Invitation to connect on LinkedIn

From Mario Gonzalez Jr. Legal Intern at Kemp Law Group Greater New York City Area Organic, I'd like to add you to my professional network on LinkedIn. - Mario Confirm that you know Mario You are receiving Invitation to Connect emails. Unsubscribe © 2012, LinkedIn Corporation. 2029 Stierlin Ct. Mountain View, CA 94043, USA

NJ PARENT’S RIGHT TO CONTROL THE MENTAL HEALTH CARE OF THEIR MINOR CHILDREN HAS NOW BEEN SUBSTANTIALLY LIMITED

A3371/S2278, the bill to ban counseling efforts to change a minors' sexual orientation, has passed both houses of the NJ legislature. Absent intervention by governor Christie, parents in NJ can no longer seek professional (including psychiatric) help for their minor children struggling with their sexual identity if such counseling includes any manner of redirection of the child's "stated" gender affectional preference, even if the professional believes the affections to be misguided and/or mistaken. In saying what I am saying, I am in no way condoning the recently reported ridiculous and harmful practices allegedly utilized by members of the psychiatric community in this regard, assuming such reports are true.

What is of concern to me is that fact that this bill presents an impermissible intrusion into a parent's right to bring up their minor children according to the precepts of their particular faith without intervention by the government. The issue of gender identity is integrally tied to foundational religious beliefs affecting a majority of Americans - Beliefs which must be respected and over which the state cannot constitutionally intrude, irrespective of popular opinion to the contrary.

In light of this legislation, it would appear that mental health care professionals who are devout Muslims, Jews, or Christians are now at a crossroads in terms of reconciling their professions with their respective faiths. Licensed School teachers are sure to follow if they work in a school, public, private, or parochial, "licensed" by the State of New Jersey. This is a matter of a person's right to hold to their religious convictions and to impose the same onto their children, convictions held sacrosanct for thousands of years. To summarily dismiss and to publicly disparage and ridicule the views of millions of decent, law-abiding Americans who happen to hold to strong religious convictions on a particular matter of great moral controversy, and to now legislatively force a particular secular view into how parents choose to care for their children's psychological/psychiatric health, is simply both "un-American" and unconstitutional.

The practice in many Christian churches in Germany during WWII was to sing louder so as to drown out the screams of millions of Jews as they were herded to their deaths in Nazi concentration camps on train tracks near church buildings. Singing louder did not save the life of one precious Jew. When it comes to enacting legislation that directly or indirectly affects our religious beliefs or the manner in which we choose to raise our children, we can either sing or fight. I would highly recommend that we learn from past mistakes. Though I would legally fight for the right of any person not be discriminated against in terms of housing, employment, etc., I would fight even more strongly for people to be able to practice their faith unimpeded by government, a right guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Lest there be any confusion as to my statements, here is the full text of the bill…

SENATE, NO. 2278

An Act concerning the protection of minors from counseling attempts to change sexual orientation and supplementing Title 45 of the Revised Statutes.

     Be It Enacted by the Senate and General Assembly of the State of New Jersey:

     1.    a. A person who is licensed to provide professional counseling under Title 45 of the Revised Statutes, including, but not limited to, a psychiatrist, licensed practicing psychologist, certified social worker, licensed clinical social worker, licensed social worker, licensed marriage and family therapist, certified psychoanalyst, or a person who performs counseling as part of the person's professional training for any of these professions, shall not engage in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age.

     b.    As used in this section, "sexual orientation change efforts" means the practice of seeking to change a person's sexual persuasion, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward a person of the same gender; except that sexual orientation change efforts shall not include counseling that:

     (1) provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a person or facilitates a person's coping, social support, and identity exploration and development, including sexual persuasion-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and

     (2) does not seek to change sexual persuasion.

     2.    This act shall take effect immediately.

STATEMENT

     This bill prohibits counseling to change the sexual orientation of a minor.

     Under the provisions of the bill, a person who is licensed to provide professional counseling, including, but not limited to, a psychiatrist, licensed practicing psychologist, certified social worker, licensed clinical social worker, licensed social worker, licensed marriage and family therapist, certified psychoanalyst, or a person who performs counseling as part of the person's professional training, is prohibited from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts with a person under 18 years of age.

     The bill defines "sexual orientation change efforts" as the practice of seeking to change a person's sexual persuasion, including, but not limited to, efforts to change behaviors or gender expressions, or to reduce or eliminate sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward a person of the same gender.  The term, however, does not include counseling that: provides acceptance, support, and understanding of a person or facilitates a person's coping, social support, identity exploration and development, including sexual persuasion-neutral interventions to prevent or address unlawful conduct or unsafe sexual practices; and does not seek to change sexual persuasion.

CHRISTIAN INVOLVEMENT IN GOVERNMENT ACTUALLY PROMOTED BY PAUL

EXHORTATION TO LIVE "QUIET LIVES IN ALL GODLINESS AND HOLINESS" OFTEN MISAPPLIED AS AN ADMONITION PROMOTING CHRISTIAN DETACHMENT FROM POSITIONS IN GOVERNMENT

In his first letter to his spiritual son Timothy, the apostle Paul instructs him in 1 Tim. 2:2-3, urging him and those over whom he has influence, to first see to it "that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people…" He then specifically identifies those with governmental authority when he continues by saying, "² for kings and all those in authority…"

Paul goes on to explain why he is requesting that prayers be made for all men as a whole, and this governmental subgroup in particular, when he says, "…that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness." We pray for the well being of our governmental leaders so that they will govern wisely and in such a manner as will allow us to live quiet and peaceful lives. The balance of the passage addresses the act of 'praying for all men and our leadership,' and not to 'living quiet and peaceful lives' when he says, "³This is good, and pleases God our Savior, ⁴who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth."

The implication here is that God is pleased with such prayers because it is His will that all people, including those possessing governmental authority, "be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth." The point being that God wants kings and all those in authority to be part of the kingdom of God, not at all implying that God's people should live lives that are detached from governmental involvement. God's desire is that all people, particularly our governmental leaders, "should be saved" according to the apostle Peter in this passage. 

That being said, it is in fact our lack of participation in the political process - our overwhelming apathy as "the Church" to things happening outside the walls of our respective houses of worship - that has landed us where we are today as a society. In the words of James, "faith without works is [quite] dead."

RESPECTING RELIGION...

Speech at Mayor Healy's Latino/Clergy Leadership Meeting at Hard Grove Café - Delivered on March 26 by Rev. Mario González 

The Constitution of the United States - Article VI, Section 3.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

"AMERICA is an experiment in democracy. For hundreds of years now, people from all over the world have migrated to this country with an ideal about what had come to be known as the American dream.

It was a dream that led us to believe that the whole could be greater than the sum of its parts; that we could find greater strength, by virtue of our diversity. That people possessing different philosophical paradigms could somehow set aside their differences for the common good.

For hundreds of years we have been relatively successful at finding common ground and moving forward because, notwithstanding our differences, we learned to engage each other with due deference, with civility, and with respect.

This forward momentum, and our democratic experiment itself, is now challenged by a contrary ideal. Many now embrace a visceral political philosophy that values the use of ad hominem political strategies – strategies founded on appealing to people's base fears, emotions and prejudices rather than their intellect or reason.

The Bill of Rights places a constraint upon government's involvement in religion in the very first Amendment to the Constitution for a reason - because our founding founders valued the concept of religious liberty as a whole, and respect for the individual's right to practice their religion unencumbered and without having to worry about bearing the stigma of governmental intervention or criticism in particular,

The Fulop campaign now appears to believe that when it comes to conducting a campaign, "all bets are off," as regarding our First Amendment. That they, through a sitting Assemblyman, can explicitly criticize and exploit a candidate's alleged personal religious beliefs for their own political gain; that they can criticize the deeply held beliefs a large number of our constituents, particularly seniors among us with conservative views, with critical immunity. They have made a mistake.

We take this opportunity to thank the mayor for his stand on the First Amendment and the right of all people to worship according to their conscience, and the separation of a person's religion or creed from political discourse. He is to be applauded for taking the high road in this campaign and standing for ALL THE PEOPLE OF JERSEY CITY.

We are here joined together across denominational lines to tell Steve Fulop and his campaign that when it comes to religion, we demand respect across the board. This isn't just about Christians. We speak for all conservative religious groups in saying that this behavior will not be tolerated within political campaigns in our great city. A candidate's religious beliefs, whatever they are, must be respected." 

Standing For Your Rights | A Christian Obligation

A Biblical Legal Analysis of Citizen's Rights

There are two instances in Scripture where the Apostle Paul exercises his rights as a Roman citizen, but he does so for different reasons. He does so in Philippi (Acts 16) to protest to the Government's misuse of power over its citizenry. We must make sure that Government appropriately uses the power with which they have been entrusted. He insists that those who harmed and humiliated him personally address the situation and make amends to him publically (apologize). The second instance is in Jerusalem found in Acts 21. In this case, an issue concerning the Gospel is at stake. He demands his rights be observed so that ultimately God's will for his life could be accomplished, having been told by God that he was to "bear witness in Rome." Demanding justice of our leadership ultimately benefits the people and helps them to reach their divine destiny. By doing so, we often speak for those who do not have a voice.

Background

In Acts 16, and then again in Acts 21-23, we see a part of the apostle Paul that might, at first glance, seem contradictory to the philosophy he espouses in Romans 13 concerning the divine appointment of governmental authority and the Christian's obligation to submit to it.

In these chapters we see Paul exercising his right of provocatio, or 'appeal' as a Roman citizen. This was a right rooted in the Roman right to appeal to the sovereign people, provocatio ad populum. The Lex Iulia de vi codified the rights of cives (Roman citizens – generally members of high Roman society of which Paul was a part) as opposed to the very limited rights of the perergrinus (the ordinary provincial). The Lex Iulia protected the Roman citizen who invoked the right of provocatio from "from summary punishment, execution or torture without trial, from private or public arrest, and from actual trial by magistrates outside Italy. They (the provisions of the law) are to be understood in connection with the ordo system, which had been created for the protection of Roman citizens - a method of trial by jury at Rome for statutory offences."

When Paul and Silas were dragged in before the magistrates in Acts 16, the procedure followed initially comported with that expected for "extra ordinem" charges by a party with standing. However, the magistrates departed from legal procedure when they ordered Paul and Silas to be flogged and thrown in jail, in direct violation of their rights as cives Romani. God of course miraculously intervened and dramatically set them free that evening, after which it could be said that they voluntarily submitted to their illegal detention. After discovering their incompetence and gross error the following morning, the magistrates sent word that Paul and Silas should immediately be set free. Paul, however, refused to leave demanding instead that the magistrates themselves come to get them, apologize, and personally escort them out of jail for all to see. He made it a point to publicly display his indignation over the fact that he, a Roman citizen, had been so mistreated by "government officials" who had abused their sacred trust (power - Romans 13) in violation of his rights.

There are many amongst us for whom we act as surrogates - legal residents as well as undocumented people groups. We are their only voice. Standing for the rights of the people in the face of governmental abuse and neglect is not only correct biblically, it is arguably our Christian duty.