FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., May 14, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

Study: Divorce, unwed births cost
Mich. taxpayers $1.5 billion a year

Family group backs bill to change state divorce law

LANSING, Mich. — High rates of divorce and children born out of wedlock cost Michigan taxpayers over $1.5 billion in public expenditures for government services each year, a new nationwide study found, making the need for public policies that promote getting and staying married not just a social or moral issue but a matter of dollars and cents, a statewide family values group said Wednesday.

The American Family Association of Michigan Wednesday forwarded to Gov. Jennifer Granholm and legislative leaders the results of first-ever research that calculated a minimum $112 billion annual cost to taxpayers nationwide resulting from high rates of divorce and unmarried childbearing. The landmark study — “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All 50 States” — was released last month at the National Press Club by two national family policy and research groups, the Institute for American Values and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.

Full study and background information: http://www.americanvalues.org/html/coff_mediaadvisory.htm
Executive summary: http://www.americanvalues.org/coff/executive_summary.pdf

“This study documents that divorce and unwed childbearing, which everyone knows are bad for children, are also costing Michigan taxpayers billions of dollars,” wrote AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn. “Even a small improvement in the health of marriages in Michigan would result in an enormous savings to taxpayers. Stronger families and fewer family breakups mean less crime, less poverty, and less reliance on costly government programs and social services.”

Glenn said an example of a public policy change that would reduce taxpayer costs due to marriage dissolution is bipartisan legislation introduced by Rep. Fulton Sheen, R-Allegan, Rep. Joel Sheltrown, D-West Branch, and twelve other lawmakers that would only allow divorce in Michigan if a couple is childless or if adultery, abandonment, or spousal or child abuse is involved. (House Bill 5761: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billintroduced/House/htm/2008-HIB-5761.htm)

Such legislation would help save taxpayers money by making it more difficult to break up a marriage when children are involved, Glenn said, pointing to the new study’s finding that of the 1.3 million households in Michigan living in poverty, 57 percent are comprised of households headed by a single or divorced female.

To calculate the fiscal impact of divorce and unwed child-bearing, the study projected that if all of those currently single or divorced females were to marry, a conservative estimate of at least 60 percent of them would see their family’s standard of living rise above the poverty level, reducing the total number of Michigan households living in poverty by 34 percent and saving Michigan taxpayers over $1.5 billion annually. (See state-by-state tables on pages 36 and 38 of the study.)

Dr. Ben Scafidi, Ph.D., economics professor at Georgia College & State University and the study’s principal investigator, said the costs were calculated on the basis of “increased taxpayer expenditures for anti-poverty, criminal justice and education programs, and through lower levels of taxes paid by individuals whose adult productivity has been negatively affected by increased childhood poverty caused by family fragmentation.”

“Prior research shows that marriage lifts single mothers out of poverty and therefore reduces the need for costly social benefits,” Scafidi said. “This new report shows that public concern about the decline of marriage need not be based only on ‘moral’ concerns, but that reducing high taxpayer costs of family fragmentation is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers and legislators, as well as community reformers and faith communities.”

The study’s findings were vetted by scholars and economists including faculty from the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University, Morehouse College, Kennesaw State University, Mercer University, the University of Virginia, the Brookings Institution, the Urban Institute, and the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee. http://www.americanvalues.org/coff/advisors.pdf

Glenn said Michigan avoided even higher costs to taxpayers associated with the potential decline of marriage when voters in 2004 approved a Marriage Protection Amendment to the state constitution reaffirming the state’s legal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

He noted a commentary by Harvard constitutional law professor Mary Ann Glendon, writing in the Wall Street Journal, who wrote that “the Canadian government, which is considering same-sex marriage legislation, has just realized that retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost its taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.” http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004735

He also pointed to researchers who believe that public policy decisions in Europe redefining marriage to include homosexual couples and group marriage, thus diluting society’s commitment to marriage as the social ideal for raising children and breaking the traditional connection between marriage and child-bearing has contributed to a dramatic decline in the marriage rate and a dramatic increase in the percentage of children born out of wedlock. Both are major factors, the new study found, in increasing the tax burden for government services.

“Dutch Debate”: http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp

“The End of Marriage in Scandinavia”: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

“No Nordic Bliss”: http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602280810.asp

“Zombie Killers”: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTU4NDEzNTY5ODNmOWU4M2Y1MGIwMTcyODdjZGQxOTk=

###

“The people of Michigan have constitutionally protected marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman, period, and that includes prohibiting the recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including offering spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees,” said Gary Glenn, one of the co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment and head of the American Family Association of Michigan.

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY
Denver, Colorado
May 8, 2008

Michigan court rules that marriage law
bans same-sex partnership benefits

Lansing, Mich. (CNA) — The Michigan General Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages also blocks Michigan governments and state universities from offering “domestic partnership” benefits for homosexual couples.

The Marriage Protection Amendment was approved by nearly sixty percent of voters in 2004. Considered the broadest of the 11 state marriage amendments barring same-sex marriage, the language of the Michigan amendment says “…the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”

The Michigan ACLU, representing the AFL-CIO homosexual activist group National Pride at Work, had challenged the application of the law as based in Attorney General Mike Cox’s interpretation of the amendment.

The Michigan court’s 5-2 decision did not rule on whether government employment benefits can be offered to homosexual partners on some broader basis also available to other employees. Some local governments and universities have attempted to maintain present benefits by amending the eligibility requirements.

“The people of Michigan have constitutionally protected marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman, period, and that includes prohibiting the recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including offering spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees,” said Gary Glenn, one of the co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment and head of the American Family Association of Michigan.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, praised the decision, saying, “The Michigan Supreme Court courageously upheld the will of the people.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12591

“Gay rights advocates said the (Michigan Supreme Court) ruling is devastating but also are confident that public-sector employers have successfully rewritten or will revise their benefit plans so same-sex partners can keep getting health care. …

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said last year that he didn’t anticipate further suits on the issue. But he said Wednesday: ‘You never say never.’ Glenn, who co-wrote the (Marriage Protection Amendment), said the legality of the new policies depends on whether they’re written broadly enough to cover many other unmarried employees.”

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Lansing, Michigan
May 7, 2008

Michigan high court says gay
partners can’t get health benefits

by David Eggert
The Associated Press

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a voter-approved ban against gay marriage also prevents governments and state universities from recognizing domestic partnerships to provide health insurance to the partners of gay workers.

The 5-2 decision affects up to 20 universities, community colleges, school districts and governments in Michigan with policies covering at least 375 gay couples.

Gay rights advocates said the ruling is devastating but also are confident that public-sector employers have successfully rewritten or will revise their benefit plans so same-sex partners can keep getting health care.

The constitutional amendment, which passed 59 percent to 41 percent in November 2004, says the union between a man and woman is the only agreement recognized as a marriage “or similar union for any purpose.”

The majority ruled that while marriages and domestic partnerships aren’t identical, they are similar because they’re the only relationships in Michigan defined in terms of gender and lack of a close blood connection. Voters “hardly could have made their intentions clearer,” Justice Stephen Markman wrote, citing the law’s “for any purpose” language.

He was joined by Chief Justice Clifford Taylor and Justices Maura Corrigan, Elizabeth Weaver and Robert Young Jr.

Dissenting Justices Marilyn Kelly and Michael Cavanagh countered that statements made by backers of the measure before the election suggest they only intended to prohibit gay marriage, not take away employment benefits. The dissent also noted that gay partners who qualify for health care aren’t given other benefits of marriage — equal rights to property, for instance.

“It is an odd notion to find that a union that shares only one of the hundreds of benefits that a marriage provides is a union similar to marriage,” Kelly wrote.

The ruling is believed to be one of the first from a state high court interpreting the scope of measures barring gay marriage. Alaska courts went the other way, ruling that it’s unconstitutional to deny benefits. Ohio courts found that domestic violence laws don’t conflict with a ban on gay marriage.

But numerous states have yet to grapple with how their gay marriage bans apply to same-sex partner benefits.

At least 27 states have passed constitutional bans, mostly since 2004 in response to gay marriages being performed in Massachusetts. At least 18 of those states, including Michigan, have broader amendments that also prohibit the recognition of civil unions or same-sex partnerships.

“It’s a sad day in Michigan when we decide which children and which families are valuable enough to cover,” said Tom Patrick, 50, who gets health insurance through his partner, Dennis Patrick, a professor at Eastern Michigan University. The couple from Washtenaw County’s Superior Township has adopted four children and has a foster child, one with a developmental disability. Tom Patrick works part-time to care for the kids and said it would hurt the family to have to pay for his benefits out of pocket.

The Patricks joined 20 other gay couples and filed a lawsuit in 2005 when Republican Attorney General Mike Cox interpreted Michigan’s measure as making unconstitutional same-sex benefits at the city of Kalamazoo and elsewhere.

Sixteen plaintiffs worked for employers who offered same-sex benefits. Another five were employed by the state, which in 2004 agreed to start providing same-sex benefits but delayed them until courts could clear up their legality. Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s administration is reviewing the ruling.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which represented the couples, called the decision “flawed and unfortunate.” It pledged to work with public employers to write “neutral” policies ensuring employees’ partners don’t lose health coverage, but also expressed uneasiness and warned that gays will have to go through more hoops.

New policies no longer acknowledge domestic partnerships but make sure “other qualified adults,” including gay partners, are eligible for medical and dental care. The adults have to live together for a certain amount of time, be unmarried, share finances and be unrelated.

“The university believes all current benefit offerings are in full compliance with Michigan law,” University of Michigan spokeswoman Kelly Cunningham said.

It remains to be seen whether the revised policies will be challenged in court.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said last year that he didn’t anticipate further suits on the issue. But he said Wednesday: “You never say never.”

Glenn, who co-wrote the 2004 measure, said the legality of the new policies depends on whether they’re written broadly enough to cover many other unmarried employees.

The ACLU is weighing whether a federal lawsuit is warranted, while Cox applauded the decision.

The dissent argued that the ballot committee sponsoring the gay marriage ban consistently assured voters that the initiative was only about protecting marriage.

But the majority said other supporters and even opponents of the amendment said ahead of time that benefits would be prohibited by the amendment.

“The role of this Court is not to determine who said what about the amendment before it was ratified, or to speculate about how these statements may have influenced voters,” Markman wrote. “Instead, our responsibility is, as it has always been in matters of constitutional interpretation, to determine the meaning of the amendment’s actual language.”

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/news-53/121017504644810.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., May 7, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

5-to-2 ruling validates Cox, marriage amendment supporters

Michigan Supreme Court upholds constitutional ban on govt. recognition of homosexual relationships “for any purpose,” including employment benefits

LANSING, Mich. — The Michigan Supreme Court Wednesday ruled that under a Marriage Protection Amendment approved by Michigan voters in 2004, government employers cannot recognize homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including for the purpose of offering spousal-type employment benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees.

The Court did not rule on whether government employment benefits can be offered to homosexual partners on some broader basis also available to other employees, which some local governments and universities — in anticipation of the court’s ruling — have attempted by amending the eligibility requirements for such benefits.

The decision validates the views of amendment supporters and Attorney General Mike Cox, whose interpretations of the amendment and its effects was challenged by the Michigan ACLU, representing the national AFL-CIO’s in-house homosexual activist group, National Pride at Work. www.PrideatWork.org

Gary Glenn, one of two co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment, who as president of the American Family Association of Michigan first proposed such an amendment in June 2003 following an Ontario court decision legalizing homosexual “marriage,” welcomed the court’s 5-to-2 decision.

“The Michigan Supreme Court has made clear that universities and state and local governments are not above the law and cannot choose to simply ignore a vote by the people of Michigan,” Glenn said. “The people of Michigan have constitutionally protected marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman, period, and that includes prohibiting the recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including offering spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees.”

Glenn said the issue of employment benefits itself was not before the court, citing the court’s clear statement when it wrote that “the only pertinent question (before the court) is whether the public employer is recognizing a domestic partnership as a union similar to marriage for any purpose.” (Bottom of page 13: http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/11-07/133429/133429-Opinion.pdf)

“When public employers provide domestic partners health-insurance benefits on the basis of the domestic partnership, they are without a doubt recognizing the partnership,” the court ruled. (page 21: http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/11-07/133429/133429-Opinion.pdf)

It is government recognition of such relationships which the Marriage Protection Amendment prohibits, not the benefits themselves, Glenn said.

He said the high court’s ruling “validates 100 percent and in full our interpretation of the Marriage Protection Amendment and its intended effects, which AFA-Michigan has clearly and consistently maintained throughout the 2004 election and over three years of court proceedings that followed. The decision three times in its 34-page decision cited or quoted directly from a legal brief submitted to the court by AFA-Michigan, he noted.

Glenn also noted that in the wake of last year’s Court of Appeals decision on the amendment, upheld Wednesday by the state Supreme Court, “even opponents of the amendment have been forced to admit that AFA-Michigan’s interpretation of its effects has been right all along.”

Homosexual activists and the Michigan ACLU argued during the 2004 campaign that the amendment would prohibit government employee benefits based on government recognition of homosexual relationships; then, after losing the election, the same groups argued in court that the amendment did not prohibit such benefits. Then, after the Court of Appeals decision last year, they reversed course again.

Attorney Jay Kaplan of the Michigan ACLU last June told Lansing City Pulse: “‘The Michigan Court of Appeals decision never said that public employers could not provide health care coverage to domestic partners of employees,’ Kaplan wrote in an e-mail. He said that employers can provide health insurance coverage for domestic partners as long as they do not specifically recognize the domestic partner relationship — by filing domestic partner benefit forms, for example — when determining criteria for insurance eligibility.” http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1133&Itemid=2

Between the Lines, a homosexual activist newsweekly in Detroit, reported: “(ACLU-Michigan lawyer Jay) Kaplan says that even under the Appeals Court ruling, benefits can be offered, but they have to be done in a way which does not recognize same-sex partners or relationships.” http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=25497

Kalamazoo Alliance for Equality, a homosexual activist group, said last June in a news release: “The Michigan Court of Appeals did not say that health insurance coverage for domestic partners is illegal. The court said that public employers cannot use criteria that recognizes the domestic partner relationship.” http://www.tri.org/docs/Kzoodprallies.doc

In order to be constitutional, the Court of Appeals had ruled, the eligibility criteria for benefits must be broad-based, not based specifically on singling out and recognizing homosexual partnerships for special treatment as if they are equal or similar to marriage between a man and a woman.

As a result, the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and other public employers in the state have expanded the eligibility criteria of their benefit plans so as not to unconstitutionally offer benefits based on exclusively recognizing and benefiting homosexual relationships as if they’re equal or similar to marriage. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/15/benefits

“The irony is that despite all the manufactured outrage and falsehoods from homosexual activists and their newspaper editorial board allies over the last three years, the direct result of the changes required by the Marriage Protection Amendment is that more not fewer Michigan citizens are today eligible for coverage under health insurance plans offered by government employers,” Glenn said.

During the 2004 campaign, the campaign committee opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment praised Glenn and AFA-Michigan for openly acknowledging the effect the amendment would have regarding benefits based on government recognition of homosexual partnerships:

“The Coalition for a Fair Michigan said today that they were happy to find common ground with the Michigan affiliate of the American Family Association, one of the lead proponents of the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban legal recognition of any relationships other than opposite-sex marriage. Last night, at a forum on the amendment…both sides agreed that the amendment would go much further than defining marriage by also eliminating any government-sanctioned domestic partnership benefits. ‘I’m glad we could find common ground with the AFA, and I want to thank Gary Glenn for his willingness to be upfront on this point,’ said Wendy Howell, Campaign Manager for CFM.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20040920142248/www.coalitionforafairmichigan.org/6_24.htm

Dear AFA-Michigan supporter,

Here’s additional testimony to AFA-Michigan’s effectiveness in providing a voice for traditional family values in the mainstream news media. Earlker this week, we issued a news release which resulted in the following story broadcast by and appearing on the website of WNEM-TV Channel 5 in Saginaw.

One of the most telling measures of AFA-Michigan’s effectiveness is how professional homosexual activists react when they realize their propaganda message no longer enjoys a monopoly in mainstream media news coverage. Please note immediately following the WNEM-TV story below a commentary written by Sean Kosofsky of the homosexual activist group Triangle Foundation, posted today on his online blog. At the end, Kosofsky urges homosexual acitivists to contact WNEM-TV to protest their factually accurate coverage.

As always, thank you for your continued support, which makes all that we do possible!

Gary Glenn, President
American Family Association of Michigan
www.AFAMichigan.org

WNEM-TV
Saginaw, Michigan
April 24, 2008

“Day Of Silence” has parents, group upset

American Family Association of Michigan
urging parents to keep kids home from school

SAGINAW, Mich. — A statewide family values organization is urging parents to keep their children home from school if their school is among those planning to allow a national homosexual activist group’s scheduled protest Friday to protest the treatment of gay teens.

Earlier this week, TV-5 broke the story of how students across Michigan, including Clare High School, are planning Friday to protest bullying, especially when it comes against kids leading alternative lifestyles.

Participating students will not talk or participate in class discussions during the school day.

The American Family Association of Michigan, which proposed and co-authored a Marriage Protection Amendment approved by voters in 2004, said its national affiliate has contacted tens of thousands of parents and grandparents statewide, urging them to “stage a protest of their own, using their public school tax dollars,” association President Gary Glenn said Wednesday.

“Many parents and grandparents are displeased that their local school is being used by a national homosexual activist group to stage a protest promoting and enabling sexual activity that poses a severe threat to children’s health,” Glenn said.

“If school officials are willing to allow the normal education process to be disrupted for the sake of promoting immoral and unhealthy behavior, one way parents can express their displeasure is by refusing to expose their children to that message.”

For more information on the two organizations promoting the event and boycotting it, visit GLSEN and AFA.

Mission America, a national organization that monitors homosexual activists’ activities in public schools, including the so-called “Day of Silence,” lists the following schools in Michigan that are reported by GLSEN or other sources to be sponsoring or supporting the protest or allowing students to refuse to participate in normal classroom activities:

ACADEMY OF FLINT
ARTS ACADEMY IN THE WOODS
ATHENS HIGH SCHOOL
BATH HIGH SCHOOL
BERKLEY HIGH SCHOOL
BLACK RIVER HIGH SCHOOL
BLOOMFIELD HILLS ANDOVER HIGH SCHOOL
CANTON HIGH SCHOOL
CESAR CHAVEZ ACADEMY
CITY MIDDLE/HIGH SCHOOL
CLARE HIGH SCHOOL
COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL
CRANBROOK KINGSWOOD SCHOOL
CRESTON HIGH SCHOOL
DEWITT HIGH SCHOOL
DEXTER HIGH SCHOOL
EAST GRAND RAPIDS HIGH SCHOOL
EAST KENTWOOD HIGH SCHOOL
EAST LANSING HIGH SCHOOL
EASTERN HIGH SCHOOL
EVERETT HIGH SCHOOL
FARMINGTON HIGH SCHOOL
FRUITPORT HIGH SCHOOL
GREENHILLS SCHOOL
GREENVILLE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
GROSSE POINTE SOUTH HIGH SCHOOL
GULL LAKE HIGH SCHOOL
WYLIE E.GROVES HIGH SCHOOL
HASLETT HIGH SCHOOL
HAZEL PARK HIGH SCHOOL
HOLLAND HIGH SCHOOL
HURON HIGH SCHOOL –Ann Arbor
INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY
JACKSON HIGH SCHOOL
KALAMAZOO CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL
KENOWA HILLS HIGH SCHOOL
KELLOGGSVILLE HIGH SCHOOL
LAKEVIEW HIGH SCHOOL–Battle Creek
L’ANSE CREUSE HIGH SCHOOL
LANSING SEXTON HIGH SCHOOL
LAPEER WEST SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
LOY NORRIX HIGH SCHOOL
MATTAWAN HIGH SCHOOL
MONA SHORES HIGH SCHOOL
NORTH FARMINGTON HIGH SCHOOL
OAK PARK HIGH SCHOOL
OKEMOS HIGH SCHOOL
PINCKNEY COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL
PIONEER HIGH SCHOOL
PLAINWELL HIGH SCHOOL
PLYMOUTH HIGH SCHOOL
RIVER ROUGE HIGH SCHOOL
THE ROEPER CITY AND COUNTRY UPPER SCHOOL
ROGERS HIGH SCHOOL
ROYAL OAK HIGH SCHOOL
SALEM HIGH SCHOOL
SALINE HIGH SCHOOL
TAWAS AREA HIGH SCHOOL
WEST OTTAWA HIGH SCHOOL
WYOMING PARK HIGH SCHOOL

————————————————–

BLOG O’ QUEER
Detroit, Michigan
April 25, 2008

Horrible coverage of Day of Silence in Michigan

by Sean Kosofsky, Director of Policy
The Triangle Foundation

WNEM has run one of the worst stories I have seen in recent years on LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender) issues by using insensitive and inflammatory terms to cover the Day of Silence today..

First, the headline is pure AFA propaganda. Then referring to the AFA as a “family values” organization is a flat out lie. Then they referred to gays and lesbians as living an “alternative lifestyle” and referred (to) us as “homosexuals.” They also keep referring to DOS as a protest, as if there will demonstrations occurring in schools. The AFA lies in the piece by saying they have contacted tens of thousands of parents in MI. They have no such list in MI. If they mean they are reaching parents through the meda (sic).

They also ran no response to Gary Glenn of the AFA. It is completely biased coverage. They basically ran the press release of AFA.

Contact them at:

WNEM-TV
Building C, Suite D
55409 Gateway Centre
Flint, MI 48507
Phone: 810-232-3900
Newsroom: 810-234-5607
Email Ian Rubin
ian.rubin@wnem.com

AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn testified before the Royal Oak City Commission, urging commissioners to protect families and children by blocking Internet access to pornographic material on the city library’s computers. The issue arose after a man was arrested at the Royal Oak Public Library in February for using a library computer to access child pornography. The city commission then heard testimony from a library board member and library director before unanimously approving a resolution instructing the library to block Internet porn access. The library board is still dragging its feet, and AFA-Michigan is urging commissioners to adopt an ordinance or city charter amendment requiring Internet pornography filters.

(Fast forward to 24:30 of the video for Glenn’s six-minute testimony, and to 34:08 for an additional hour and fifteen minutes of further testimony and discussion on the issue.)

MICHIGAN INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICE
The State Capitol
Lansing, Michigan
April 1, 2008

Senators: AFA-Michigan not bullying on bills

The American Family Association of Michigan (AFAM) is crowing that two GOP senators have yanked their sponsorship of anti-bullying legislation, issuing joint press releases with Sens. Randy Richardville (R-Monroe) and Valde Garcia (R-Howell).

HB 4162 and HB 4091 passed the lower chamber last year and have been sitting in the Senate Education Committee ever since, but a Capitol rally last week brought the bills back to the forefront. There’s also SB 107 sponsored by Sen. Glenn Anderson (D-Westland), but proponents say they’re focused on the House bills.

AFAM blasted a lobby day event put on by the Safe Schools Coalition on Wednesday pushing “Matt’s Safe School Law,” named after Matt Epling, an East Lansing eighth-grader who took his own life in 2002 after severe hazing incidents.

School districts would have six months to adopt an anti-bullying policy or face potential future action by the Legislature (”Bullying Bills Primed For Movement,” 3/13/07).

AFAM President Gary Glenn blasts the legislation as promoting the “homosexual agenda” by including gender identity and homosexuality as personal characteristics a person could not be bullied for. But Sean Kosofsky, policy director for the gay rights group the Triangle Foundation, said the House bills don’t have a list of protected groups.

In an e-mailed release Wednesday morning, Glenn accused the Triangle Foundation of instituting a dress code for the lobby day, which attracted more than 100 people, including Michigan State Police Director Peter Munoz.

Glenn unleashed a response that raised the ire of the Triangle Foundation: “In the sad reality of enabling emotional trauma and delusion that comprises their stock in trade,” Glenn said, “it is not a joking matter to wonder if the Triangle Foundation’s wardrobe instructions will further traumatize or inhibit the emotionally disturbed men who claim they’re really women, who had every serious intent of wearing a dress to the state Capitol and using the women’s restrooms while they’re there. Is the Triangle Foundation asking ‘lobbying day’ participants to go back into the closet for mere political expedience?”

Kosofsky retorted: “There’s no dress code for our lobby day. We’ve had people with Mohawks and people in jeans and T-shirts. It’s come as you are. …This is the politics of distraction. That’s why they bring up cross-dressing and women’s restrooms. … The AFAM isn’t a pro-family organization. They’re a hate group.”

AFAM issued a press release announcing Garcia had dropped his support for SB 0107 four hours later on Wednesday. A similar release with Richardville followed on Friday. But the senators stress AFAM didn’t bully them into retracting their support.

“The AFAM had concerns, but they didn’t pressure me to change my mind,” Garcia said. “They’re just now getting involved…I always had concerns.”

“That’s not the reason I do things,” Richardville told MIRS. Anderson concurred that he didn’t believe his colleagues had caved to AFAM, saying he held them both in “high regard.”

Garcia said he became more aware of problems with the bill after he signed on last year. Furthermore, he points out neither have technically withdrawn their names because that can’t happen until legislation comes before the Senate. Anderson said Garcia had told him of his decision. He stressed they’re “still in the process of working out differences.”

Kosofsky said it’s moot. The focus is on getting the House bills passed, which have more updated language than Anderson’s bill. He described Garcia’s and Richardville’s actions as “disheartening,” but felt confident they’d sign on to the final legislation.

“Gary Glenn is manufacturing dissent where there’s not any,” he said.

Garcia and Richardville said they were concerned about bullying as a problem, but did not want to protect specific classes of people based on sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. It’s the same argument used against hate crime legislation — a crime’s a crime, so it’s no different to attack someone even if race, for instance, is a motivating factor.

Richardville notes sexual orientation is included, but factors like “physical size, what part of the city kids live in and what their clothes look like” are not. He would like to see a more general anti-bullying bill. “Everyone should be protected,” Richardville said, “not just certain classes.”

Garcia agrees that “inadvertently, you leave something out, someone out.”
Glenn calls the legislation a “Trojan horse.”

“(It) would have no real effect on bullying but is being backed by homosexual activist groups who hope to use legitimate public concern about student safety as a ruse to establish — for the first time ever, anywhere in Michigan law — special ‘protected class’ status based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing,” Glenn claims.

Richardville said he’s not interested in championing anyone’s “agenda.”

Anderson said he’s received several e-mails from people “who don’t believe some people should be protected. I believe all children should. (Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) students should not be in fear.”

He also said AFAM is using the bill as a fundraiser and to motivate its base. He said it’s “fanning bigotry across the state, anxiety across the state.”

“Unfortunately, we’re talking about school kids here,” Anderson said. “It’s difficult to express how I feel about someone using that to raise money when not all children are afforded a safe environment to learn.”

Richardville said he doesn’t doubt that gay students — and those perceived as gay — face bullying at school.

“I don’t espouse that lifestyle, but there are students figuring those things out. I just don’t think we should spell things out (in legislation),” Richardville said. “That’s not my agenda item.”

He condemns “radical” groups that use hate speech, like the Kansas Westboro Baptist Church’s “God hates fags” campaign. Richardville said he views issues through a Christian lens in which you “love the sinner, but hate the sin.”

Richardville said after talking with Education Chair Wayne Kuipers (R-Holland), he believes taking out the specific groups will make it easier to pass the bill. Anderson said he’s willing to compromise and remains optimistic.

“If you try to get everything, you won’t get everything,” Richardville said.

http://www.mirsnews.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Fri., March 28, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978
Sen. Randy Richardville 517-373-3543

Richardville: “I will in no way support” bills as written

Trojan Horse “bullying”
bill loses 2nd GOP sponsor

Further blow to bill following homosexual activists’ “lobbying day”

LANSING — Two days after homosexual activist groups gathered at the state Capitol to pressure lawmakers to support a bill purported to protect public school students from bullying, a second Republican state senator who originally co-sponsored the legislation announced that he no longer supports the bill and would vote against it as written.

SB 107 original co-sponsors: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(nytpn2a1d2sgbqmxjpp1ti55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2007-SB-0107

Sen. Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, one of only four Republicans listed among twenty co-sponsors of Democratic Sen. Glenn Anderson’s Senate Bill 107, said Friday in an e-mail to the American Family Association of Michigan that while he supports protecting students from bullying, he no longer agrees with the legislation’s segregation of students into special “protected class” categories.

(See full text of Richardville e-mail below)

The loss of a second senator previously on record supporting the legislation came as a blow to the bill’s promoters after over a hundred homosexual activists and their allies gathered at the state Capitol Wednesday for a so-called “Safe Schools Lobbying Day,” specifically intended to pressure more state senators to support the bill. The original list of 20 cosponsors had itself constituted a majority of the 38-member Senate; with the loss of two of those cosponsors, the bill no longer has a sure majority.

Original cosponsor Sen. Valde Garcia, R-Howell, Wednesday was the first to withdraw his support, and AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn, Midland, Friday predicted the bill may lose other original co-sponsors as well, and not just among the two remaining Republicans, Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, and Sen. Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks.

Glenn has characterized the bill as “Trojan Horse” legislation that would have no real effect on bullying but is being backed by homosexual activist groups who hope to use legitimate public concern about student safety as a ruse to establish — for the first time ever, anywhere in Michigan law — special “protected class” status based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.

Richardville, who Thursday evening discussed the legislation with Glenn by phone, Friday wrote that he had originally supported the bill’s approach but has since changed his mind.

“Per our conversation, let me reiterate I will in no way support the current version of Senate Bill 107 or (similar House-passed legislation),” Richardville wrote. “…First, I thought it best to delineate every potential cause of bullying, however I realize by segregating some I diminished the importance of others.”

Glenn noted that Richardville’s change of heart echoed Garcia’s objections to the bill.

“After being told that the goal was to prevent bullying in our public schools, a concept I support, I signed on as a co-sponsor of this legislation,” Garcia wrote Glenn Wednesday. “It was not until after the bill was introduced that I became aware of the exact definition of ‘harassment and bullying’ used in the bill, giving me serious concern about the bill’s intent. Because the bill gave special protection to certain groups of people, I immediately contacted the bill sponsor and told him that I could not support the bill as drafted and urged him to amend the bill so I could support it. …(S)hould this bill come before (the Senate) for consideration with no changes to the current definition of ‘harassment or bullying,’ I will not support the legislation.”

Glenn said the two senators’ experience “is proof of the deceptive nature of this Trojan Horse legislation and the way homosexual activist groups and their Democratic allies have tried to mislead not only state legislators but the general public.”

Glenn said SB 107 as written would require public schools to segregate students into special “protected” class categories, then dole out protection against bullying to students based on their membership in those categories — including, for the first time ever in Michigan law, categories based on “sexual orientation” (homosexual behavior) and “gender identity and expression” (cross-dressing). The precedent of those new segregated categories are the real agenda behind the legislation, he said, proven by the bill’s supporters’ opposition last year to AFA-Michigan-supported language that instead of creating segregated categories would have simply prohibited bullying against all students, no matter what the motivation.

Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Midland, last year attempted to amend the House version of the legislation to strike the language segregating students into “protected class” categories and replace it with language simply and expressly prohibiting all bullying against all students for all reasons. House Democratic leaders refused to even allow a vote on Moolenaar’s amendment, and the legislation passed the House on a largely party-line vote. http://www.gophouse.com/readarticle.asp?id=4231&District=98

The Michigan Association of School Boards has in the past warned school districts against referring to “sexual orientation” in their anti-harassment policies.

As the Oakland Press reported: “Bill Scharffe, director of bylaw and policy services for the Michigan Association of School Boards, advises local districts not to include the term ’sexual orientation’ in their anti-harassment policies. ‘Schools need to be very careful with that,’ he said, noting that neither federal nor state civil rights laws consider people of a particular sexual orientation a protected class. He added that literal interpretation of ’sexual orientation’ could include people who gravitate toward any sort of sexual activity, including that with animals, children and corpses.” http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/031305/edu_20050313006.shtml

Glenn said he has informed lawmakers and supporters of the legislation that if it is amended to protect all students from bullying without creating precedent-setting “protected class” status for the first time based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing, AFA-Michigan will no longer urge lawmakers to oppose it.

He noted however, that some lawmakers and mainstream media have opposed the legislation on a broader basis. The Lansing State Journal and the Grand Rapids Press, for example, have editorially opposed the bills, arguing that public school safety is being competently handled by caring local parents, educators, school boards, and law enforcement personnel without mandates by the state Legislature.

To read the full text of both Sen. Richardville’s and Sen. Garcia’s emails, click on the link below.

(more…)

“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, which is opposed to the measures, said he doesn’t think all 20 of (the bill’s) co-sponsors would vote for the bill if it came to the Senate floor… Much of the controversy regarding the bills hinges on a requirement that, while local school districts would have to have some form of anti-bullying policy, they would be encouraged to adopt a model policy drafted by the state Department of Education (that)…includes protections for students bullied because of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.

Glenn called that provision a ruse to establish ’special “protected class” status based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.’ Advocates were dealt another blow Wednesday when Sen. Valde Garcia, R-Howell, who had originally signed on as a co-sponsor for the bill, said he would not vote for it should it reach the Senate floor.”

LANSING STATE JOURNAL
Lansing, Michigan
March 27, 2008

Anti-bullying bills advocates
“optimistic” at Capitol rally

“Matt’s Safe School Law” stalls

by Derek Wallbank

Concerns over whether anti-bullying legislation would give homosexual and transgendered students protected status appear to have stalled the measure in the state Senate.

The legislation is “Matt’s Safe School Law,” a two-bill package that would require local schools to adopt rules prohibiting bullying.

The bills are named after Matt Epling, an East Lansing teenager who killed himself in 2002 after a school hazing incident.

The bills passed the House in March 2007 and have languished in the Senate Education Committee ever since.

Rallying for support

On Wednesday, Matt’s father, Kevin Epling, and about 150 other anti-bullying activists gathered in the Capitol rotunda to rally support for the law.

“I’m optimistic,” Epling said of the bills’ chances. “I have to be optimistic or I wouldn’t be doing this.”

Twenty of 36 senators have co-sponsored the legislation, enough to pass it by majority vote.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, which is opposed to the measures, said he doesn’t think all 20 of those co-sponsors would vote for the bill if it came to the Senate floor, but said his group isn’t taking any chances.

“The easiest way to make sure this doesn’t pass is to make sure it doesn’t come up for a vote,” Glenn said.

Similar bills have been offered since 1999, though none have been signed into law.

Liz Boyd, spokeswoman for Gov. Jennifer Granholm, said the governor will sign the bill into law if it passes the Senate.

State Superintendent Mike Flanagan said the bill would be especially useful because it would get communities talking about bullying.

“First of all, it gets us out of denial to pretend this isn’t a problem. It is,” Flanagan said.

Committee Chair Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, could not be reached for comment.

Model policy

Much of the controversy regarding the bills hinges on a requirement that, while local school districts would have to have some form of anti-bullying policy, they would be encouraged to adopt a model policy drafted by the state Department of Education.

That policy already exists and it includes protections for students bullied because of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.

Glenn called that provision a ruse to establish “special ‘protected class’ status based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.”

Advocates were dealt another blow Wednesday when Sen. Valde Garcia, R-Howell, who had originally signed on as a co-sponsor for the bill, said he would not vote for it should it reach the Senate floor.

“I want to stop bullying, but I don’t want a laundry list,” Garcia said of the state’s list of protected students.
“Rather than be specific about it, let’s just focus on bullied persons.”

Work will continue

Despite the setback, advocates said they would continue pressing the issue.

“I was kind of told to go home back in 2003,” Epling said, adding that he hopes a bullying bill will pass this year.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080327/NEWS04/803270346/1005/news

Sen. Garcia “will not support” legislation as written

Trojan Horse “bullying”
bill loses GOP co-sponsor

Loss comes as blow to bill on homosexual activists’ “lobbying day”

LANSING — On a day hundreds of homosexual activists gathered at the state Capitol to pressure lawmakers to support a bill purported to protect public school students from bullying, a Republican state senator who originally co-sponsored the legislation Wednesday announced that he no longer supports the bill and will vote against it as written.

SB 107 co-sponsors: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(nytpn2a1d2sgbqmxjpp1ti55))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2007-SB-0107

Sen. Valde Garcia, R-Howell, one of only four Republicans listed among twenty co-sponsors of Democratic Sen. Glenn Anderson’s Senate Bill 107, said Wednesday in an e-mail to the American Family Association of Michigan that while he supports protecting students from bullying, he was not aware of the bill’s specific provisions until after agreeing to co-sponsor it.

(See full text of Garcia e-mail below)

The loss of a senator previously on record supporting the legislation came as a blow to the bill’s supporters on the day hundreds of homosexual activists gathered at the state Capitol for a so-called “Safe Schools Lobbying Day,” specifically intended to pressure more state senators to support the bill.

AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn, Midland, predicted the bill may lose other original co-sponsors as well, and not just among the three remaining Republicans — Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, Sen. Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, and Sen. Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks.

Glenn has characterized the bill as “Trojan Horse” legislation that would have no real effect on bullying but is backed by homosexual activist groups who hope to use legitimate concerns about student safety as a ruse to establish — for the first time ever, anywhere in Michigan law — special “protected class” status based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.

Garcia’s letter proves that even some solidly conservative lawmakers were initially misled, he said.

“After being told that the goal was to prevent bullying in our public schools, a concept I support, I signed on as a co-sponsor of this legislation,” Garcia wrote Glenn. “It was not until after the bill was introduced that I became aware of the exact definition of ‘harassment and bullying’ used in the bill, giving me serious concern about the bill’s intent. Because the bill gave special protection to certain groups of people, I immediately contacted the bill sponsor and told him that I could not support the bill as drafted and urged him to amend the bill so I could support it.”

Garcia concluded that “should this bill come before (the Senate) for consideration with no changes to the current definition of ‘harassment or bullying,’ I will not support the legislation.”

Glenn praised Garcia’s record on family values issues in the Senate and said the GOP lawmaker’s experience “is proof of the deceptive nature of this Trojan Horse legislation and the way homosexual activist groups and their Democratic allies have tried to mislead not only state legislators but the general public.”

Glenn said SB 107 as written would require public schools to segregate students into special “protected” class categories, then dole out protection against bullying to students based on their membership in those categories — including, for the first time ever in Michigan law, categories based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing. The precedent of those new segregated categories are the real agenda behind the legislation, he said, proven by the bill’s supporters’ opposition last year to language that instead of creating segregated categories would have simply prohibited bullying against all students, no matter what the motivation.

Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Midland, last year attempted to amend the House version of the legislation to strike the language segregating students into “protected class” categories and replace it with language simply and expressly prohibiting all bullying against all students for all reasons. House Democratic leaders refused to even allow a vote on Moolenaar’s amendment, and the legislation passed the House on a largely party-line vote. http://www.gophouse.com/readarticle.asp?id=4231&District=98

The Michigan Association of School Boards has in the past warned school districts against referring to “sexual orientation” in their anti-harassment policies. As the Oakland Press reported: “Bill Scharffe, director of bylaw and policy services for the Michigan Association of School Boards, advises local districts not to include the term ’sexual orientation’ in their anti-harassment policies. ‘Schools need to be very careful with that,’ he said, noting that neither federal nor state civil rights laws consider people of a particular sexual orientation a protected class. He added that literal interpretation of ’sexual orientation’ could include people who gravitate toward any sort of sexual activity, including that with animals, children and corpses.” http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/031305/edu_20050313006.shtml

Glenn said he has informed lawmakers and supporters of the legislation that if it is amended to protect all students from bullying without creating precedent-setting “protected class” status for the first time based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing, AFA-Michigan will no longer urge lawmakers to oppose it.

He noted however, that some lawmakers and mainstream media have opposed the legislation on a broader basis. The Lansing State Journal and the Grand Rapids Press, for example, have editorially opposed state-mandated “bullying” bills, arguing that public school safety is being competently handled by caring local parents, educators, school boards, and law enforcement personnel without mandates by the state Legislature.

Click on the link below to read the full text of Sen. Garcia’s email to AFA-MI:

(more…)

Triangle Foundation urges dress code Wed. at Capitol

Homosexual activist groups don’t want to
be “recognized” as homosexual activists

Family group: What don’t they want lawmakers to see?

LANSING — A who’s who of Michigan homosexual activist groups will convene at the state Capitol Wednesday to push legislation that a statewide family values organization calls a Trojan Horse bill only masquerading as protection against bullying in public schools.

The American Family Association of Michigan says the legislation would have no actual effect on student safety, but would set the precedent of creating — for the first time anywhere in Michigan law — special “protected class” status based on so-called “sexual orientation” (homosexual behavior) and “gender identity and expression” (cross-dressing).

“Obviously sensitive to the waning political prospects of their now thoroughly exposed Trojan Horse strategy, homosexual activists apparently hope it might help if they take their masquerade tactic one step further, this time literally so,” said AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn of Midland.

Glenn pointed to the website of the Triangle Foundation, a homosexual activist group based in Detroit. Denying any attempt to “censor who we are,” the Triangle website Tuesday posted an online dress code urging those planning to participate in Wednesday’s “Safe Schools Lobbying Day” not to wear clothing or costumes by which they might be “recognized” or “labeled” as involved in the homosexual lifestyle or cross-dressing.

“What is it that homosexual activists don’t want Michigan lawmakers to see?” Glenn asked.

“In the sad reality of enabling emotional trauma and delusion that comprises their stock in trade,” Glenn said, “it is not a joking matter to wonder if the Triangle Foundation’s wardrobe instructions will further traumatize or inhibit the emotionally disturbed men who claim they’re really women, who had every serious intent of wearing a dress to the state Capitol and using the women’s restrooms while they’re there. Is the Triangle Foundation asking ‘lobbying day’ participants to go back into the closet for mere political expedience?”

According to Triangle’s website, Wednesday’s “lobbying day” is sponsored by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, Michigan Equality (a Lansing “gay rights” group), the Human Rights Campaign (purportedly the largest national “gay rights” group), ACLU-Michigan (which represents “gay rights” groups in court), the American Friends Services Committee’s Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender Issues Program, Affirmations (a “gay and lesbian” community center in Ferndale), the Coalition for Adoption Rights for Everyone (which lobbies for “gay” adoption rights), the National Organization of Women-Michigan, and, of course, the Triangle Foundation.

“All these groups have something obviously in common,” Glenn observed. “But Triangle doesn’t want the people representing all these lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender activist groups to be ‘recognized’ or ‘labeled’ as a lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender activist group.”

The “lobbying day” dress code appeared Tuesday on Triangle’s website as follows:

“Due to the importance and sensitivity of this day, we ask that those planning to attend reflect their views and opinions in their dialogs (sic) with individuals and not with their attire. Items that may be a sign of your status as Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender or ally could distract from the message of the day. This legislation is for safe schools for all students, including those in our community. Lansing should recognize us as equal residents and not label us as Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender. We hope that you understand our request and accept that this is not an attempt to censor who we are, but to allow us to be seen as concerned citizens first.” http://www.tri.org/ssld.html

“Homosexual activists are trying to disguise who they are,” Glenn said, “just as they’re trying to disguise the real agenda behind this Trojan Horse ‘bullying’ legislation.”

“Since homosexual activists and their political allies oppose language that would simply protect all children from all bullying for all reasons, it’s clear that their real agenda is to use legitimate concern over student safety to sneak special rights based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing into Michigan law for the first time,” he said. “And then to use that as a precedent to add special rights and protected status based on that unhealthy behavior to Michigan’s civil rights and hate crime laws, threatening the religious freedom and free speech rights of individuals and organizations who oppose homosexual activists’ political agenda.”

Last year, Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Midland, attempted to amend the legislation to strike language segregating students into special “protected class” categories — including, for the first time ever in Michigan law, “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression” — and replace it with language prohibiting all bullying against all students for all reasons.”
http://www.gophouse.com/readarticle.asp?id=4231&District=98

House Democrats refused to even allow a vote on that amendment. The legislation was passed a year ago by the House and has since languished in the state Senate.

The Michigan Association of School Boards warns members not to include “sexual” orientation in school harassment or bullying policies: “Bill Scharffe, director of bylaw and policy services for the Michigan Association of School Boards, advises local districts not to include the term “sexual orientation” in their anti-harassment policies. ‘Schools need to be very careful with that,’ he said, noting that neither federal nor state civil rights laws consider people of a particular sexual orientation a protected class. He added that literal interpretation of ’sexual orientation’ could include people who gravitate toward any sort of sexual activity, including that with animals, children and corpses.” (The Oakland Press, March 13, 2005: http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/031305/edu_20050313006.shtml)

The Lansing State Journal editorially opposes the so-called “bullying” legislation: “A state law isn’t going to make school hallways bully free. …The most recent bills already have cleared the House and are awaiting action by the Senate. Their prospects are uncertain, though, as Republicans and ‘family values’ advocates are protesting the inclusion of ’sexual orientation’ as one of the characteristics specifically mentioned in the bills. Michigan isn’t going to benefit right now from a battle over which characteristics deserve protection from bullies. It’s divisive and unnecessary. …Whenever the Legislature has taken up the bullying issue, the impression left is that local school districts and boards lack the interest to act. How can that be? …Do state lawmakers really think that school boards don’t care about protecting schoolchildren; that lawmakers in the state Capitol have a better grip on hallway happenings than parents and community members?” (April 17, 2007)

The Grand Rapids Press editorially opposes the so-called “bullying” legislation: “Proposed legislation in Lansing that would require schools to adopt a policy that prohibits bullying and harassment is well-intentioned but unnecessary. Lawmakers should reject it. Schools already have policies to combat bullying and effectively deal with those perpetrators who assault, harass or intimidate other students. …The Senate should realize the bully matter isn’t being overlooked by schools. Educators don’t need the state to take control.” (April 4, 2007)

Dear AFA-Michigan supporter,

The Triangle Foundation, Michigan Equality, Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, and other homosexual activist groups are urging individuals involved in the homosexual lifestyle to contact their state senator this Wednesday to urge support for homosexual activists’ Trojan Horse “bullying” bills.

As one state legislator observed to me over the phone this past weekend, these so-called “bullying” bills have nothing to do with bullying. In fact, homosexual activists and their Democrat allies in the state House of Representatives opposed language that would have simply prohibited all bullying against all students for all reasons. (See Midland Daily News: http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18143125&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=472542&rfi=6)

The real agenda behind this Trojan Horse legislation is to establish — for the first time ever, anywhere in Michigan law — special “protected class” status on the basis of homosexual behavior and cross-dressing; in this case, public school students who engage in such behavior.

Homosexual activists hope to use legitimate concern about student safety as a subterfuge to sneak special rights based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression” into law for the first time, then use that as precedent for inserting special protection for such behavior into Michigan’s “hate crime” and “civil rights” laws. And as it has in other countries and cities that have already created special status based on homosexual behavior, that will pose a direct threat to your religious freedom and free speech rights.

Even the Michigan Association of School Boards has warned school boards about the legal hazards of creating special rights and protections based on so-called “sexual orientation.”

As the Oakland Press reported:

“Bill Scharffe, director of bylaw and policy services for the Michigan Association of School Boards, advises local districts not to include the term ’sexual orientation’ in their anti-harassment policies. ‘Schools need to be very careful with that,’ he said, noting that neither federal nor state civil rights laws consider people of a particular sexual orientation a protected class. He added that literal interpretation of ’sexual orientation’ could include people who gravitate toward any sort of sexual activity, including that with animals, children and corpses.”

Please help AFA-Michigan stop this dangerous precedent-setting “gay rights” legislation:

1. Please click here to find your state Senator: http://senate.michigan.gov

2. Please send your Senator an e-mail urging him to vote against homosexual activists’ so-called “bullying” legislation. Specifically, urge him to vote against Senate Bill 107 and House Bills 4091 and 4162.

3. Please also e-mail Senate Education Committee Chairman Wayne Kuipers and urge him not to even schedule these “bullying” bills for consideration. E-mail: senwkuipers@senate.michigan.gov

4. Finally, please make the largest tax-deductible contribution you can today to the American Family Association of Michigan to make sure we have the resources to continue to stand guard for you and your family.

Contribute online: https://www.campaigncontribution.com/version6/process/info.asp?id=1700&jid=

Contribute by mail:
AFA-Michigan
PO Box 1904
Midland, Michigan 48641

We deeply appreciate your support!

God bless and keep you strong…

Gary Glenn, President
AFA-Michigan

“Hundreds of educators, students and community members are expected to descend upon the State Capitol next week to demand the Senate pass a comprehensive bill aimed at stopping bullying in schools. …’The future of this bill is in the hands of Senate leaders,’ said Sean Kosofsky, policy director of the Triangle Foundation, an anti-violence and (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender) advocacy group in Detroit. ‘Governor Granholm has said that if it passes, she will sign it.’ …The inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression in the bills has fired up family advocacy groups like the American Family Association of Michigan. During last year’s lobby event, AFA Michigan’s Gary Glenn was sending faxes condemning the bills and calling on the Legislature to kill the final bill.”

MICHIGAN MESSENGER
Lansing, Michigan
March 20, 2008

Anti-bullying forces to descend on Capitol to get Senate to pass bill
by: Todd A. Heywood

LANSING — Hundreds of educators, students and community members are expected to descend upon the State Capitol next week to demand the Senate pass a comprehensive bill aimed at stopping bullying in schools. The bill passed the state House a year ago, but has since languished in the Senate awaiting a hearing.

The event will happen Wednesday, March 26, from 9 a.m. until 4 p.m. at the Capitol. The bill, Matt’s Safe School Law, would require school districts to create and report to the state an anti-bullying policy. Some oppose the bill because it includes a list of protected categories, including sexual orientation and gender identity and expression. The bill is named for Matt Epling, an East Lansing Schools student who committed suicide as a result of harassment and bullying.

“I think if you are going to make a statement on bullying, you don’t make special classes of students,” said State Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, chair of the Senate Education Committee. “Bullying is a symptom of a larger problem.” Kuipers said he is working on substitute bills that would address the bigger problems behind bullying. “It is a lack of respect for others,” Kuipers said of the root of the problem. “They (students) are not being taught the proper way to deal with others.” Kuipers said his substitute bills would cause a bigger discussion about what he called “character education.” “In the context of that character discussion, there will be some discussion on bullying.”

The new bills are currently being redrafted and he expects them to be taken up after the Senate’s two-week spring break, which begins on next Friday. He said he has meetings with Lobby Day participants that day. Asked if he would attend the Lobby Day event, Kuiper said: “No. I wasn’t invited.” Organizer’s of Wednesday’s Lobby Day hope to push the Senate to hold hearings on Matt’s Safe Schools law. “Make no mistake, the Senate is a much different battlefield than the House because of party affiliation and individuals involved in letting legislation move or not,” said Derek Smiertka, executive director of Michigan Equality, a statewide LGBT rights organization.

“The future of this bill is in the hands of Senate leaders,” said Sean Kosofsky, policy director of the Triangle Foundation, an anti-violence and LGBT advocacy group in Detroit. “Governor Granholm has said that if it passes, she will sign it. We have the broadest possible coalition pushing this bill. We think it’s the best possible compromise to keep everyone pleased.” The House version of the bill passed last March during the Safe Schools Lobby Day although the vote had been unanticipated by Lobby Day organizers. Organizers had expected a vote three weeks after the Lobby Day. Instead they were presented with a substitute bill that required school districts to adopt an anti-bullying policy similar to the model policy passed in September 2006 by the State Board of Education. The model policy includes a list of protected categories, based on things like sexual orientation, gender identity and expression.

The inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity and expression in the bills has fired up family advocacy groups like the American Family Association of Michigan. During last year’s lobby event, AFA Michigan’s Gary Glenn was sending faxes condemning the bills and calling on the Legislature to kill the final bill.

http://www.michiganmessenger.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=E00C93EDA1E192A2D233F788FBFC0AEB?diaryId=1015

“Gary Glenn, director of the American Family Association of Michigan, told the Michigan Messenger: ‘The ideal that’s in every child’s best interests is to have both a mother and a father. Selfishly denying a child one or the other on purpose, by whatever means, is obviously not in the child’s best interest. Obviously, being able to harvest male sperm cells from a woman’s bone marrow doesn’t make her a father, which every boy needs and deserves, any more than harvesting unfertilized eggs from a man’s bone marrow will make him the mother that every little girl needs.’”

MICHIGAN MESSENGER
Lansing, Michigan
February 28, 2008

New stem cell controversy: Harvest
sperm from woman, eggs from man
by Ed Brayton

Just when new developments hold out the promise of doing embryonic stem cell research without any destruction of embryos, a new research study has rekindled another fierce controversy over the ethical uses of such research.

Researchers in the UK and Brazil have announced that they believe it will be possible in the future to use adult stem cells from a woman to produce sperm cells and to use adult stem cells from a man to produce eggs with their own DNA. If that becomes a reality, it would allow gay or lesbian couples to produce their own 100 percent biological offspring. Currently, it is possible for a female couple to reproduce using an egg from one of them and sperm from another male, or for male couples to reproduce by inseminating a surrogate mother, but only one of the couple in each case is a biological parent to the child.

This announcement has caused something of an uproar, particularly in conservative Christian circles. Gary Glenn, director of the American Family Association of Michigan, told the Michigan Messenger: “The ideal that’s in every child’s best interests is to have both a mother and a father. Selfishly denying a child one or the other on purpose, by whatever means, is obviously not in the child’s best interest. Obviously, being able to harvest male sperm cells from a woman’s bone marrow doesn’t make her a father, which every boy needs and deserves, any more than harvesting unfertilized eggs from a man’s bone marrow will make him the mother that every little girl needs.”

Ed Rivet of Right to Life of Michigan argues that such research is evidence that scientists must be restrained by society, saying: “We can’t as a society presume that science will properly monitor itself or regulate itself. There will always be scientists that will cross whatever ethical lines we draw. We as a society do have an important obligation to provide oversight to the scientific community.”

But in this case, the scientific community seems highly skeptical of the feasibility of such research even before getting to the ethical questions.

The research team at the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in the UK has so far managed to coax stem cells from mouse embryos to become sperm stem cells, or spermatogonium. These cells contain two sets of chromosomes, not one, and have to go through a complex series of cell divisions in order to become actual sperm cells capable of fertilizing an ovum. So far the researchers have only managed to use a combination of vitamins and chemicals to induce the first two divisions, not all the other divisions needed.

Reed Cartwright, a Ph.D. geneticist at North Carolina State University, told the Michigan Messenger that he has doubts that they will even be able to reach the point of a viable sperm cell:

I don’t think it will be feasible at all with cell culture technology. It’s wishful thinking to propose that a solution of “chemicals and vitamins” will be enough to replicate the complex adaptations that our bodies have to produce and nurture perfectly healthy, mature sperm and eggs. This technology will probably become feasible only after “artificial organ” technology is functional, but it will still have difficulties even then.

And even if they do manage to overcome those difficulties, Cartwright points out, the real problems come after fertilization and implantation, where the interaction of mother and father genomes has been finely honed by millions of years of evolution to work in concert with one another:

“The major problem in my opinion is getting the genes of the artificial gamete to properly imprint. Our reproductive biology is the result of millions of years of evolution to balance the different needs of fathers and mothers while maintaining compatibility and offspring viability. There are hundreds of genes in a human body that get turned off or on based on whether they are inherited from Dad or Mom; this is called imprinting. Failures in getting the correct imprinting pattern have been linked to diseases such as cancer, schizophrenia, and autism. You may be able to produce mature sperm from a female cell line, but you might be unable to set the correct “Dad” imprinting on the sperm cell, and any resulting child will have two “Mom” imprinting patterns, which is not healthy. This is probably the major reason why the mice in the Newcastle experiment have health problems.”

The genetics of reproduction is enormously complex, as is the crucial interplay of different genes. There are genes in the maternal DNA that must be turned off or on by other genes in the paternal DNA, and vice versa. Absent those regulatory genes, the whole process of recombination and imprinting may become hopelessly distorted. Cartwright notes that the unique danger here is that the researchers “are trying to turn those adult cells into something that runs counter to their biology and evolutionary history.”

http://www.michiganmessenger.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=924