On August 19, 2013, FoxNews.com, reported NJ Gov. Christie signs ban on controversial gay conversion therapy. That bill that the governor signed “bars licensed therapists from trying to turn gay teenagers straight, though the Republican said in a statement he did so ‘reluctantly.’”

 

 

Why he did so “reluctantly” was initially puzzlement to me.

 

 

The reason I say that is because he gave several excellent reasons for banning gay conversion therapy, the main one being that it rarely, if ever works. A statement which I agree is true, since, as a licensed clinical psychologist who has treated adult clients who have tried to change their sexual orientation, two being gay, and one being a lesbian, I was unsuccessful in being able to help them change to a heterosexual life style.

 

 

When the governor signed the bill banning gay conversion therapy from being practiced in his state, Fox news reported, he “reiterated his belief that people are born gay and homosexuality is not a sin, a position he first stated in a 2011 interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan.” Fox news added: “That view is inconsistent with his Catholic faith, which teaches that homosexual acts are sins.”

 

 

Actually, the governor’s view is not inconsistent with his Catholic faith, because that faith describes that homosexual acts are sinful, while homosexuality in and of itself is not immoral. How in the world can you be gay or a lesbian and not express your love for the other partner in a manner consistent with your sexual orientation? The only way I feel that’s possible is if you feel you need not involve sexual acts in your love making.

 

 

My thinking was his statement that he “reluctantly “signed the banning the gay conversion bill was disingenuous because he didn’t want to offend his Republican conservative base. I feel that way because he gave several solid reasons for signing the bill. After all, Fox news reports that Gov. Christie said, “‘…on issues of medical treatment for children we must look to experts in the field to determine  the relative risks and rewards, citing a litany of potential ill effects of trying to change sexual orientation , including depression, drug abuse and suicide.’”

 

 

Fox news also speculates that the banning of the controversial gay conversion therapy decision “…marks the third time this month that Christie has staked out a moderate position on a hot-button social issue as he seeks a second term in a ‘Democratic-leaning state.’”

 

 

I certainly now understand how the saying, “Politics make strange bedfellows” came to being.

 

 

I would imagine another one of the three times this month that the governor violated his tacit pledge ‘to follow the Republican conservative red brick road’ was when, this past week, as Fox news reports, “…Christie vetoed a bill banning .50-caliber rifles that was vigorously opposed by firearms rights advocates and gutted a proposed overhaul of the state’s gun permit law that relied on undeveloped technology. Recently, he signed 10 less-significant gun measures the Democrat-led Legislature passed after last year’s deadly school shooting rampage in Newtown, Conn.”

 

 

Fox news reports that Gov. Christie cites “compassion for the needs of children and families” (italics mine) that caused him to do what I just mentioned.  I would describe that behavior as being so uncharacteristic of a Republican to do. I say that since I see the Republican Party rarely, if ever, showing “compassion” for any human being when talking about party politics. So kudos should be extended to the Governor for recognizing the importance that compassion should play in all politicians’ life. Let’s hope it was for the right reasons, rather than what I fear is really the case where the governor did what he did to court the Democratic vote in the year 2014.

 

 

In both my two published political books, The Impotent Giant: How to Reclaim the Moral High Ground of America’s Politics and What Would Our Founding Fathers Say?: How Today’s Leaders Have Lost Their Way, I talk at length how important it is for politicians to be compassionate and consider that side of their personality as well, whenever they make any political decisions.

 

 

Washington, like Lincoln, was a very compassionate man. However, Lincoln was the most empathetic, hence, compassionate president we’ve ever had. There’s little question in my mind that whenever he made any kind of executive decision, he not only considered what was in his head, but also his heart as well.