate against those who are struggling with same-sex attraction by caging them in to those attractions without any means of assistance. My friends, this is nothing more than another case of militant homosexuality.