That the governor is more concerned about deference to parents rather than the ludicrous idea of conversion theraphy from gay to str8 is appalling. That there is such ignorance at the top of our leadership makes one wonder about their belief systems and the source of those beliefs. We have some great gay role models e.g. Anderson Cooper, Ellen DeGeneres. Both highly successful people in their own right involved in loving, caring relationships with the same sex. Now if my son or daughter wants to convert to being gay so as to be like them...I say we need a different type of conversion therapy i.e. hetero to gay. Is it possible...of course not! Nor is it possible the other way around. Wake up Governor!

So, parents shouldn't have a primary role in guiding and instilling values in their kids?

Monk: This is not about instilling values, it is about whether parents should be permitted to force their children to deny what and who they are and live a lie for their entire lives. What "values" are you talking about? Gay people live, work, go to church, raise kids, buy homes, maintain those homes, just the way you do. I have many gay friends and every last one of them knew they were different from a very early age -- some as early as age 6, most around age 10. If you think self-loathing is a value that parents should instill in their kids, then I guess you are right. But if you think children straight AND gay are entitled to be their true selves, then yes, this kind of DEMONSTRABLY USELESS "therapy" should be banned, just the way any other demonstrated quackery should be.

>So, parents shouldn't have a primary role in guiding and instilling values in their kids?< and you can't be serious either! LOL, on the way Christie responded.

> Now if my son or daughter wants to convert to being gay so as to be like them.<
I didn't catch that sentence at first. But a ridiculous statement for anyone to try take out of context of the post. You cannot change your birth orientation. "It" doesn't spread like catching a cold.

> their parents are pushing them straight< hey those parents could also push them to change the color of their eyes and see how well that works too lol

This is not about how parents raise their children, it is about a medical "professional" performing a treatment. Legislating this is no different than legislating any other medical or psychological practice.

Or, maybe he wants to really study the issue , rather than react to a one time hearing that could not even demostrate that any such therapy was currently being conducted in New Jersey. Testimony about anectdotal episodes in California, Ohio and the like fail to demostrate that there is a need for legislative action in NJ.

Sorry, this one did not pass muster. There were too many questiions left unresolved, the big one being : Is there a need in NJ for this legislation, or are NJ parents sufficiently well informed to decide for themselves. Personally, the idea of rehabiliative therapy is nonsense. It would be much better if parents would embrace what their child is and learn acceptance-- If your child is Goth rather than Jock, so what, if your kid is a gear head rather than scholar, if you child is gay rather than straight--so what love your child as he or she is.
The debate is not about Gay or Straight , it is about the role of government and in this instance Government must give way .

see ! i am not the only person who agrees we cannot take him seriously and a lot of it has to do with his weight getting bigger and bigger

Jonah is dealing solely with adult cases at the present I believe as they are the subject of a NJ Superior Court lawsuit brought by SPLC, over consumer fraud grounds, suit was filed in Nov. Last case complained of was from 4 years ago, 2009. Characterizing them as anti gay is erroneous as they point out they are a religious based , which begs the question can government interefere with an establishment issue. There are none identified as active in NJ, all the "plaintiffs from the Jonah case were from outside the State of New Jersey. Why a Civil Rights law group is engaged in Consurmer Fraud litigation is another question .

Your comment "So could be happening in New Jersey ? It likely is." Is the height of journalistic laziness, it provides no proof . It is a mere conclusion , no more credible than any other conclusion to the contrary.. By that statement you wish to lead people to believe that the practice is, yet there was absolutely no testimony naming any single practicioner in the state of New Jesey. Your reporting from 15 years ago hardly supports the need for current legislation. Again, to suggest that the parents of NJ are not capable of seeing what is best for their children is simply wrong. The intrusion of governmetn into the raising of children is anathema to constitutional privacy issues. If the state refuses to remove children from the home of substance abusers, openly racist , openly neglectful parents they surely can't legislatively control this practice for the neglible number who would even entertain the bizarre idea that this type of therapy would produce their expected result. Until such time as it can be demonstrated that ther is a real threat, not an imagined or fabricated one, the legislature must demur.

http://pfox.org/default.html

Your charachterization does not match theirs, just saying.

Scondo, if I presently were covering the story as a journalist, that would be true. I am not, too busy covering Parsippany. That doesn't blunt the point, it likely is going on. I did not say "definitely." And yes, JONAH's work with adults shouldn't have anything to do with this. If adults choose that avenue, they have that right, as do parents unless the law changes. I was just adding my experience and knowledge that many people cross state lines to get RT for their kids and that many RT practitioners practice covertly. As to whether religious can't be antigay, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Re: SPLC, rightly or wrongly, they use whatever legal means they can to go after organizations they define as hate groups.

And whether the issue can be governed by the state is exactly what has to be decided. I honestly do not know; that's for people on a pay grade much higher than mine or yours to decide, LOL. Deciding that a government can overrule a parental choice is something that cannot and should not be done lightly.

And the 14-year-old story is not about the law; it's merely to illustrate a bit about the realities of RT, which most people know less than nothing about. That's it. I have a particular wealth of knowledge in this area, thought I would share, nothing more. And of course PFOX would characterize itself differently. But its founder came out of RT, I met a lot of PFOX people in RT and they do advocate for RT groups. That's fact.

natalie, the question for you is which person in this video is a scondo?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLlv_aZjHXc

This is a little bit different from religion, which is a choice of faith, rather than an inherent physiological trait. A better analogy would be the parents of a black child forcing him to take medications to make his skin white, or the parents of a boy forcing him to have a sex change operation to make him a girl.

How is homosexuality an inherent physiological trait? Are the organs of a homosexual person different from those of a heterosexual person? Or just used differently?

If you had said inherent "psychological trait", you would have been closer to the mark.

Not necessarily. Some scientific studies have shown that there are actual physical differences in the brains of heterosexuals and homosexuals;

http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0%2C8599%2C1815538%2C00.html

>How is homosexuality an inherent physiological trait? Are the organs of a homosexual person different from those of a heterosexual person?<
It's an inherent trait, part of the brain's final DNA makeup at birth which controls who you are and so what your brain steers you to. Being gay is not what you were born with in the physical sense.

Those 27% if there's any truth to it at all, are those who went into denial over who they really were to conform to the expectations of their parents and society,, come on here, let's get real.

I call BS

There is not ONE scientfically validated study that demonstrates that reparative therapy works. IN FACT, even practictioners of this harmful practice will tell you all it does is teach people not to act out on their same sex attractions...there are no claims that the "treatment" changes sexual orientation.

> it derives from emotional wounds<--give me a break here lol---the real emotional wounds come from this quackery therapy.

I'm sure you support whipping children with belts too.

The governor said that he doesn’t know much about gay conversion therapy,” Buono said. “Well, I don’t know how much more you need to know to form an opinion. I was shocked at the stunning level of ignorance that that statement showed. The whole premise of having gay conversion therapy is based on the long-discredited belief that homosexuality is a form of a mental disorder that can be cured. That our governor would dignify that with the response that he gave is just shocking to me.”

Flake, "...cure their kid..."????

Cure them from what? They are not sick.

Getting cured from being a deviant is a good thing.

Nice try, flake. Not deviant either.

>If parents want to cure their kid<---I'm telling ya, I have the time of my life reading these posts all full of this non-sense, it's actually entertaining. Go into your local hair salon and tell the hairdresser you feel bad for him that his parents didn't attempt to cure him as a child lol you guys posting here are a bit off lol. ps,-gays are not all feminine, many look masculine.

>People have the right to teach their children very uncomfortable and controversial things< which would equal child abuse by those parents because they suspected their children were showing signs of being gay. People don't have the right to practice child abuse.

@Ricky, I am not a psychologist and neither is the Governor. I agree that religious freedom does not extend to child abuse. The problem for the Left is that the definition of child abuse is varied.
Some on the Left have suggested that simply teaching your child your own unpopular religious values, i.e. that being gay is wrong, is considered child abuse.
Honestly I think this bill probably makes sense. But I am wary of it being used as a gateway to trample of legitimate yet controversial religious freedom. That's all. So in that sense I totally understand the Governor's thinking.

>Some on the Left have suggested that simply teaching your child your own unpopular religious values, i.e. that being gay is wrong, is considered child abuse<
Thank you for the comment, at least you're serious and not a troll. That's the whole obstacle to we the public getting educated due to strict religious upbringing. It slams up against what is known today that wasn't back in biblical times. Today as a parent it's abuse to tell a child who you suspect could be gay that it's wrong, sinful and you need to play with soldiers, not a doll house. Yea I know that goes against everything you were brought up to believe but we know so much more than in the past.

A few responses to you Ricky. Since you're so open minded and don't stereotype, let me correct you on a few ways you pigeon holed me on.
First off, I was not brought up the way you suspect. I'm actually an atheist and I have absolutely no problem with homosexuality. If my child was gay I'd have no problem with is, and if I had a child that was harassing another child for being gay, I'd have a huge problem with that.
Like I mentioned before, I think government should get out of marriage entirely and every one should get a civil union with the same rights of marriage, and you can call it whatever you want amongst your own friends and family. I totally believe that gay people were born that way, that they genuinely love each other the same way a married man and woman do, and that their love and union is not harmful to me or anyone else. I am also extremely in favor of gay adoption. Way too many kids out there looking for loving secure families.
I do think this whole gender neutrality movement is absolutely misguided. I am smart enough to realize that their are natural differences between males and females, differences that we are born with, and their is nothing wrong with that. So yeah, when I have a baby, if he's a boy, I will dress him in blue, and take him to sporting events. If he doesn't like that, my family will figure it out then.

Finally Ricky, in regard to what you consider child abuse, sorry but legally speaking you are wrong. Morally speaking I agree, teaching your child that the world is 6,000 years old and that homosexuality is wrong, is bad parenting. But we have this law in this country called the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Within that law, there is a clause called the Free Exercise clause. It states that no law can be made preventing the free exercise of religion. I don't agree with religion. But I do agree with personal liberty. So whether you or I like it or not, parents do have the inalienable right to give their children the type of religious education that they feel is appropriate. In every single position I take when it comes to this sort of thing, my entire philosophy is based on, "I disagree with what you say and believe, but I will always defend your right to say and believe it." That is what living in a free country is about. Freedom is going to result in some things that you and I do not approve of. Yet the alternative is so terrifyingly worse.

I'm not out to slam anyone, we're debating and if you feel>parents do have the inalienable right to give their children the type of religious education that they feel is appropriate< then fine and well but it shouldn't include that being gay is sinful. And it shouldn't include this therapy which is damaging. Just as parents shouldn't provide therapy so their straight child will convert to being gay, it shouldn't be done the other way around either, it's damaging to the child's emotional health in the long run.

Ricky- Yes, religious freedom does include controversial religious beliefs. It just does, that's a legal fact. You can not ban parents from teaching their children that homosexuality is wrong. You just can not, that is their right.
This therapy is a different thing because it is an actual physical act. Sending a child to therapy is a physical and medical action, not a belief.
But if your religious book teaches that homosexuality is wrong, as all three Abrahamic religious texts do, you have a right to teach that to your children.
Otherwise what you would be de facto advocating a ban on portions of the Bible, Torah, and Koran, and other religious texts.
You have the right in this country to be morally wrong.

So you say >You can not ban parents from teaching their children that homosexuality is wrong. You just can not, that is their right< well yes you cannot tell parents what they can say to their children about homosexuality. But this debate is actually about the issue of >conversion therapy< and whether it works. Those of us opposed to it feel that you are born with your orientation just like for example you're born with the color of your eyes due to your DNA makeup. Now if you want to tell your child that their blue eyes is the wrong color, then go ahead and do that but it won't accomplish anything and will be detrimental to their emotional upbringing. So again, it's those of us who feel your orientation is set at birth and cannot be changed vs you and others who feel it can be changed. Go ask male and female gay people in current relationships if they wish their parents had given them conversion therapy. If any say yes then I bow to your argument that conversion therapy is a good positive approach for youth.

Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I am against conversion therapy. My only concern, like the Governor is that this is a slippery slope towards actually violating parental rights and First Amendment rights per the Free Exercise Clause. I believe everything about homosexuality to be true that you stated. I don't think that there is anything whatsoever wrong with homosexuality. I really don't think about it much at all to be honest. To each their own, live and let live.
I am for banning this conversion therapy, but I am also wary that many on the Left and in the gay rights community want to go further, and actually ban certain religious teaching. That is something I am not okay with, as much as I may disagree with the specific religious teaching, or any religious teaching.
This sort to therapy, based on what I've read, does qualify as actual, physical child abuse. But when approaching this topic, I am always wary of parental rights, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.
Living in a free country means acknowledging the right of someone to stand center stage and advocate at the top of his lungs that which you know to be wrong, and that which you would spend your lifetime denouncing at the top of your's.

I've enjoyed the debate here. As it turned out, you were against this therapy all along. It didn't appear that way at first. So your issue all along was this-->>I am also wary that many on the Left and in the gay rights community want to go further, and actually ban certain religious teaching< Well that was your concern and you're right, nobody should attempt to restrict religious freedom. But religious freedom often spirals into extremism. I know of a website called www.floridafamily.org that turns its religious freedom into hate and bigotry.

So Jason Feinman's contribution to this discussion is that overweight people should be mocked. Brilliant. Thanks for showing us your brains, Jason, now let's see what you look like so we can decide if we agree with you or not.

Yes, it is awfully unfortunate how free our country is. Luckily for you, you also have the freedom to disagree with the level of freedom that you, I, and all Americans have.

Alex, everyone with any intelligence knows that we have to limit some of our freedoms. Its called law and order. Should guns be allowed on planes? Should we stop people from running ponzi schemes? I'm sure 10 year olds would love to drive. We have millions of restrictions, many of which we probably all agree on. I worry about the dumbing down that is happening. We have millions of people that don't believe in evolution. Many people believe the definition of "arms" to be machine guns and even mortars or worse. Since common sense is not so obvious anymore I think you'll see more laws dictating it. People can always move to one of the slower moving less progressive states. I heard recently that Mississippi or was it Alabama just ratified the Equal Rights Amendment and the state house down in South Carolina just took down the confederate flag. The flag came down because of a law- not because of common sense.

>Being gay is like any other mental variation/defect. Call it what you will. No one would sign up for it as a choice<--Not a choice, not a defect, and the reason many gays never signed up for it (which means being open about it growing up)---because of its long time false description of being a mental defect---and who wants to be known as having a mental defect and being ridiculed around your classmates.

or be in love with a chicken, whatever<--that shows you still have prejudice toward gays, saying it's an aberration just like if you were in love with a chicken.

and lower in calories with practically no cholesrerol

As far as uniting the two GOP wings.... who are the ones who are constantly slinging the term 'RINO' at any republican who's not socially conservative enough??? It's not the democrats.

You're absolutely right. Gay people exist. Who cares. Doesn't hurt anyone. Let's just get the government out of marriage all together. Every couple gets a civil union with all the rights of marriage currently.
People have the right to hate homosexuality, they have the right to celebrate it, and they have the right to not care about it.

So we should get the government out of marriage, but into family therapy decisions?

We the People - If a therapy method is actually proven to damage a child beyond repair, many times to the point of suicide, yes. The government's only role is to defend our individual rights, and that includes the rights of the child in extreme circumstances. Like I've mentioned, I am wary of this law. In the end, I think it's probably for the best, but I do think it's a slippery slope. But yes, in extreme cases the government should protect children from their own parents. If sending these kids to this treatment has a good chance of causing that child to kill himself, then really, it's no different than a parent actually killing the child themselves.

It's because most of them, including the President, do not understand how the economy works.
But you're absolutely right. I really wish this whole gay non-issue would go away. It's really a giant waste of time. Homosexuality hurts no one, it's really no one else's business what someone's orientation is.
Just give everyone, gay and straight, civil unions equal to current marriage and be done with it.

I can name several therapies that have been disproven, or at least been proven ineffective, yet they have not been "banned" by the government.

What's next, banning diets?

Governor Christie and the President put partisanship aside in what was a horrible moment for NJ. Having had people I care about lose their homes, I am glad that the two of them put their differences aside in an extreme circumstance.
I'm not really a huge fan of either of them (love Gov Christie, would hate Pres Christie) and I think Obama is one of the top 3 worst Presidents in history, but they did both do a great job handing Sandy.

Oh. Ha. Also: zzzzz.