The idea popped up first in California, where it was turned into a law, and then in New Jersey, where it also became law. Now other states are jumping on the bandwagon. Maryland, for example. The Maryland legislature is considering a bill to prohibit “sexual orientation change efforts” by mental health professionals applied to young persons. House Bill 91 would make it “unprofessional conduct,” a matter for disciplinary action, for a mental health care professional to counsel a young person about his or her sexual orientation and questions about sexuality–except to facilitate, provide acceptance toward, and support the questioning, with no effort to “eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attraction or feeling toward individuals of the same sex.” A counselor’s therapy and support is OK, as long as it isn’t oriented toward heterosexual feelings and conduct. But help the young person deal with questions and confusion where the outcome is turning away from gay conduct–that may be an unlawful act that results in the revocation of a license to counsel.

Oh, it wouldn’t be illegal (unless the bill is changed) for a counselor to “recommend” sexual orientation change efforts–without actually helping the youth–or to refer the patient to “unlicensed individuals, such as religious leaders.” That’s a bow to free speech and religious freedom–but what happened to the duty of professionals to exercise their best, ethically grounded, judgment-and not simply follow the majority of their professional association or the dictates of lawmakers? These are difficult matters, without a doubt, and much harm has been and can be caused by misguided efforts. But is it so crystal clear to everyone (patients as well as therapists) what in every case counts as a misguided effort?

Gabe Lyons of q ideas last year wrote a column for CNN’s Belief Blog arguing for diversity and religious freedom in this contentious and complex matter. “If someone is distressed over his or her sexuality, they deserve the opportunity to explore the distress in a safe, well-resourced space. It is up to the individual and the therapist to gauge how that process will best happen.”

As former IRFA intern David Hamilton remarked, “Each person should have the opportunity to seek guidance that aligns with his or her preferred framework. For some, this is a faith-based framework, and for others it is not. Rather than outlaw the frameworks we disagree with, we should allow the various groups the freedom to seek out counselors that fit their respective ideologies. Indeed, this is what it means to live in a diverse society.

“Counselors cannot be expected to maintain their integrity when the government mandates that they check their faith and beliefs at the door. For any counselor, regardless of their faith convictions, healing is a major goal. However, healing defined by a Christian therapist will look different than healing for an atheist therapist. Asking counselors to ignore such differences would not only violate the counselors’ freedom of religion, but it would further burden individuals of faith who are seeking answers on how to faithfully follow their religion.”