“A team of Christian activists and pastors today filed a civil rights lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder over the ‘hate crimes’ law that President Obama…signed into law late in 2009 – alleging it violates their civil rights. The complaint states Christians now can become the target of federal investigations, grand juries and even charges for no more than opposing the activism of homosexuals who want…to halt any criticism of (their life choices). …It was filed today by the Thomas More Law Center…on behalf of Pastors Levon Yuille, Rene Ouellette, James Combs and Gary Glenn, who is the president of the American Family Association of Michigan.

The plaintiffs include those individuals who already have faced accusations by homosexual advocates that they bear responsibility for the actions of others for no other reason than their agreement with biblical condemnations of homosexuality. The lawsuit cited the death of Andrew Anthos, a 72-year-old Detroit man allegedly the victim of a ‘hate crime’ because of his ’sexual orientation.’ In that case, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force ‘blamed …plaintiff Glenn’s ‘homophobic rants’ for causing (Anthos’) death.’ Anthos also was cited by Sen. Carl Levin as evidence of the need to extend federal ‘hate crimes’ legislation to include ’sexual orientation’ as a protected classification. But the lawsuit said police and a medical examiner determined that Anthos died of natural causes.”

—————————–

WORLD NET DAILY
Cave Junction, Oregon
February 2, 2010

Obama ‘hate crimes’ in lawsuit bull’s-eye
Pastors sue Holder, contend provisions violate civil rights

by Bob Unruh
A team of Christian activists and pastors today filed a civil rights lawsuit against Attorney General Eric Holder over the “hate crimes” law that President Obama sought – and signed into law late in 2009 – alleging it violates their civil rights.

The complaint states Christians now can become the target of federal investigations, grand juries and even charges for no more than opposing the activism of homosexuals who want not only public endorsement of their life choices, but to halt any criticism of those decisions.

“On account of … the Hate Crimes Act, plaintiffs are targets for government scrutiny, questioning, investigation, surveillance, and other adverse law enforcement actions and thus seek judicial reassurance that they can freely participate in their speech and related religious activities without being investigated or prosecuted by the government or becoming part of official records because of their Christian beliefs,” the lawsuit explains.

It was filed today by the Thomas More Law Center in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan on behalf of Pastors Levon Yuille, Rene Ouellette, James Combs and Gary Glenn, who is the president of the American Family Association of Michigan.

The plaintiffs include those individuals who already have faced accusations by homosexual advocates that they bear responsibility for the actions of others for no other reason than their agreement with biblical condemnations of homosexuality.

The lawsuit cited the death of Andrew Anthos, a 72-year-old Detroit man allegedly the victim of a “hate crime” because of his “sexual orientation.” In that case, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force “blamed … Plaintiff Glenn’s ‘homophobic rants’ for causing his death.”

According to the lawsuit, the homosexual activist said, “It is appalling hypocrisy for these forces to pretend that their venomous words and organizing have no connection to the plague of hate violence against gay people, including the murder of Mr. Anthos.”
Anthos also was cited by Sen. Carl Levin as evidence of the need to extend federal “hate crimes” legislation to include “sexual orientation” as a protected classification.

But the lawsuit said police and a medical examiner determined that Anthos died of natural causes.

The complaint also said, “The former director of policy for the Triangle Foundation, a Michigan-based homosexual lobby group that supported the Hate Crimes Act, publicly stated, ‘We personally believe that the AFA may support the murder of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.’”

Such statements, combined with the “hate crimes” law that now exists, provide a “tool” of intimidation for federal officials, including Holder, “to abuse their positions of power to stifle political opinion and opposition to the homosexual agenda.”

“It also provides political adversaries with a basis for making official criminal complaints and allegations against opponents of the homosexual agenda, such as plaintiffs, thereby deterring, inhibiting, and chilling the exercise of plaintiffs’ rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and the free exercise of religion,” the complaint said.

“By preaching God’s Word on homosexuality, plaintiffs and others are engaging in conduct that subjects them to federal questioning, investigation, and prosecution as principals pursuant to [the law] for counseling, commanding, or inducing a federal offense under … the Hate Crimes Act.”

“There is no legitimate law enforcement need for this federal law,” said Richard Thompson, president of the Law Center. “Of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported in the U.S. by the FBI in 2008, only 243 were considered as motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation.

“Moreover, Eric Holder himself testified at a Senate hearing that the states are doing a fine job in this area,” he said.

“This is part of the list of political payoffs to homosexual advocacy groups for support of Barack Obama in the last presidential election. The sole purpose of this law is to criminalize the Bible and use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their biblically-based religious belief that homosexual conduct is a sin. It elevates those persons who engage in deviant sexual behaviors, including pedophiles, to a special protected class of persons as a matter of federal law and policy,” he said.

The Hate Crimes Act was dubbed by its critics as the “Pedophile Protection Act,” after an amendment to explicitly prohibit pedophiles from being protected by the act was defeated by majority Democrats. In fact, during congressional debate, supporters argued that all “philias,” or alternative sexual lifestyles, should be protected.

Robert Muise, the lead attorney on the case, told WND that the law also elevates people who “engaged in a certain class of deviant behavior to a protected class as a matter of federal law and policy.”

With some classes of people given more “rights,” others naturally have “fewer,” he said. And that’s where Christians are targeted. He noted that in an earlier version of what eventually became law under Obama was a proposed amendment referring to reading or citing biblical passages.

“In 2007, when Congress was considering similar hate crimes legislation, a motion was made before the Committee on Rules in the House of Representatives to clarify that the printing, distribution, or public reading of the Bible was not prohibited by any provision of the proposed bill. The motion was defeated.”

Contacted by WND, Holder’s office declined to comment on the case.

The law was promoted by its advocates as cracking down on “bias” crimes motivated by a person’s “actual or perceived” “sexual orientation” or “gender identity.”

Yiulle is the pastor of The Bible Church in Michigan and national director of the National Black Pro-Life Congress. He hosts a radio program and “is often warned by his Canadian listeners that he will prosecuted under the new U.S. hate crimes law for his public ministry.”

Ouellette is pastor of First Baptist in Bridgeport, Mich., with about 7,000 members, and the author of five books.

Combs is lead pastor of Faith Church, The Point Church, The Rock Church and The River Church, with about 10,000 members.

The civil rights violations created by the “hate crimes” law involve freedom of speech, expressive association, free exercise of religion, the equal protection guarantee and other provisions of the First, Fifth and 10th Amendments as well as Commerce Clause, the case said.

“This new federal law promotes two Orwellian concepts. It creates a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior. And it creates ‘thought crimes’ by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make it deserving of federal prosecution,” Muise said.

“Consequently, government officials are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law and which are not.”

Obama signed the “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act” in October 2009 after Democrats strategically attached it to a “must-pass” $680 billion defense-appropriations bill.

The law cracks down on any acts that could be linked to criticism of homosexuality or even the “perception” of homosexuality. As Congress debated it, there were assurances it would not be used to crack down on speech.

Days after Obama signed it, in response, pastors and other Christian leaders gathered to read from the Bible at a rally organized with the help of Gary Cass of the Christian Anti-Defamation Coalition.

Former Navy Chaplain Gordon Klingenschmitt of PrayInJesusName.org read from Romans: “And they that commit such things are worthy of death.”

“The government has to invade my thoughts to decide what my motive was in quoting the Bible,” Klingenschmitt explained. “I can be prosecuted if the government thinks my motive was wrong.”

The rally took place in front of the Holder’s offices. He supported the bill although he explained it does not protect all people equally. He is charged with enforcing the law.

Obama boasted of the “hate crimes” bill when he signed it into law.

“After more than a decade, we’ve passed inclusive hate-crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are,” he said.

“If this law is used to silence me or any of these preachers for speaking the truth, then we will be forced to conscientiously defy it,” Rick Scarborough, president of Vision America, declared. “That is my calling as a Christian and my right as an American citizen.”

Janet Porter of Faith2Action called it a “sad day for America.”

“While a small minority of homosexual activists are celebrating, thousands of pastors, priests and rabbis are lamenting their loss of First Amendment freedoms. I for one refuse to bow before this unjust and unconstitutional law, and I intend to continue to preach the whole counsel of God as revealed in the Scriptures,” she wrote.

“But this law doesn’t just affect pastors; it will criminalize the beliefs of millions of ordinary people who may now be afraid to speak even their pro-marriage positions lest it spark a federal ‘hate crime’ investigation,” Porter wrote.

Cass noted in the U.K., a senior citizen was accused of “hate crimes” for writing a letter objecting to a pro-homosexual festival:
“This is the way it gets implemented in all the other countries,” Cass said. “Christians are singled out for prosecution, with threats, imprisonment and fines simply for refusing to stop doing what Christ commands: proclaiming the truth.”

“[These cases] are a good precursor of where this goes,” he warned.

The bill signed by Obama was opposed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which called it a “menace” to civil liberties. The commission argued the law allows federal authorities to bring charges against individuals even if they’ve already been cleared in a state court.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=123943
__________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tues., Feb. 2, 2010
CONTACT: Kathleen L. Lynch, Thomas More Law Center
734-827-2001

Suit seeks to block homosexual activists from seeking
prosecution of pastors who oppose homosexual agenda

Marriage amendment co-author asks court to declare “hate crime” law unconstitutional

Group fears Obama judges may agree with homosexual activists’
legal strategy to prosecute religious speech as “inducing” violence

LANSING, Mich. — The new federal “hate crime” law enacted last fall unconstitutionally violates religious free speech rights by threatening to criminalize public opposition to homosexual activists’ political agenda, including so-called homosexual “marriage,” a federal civil rights lawsuit filed Tuesday on behalf of a co-author of Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment and three Christian pastors argues.

(See copy of lawsuit [27 pages] — http://j.mp/bP6AsK — filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor: www.ThomasMore.org)

Gary Glenn, Midland, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, who co-authored the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by Michigan voters in 2004, is lead plaintiff in the case, which argues that the new federal law unconstitutionally poses a serious threat to religious free speech rights. Glenn in public comments has regularly cited the use of such “hate crime” laws in Europe, Canada, and at the state level in the U.S. to prosecute Christians merely for speaking out against homosexual activists’ political agenda.

Glenn is joined by three plaintiffs: African-American Pastor Levon Yuille of The Bible Church in Ypsilanti and host of Joshua’s Trail, a Detroit radio talk show, Pastor R.B. Ouellette of the 7,000-member First Baptist Church of Bridgeport, and Pastor James Combs of Waterford, who pastors four Christian congregations in Michigan totaling approximately 10,000 members.

Glenn has said that in Michigan, “homosexual activists have clearly and openly admitted that they want to see pastors and others who speak out against the homosexual political agenda criminally prosecuted as ‘accessories’ any time a violent crime is committed against an individual who engages in homosexual behavior or cross-dressing.”

The lawsuit cites a Saginaw News interview in 2005 with prominent homosexual activist Jeffrey Montgomery, former executive director of the Triangle Foundation, a Detroit-based homosexual lobby: The News reported:

“Jeffrey Montgomery is calling out the political extremists and religious fundamentalists whose rhetoric, he says, has fueled a steady rise in hate crimes against gays and lesbians. ‘We’ve seen an increase in vitriolic, vociferous, vehement, demonizing rhetoric against gays and lesbians,’ said Montgomery… ‘The vocal anti-gay activists should be held accountable as accessories to these crimes because, many times, it is their rhetoric that led the perpetrators to believe that their crimes are OK.’ …If a criminal borrows a gun and then uses it to kill someone, the law considers the gun owner an accessory to the crime. So, too, are the people who own the words that incite violence, Montgomery said.” (”Triangle exec decries violence” by Lania Coleman, p. 4A, The Saginaw News, April 27, 2005)

The suit also cites a report by State News, the Michigan State University student newspaper, which quoted another prominent homosexual activist — former Triangle Foundation director of policy Sean Kosofsky — as saying: “We personally believe that the AFA may support the murder of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.” http://www.statenews.com/article.phtml?pk=6737

The suit also cites a news release issued by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in 2007 which accused Glenn and Cardinal Maida of the Archdiocese of Detroit — merely by having publicly disagreed with homosexual activists’ political agenda on marriage and other issues — of being responsible for inciting the falsely-alleged beating death of a homosexual senior citizen in Detroit. http://thetaskforce.org/press/releases/prMF_022307

“It is appalling hypocrisy for (Glenn and Maida) to pretend that their venomous words and organizing have no connection to the plague of hate violence against gay people, including the murder of Mr. Anthos,” the NGLTF statement said.

Glenn said homosexual activists and their political allies — including Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who condemned the purported “hate crime” against Anthos on the U.S. Senate floor — were later embarrassed when Detroit police announced they had found no evidence of any assault and the Wayne County Medical Examiner ruled Anthos suffered a blow to the head after falling due to arthritic paralysis of his neck. (Associated Press, March 28, 2007: http://www.randythomas.org/blog/2007/03/hate-crime-or-arthritis.html)

The statements by Montgomery, Kosofsky, and NGLTF “make clear that homosexual activists hope to sell society and the courts on their repressive view that anyone who dares publicly disagree with their political agenda should face the threat of being criminally prosecuted, and they’re not beyond fabricating false ‘hate crime’ claims to do it,” Glenn said.

The lawsuit argues that a pre-existing provision of federal law could be used by homosexual activists and their judicial allies — in conjunction with the new “hate crime” law — to justify such prosecutions.
U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 2(a) states: “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2.html

Dictionary.com defines the word “counsel” to mean “advice, opinion or instruction given in directing the judgment or conduct of another.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/counsel

Dictionary.com defines the word “induce” to mean “to lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/induce

Glenn said under the federal “hate crime” law, “there will no doubt be openly homosexual or sympathetic federal judges appointed by President Obama who agree with homosexual activists’ legal strategy of accusing anyone who non-violently speaks out against homosexual activists’ political agenda of ‘inducing’ criminal activity any time a crime is committed or falsely alleged to be committed against an individual who engages in homosexual behavior or cross-dressing.”

Glenn cited as examples of that concern a group of state-level judges in Michigan whose campaigns were endorsed by homosexual activist groups and who he believes are likely to share the Triangle Foundation’s legal reasoning about criminally prosecuting speech:

* Openly homosexual 36th District Judge Rudy Serra, Wayne County, a former member of the Triangle Foundation’s board of trustees, and 57th District Judge William Baillargeon, Allegan County, a former member of the Triangle Foundation board of advisors.

- Serra: http://www.vendio.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=223286

- Baillargeon: http://web.archive.org/web/20021029115642/www.tri.org/advisors.html

* Triangle Pride PAC, the Triangle Foundations’ affiliated political action committee, also endorsed the following sitting judges in the 2008 election: 15th District Judge Chris Easthope, Washtenaw County; 46th District Judge William Richards, Oakland County; 91st District Judge Elizabeth Church, Chippewa County; Ingham County Circuit Judge Rosemarie Aquilina, Oakland County Circuit Judge Mary Ellen Brennan, Wayne County Circuit Judges Connie Kelley and Lynne Pierce, and Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper. http://www.pride-pac.org/guide/showall.php

* Michigan Supreme Court Justice Diane Hathaway “supports (homosexual and cross-dressing) rights and issues and was strongly endorsed by” Between the Lines, a homosexual activist newsmagazine in Detroit. Circuit Court Judges Christopher Yates and Donald Shelton were also endorsed by Between the Lines in 2008, as were District Court Judges Bill Richards and Elizabeth Church. http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=32861

* Ingham County Circuit Judge Joyce Dragunchuk — whose 2005 ruling in support of homosexual activists’ lawsuit against the state Marriage Protection Amendment was overturned by the Michigan Court of Appeals — was endorsed by both Triangle Pride PAC and another homosexual activist group, the Lansing Association for Human Rights.
__________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., Dec. 16, 2009
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978
Sen. Wayne Kuipers 517-373-6920
Sen. Jerry Van Woerkom 517-373-1635

Family group concerned Kuipers, Van Woerkom may support “gay rights” language in school funding bill

Action expected Thursday as homosexual activists use concerns over student safety as Trojan Horse for “sexual orientation” agenda

LANSING — A statewide family values organization Wednesday expressed concern that two Republicans representing the GOP-controlled state Senate on a legislative conference committee may support adding “gay rights” language to a public school funding bill under the guise of protecting students from bullying, the first time ever such language would appear anywhere in state law.

The American Family Association of Michigan is asking its supporters to contact their own senators Thursday as well as Senate Education Committee Chairman Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, and Sen. Jerry Van Woerkom, R-Norton Shores, the two Republican members of a conference committee who Thursday will negotiate with representatives of the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives on the final version of “Race to the Top” legislation that would qualify Michigan for hundreds of millions of dollars in federal education funding.

AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn, Midland, said his group is “hopeful that Republican state senators won’t allow themselves to be bullied by homosexual activist groups and House Democrats into caving in on this matter of principle in hopes of a payoff from federal tax dollars being dangled by the Obama Administration.”

“If lawmakers think parents, teachers, school boards, and law enforcement agencies in their districts can’t be trusted to protect student safety without a state mandate,” Glenn said, “they should simply pass a law prohibiting all bullying against all students for all reasons, not use the issue as a Trojan Horse to insert radical and precedent-setting language into state law for the first time establishing homosexual behavior or cross-dressing as a legal basis for special rights and protections.”

Glenn said the group trusted Kuipers in years past to oppose legislation that would establish special “protected classes” based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in state law in any context, but not after Kuipers was praised last December by the Triangle Foundation, a prominent homosexual activist group in Detroit, for throwing his support to so-called “anti-bullying” legislation during the closing days of last year’s lame-duck legislative session.

After the Senate Education Committee considered House Bill 4162 a year ago, both Kuipers and Van Woerkom voted to send it to the full Senate for a vote, with Van Woerkom telling the Michigan Information and Research Service (MIRS) newsletter: “I guess I’ve been one of the problems in getting this bill going, but as a former principal, I found it difficult to find that line between what is teasing and what is bullying.” http://www.bridges4kids.org:80/articles/12-08/MIRS12-4-08.html

The bill segregated students into special “protected classes” — including on the basis of so-called “sexual orientation” (homosexual behavior) and “gender identity” (cross-dressing) — then handed out special state-mandated protection against bullying expressly based on a student’s membership in one of those protected classes.

It failed when Senate GOP leadership refused to bring it up for a vote, but its supporters are now maneuvering to include it in a broader public schools funding and reform bill scheduled for immediate action. (See Michigan Messenger, “Michigan anti-bullying bill could find renewed life with ‘Race to the Top’,” http://michiganmessenger.com/31563/mich-anti-bullying-bill-could-find-renewed-life-with-race-to-the-top)

Glenn said to unmask the real agenda behind the so-called “bullying” legislation, Senate Majority Floor Leader Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, has proposed alternative language that would simply prohibit all bullying against all students for all reasons, but some homosexual activist groups and their legislative allies have refused to support a bill that would protect students from bullying without first segregating them into special “protected class” categories based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.

Former Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Midland, in 2007 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.

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

As the Oakland Press reported in March 2005: “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 editorial pages of the Lansing State Journal and the Grand Rapids Press, for example, have 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.

Lansing State Journal editorial: “Bully bills: Again, leave bullying issue to local school boards,” April 17, 2007.

Grand Rapids Press editorial: “Anti-bullying law isn’t necessary: state schools already have policies to deal with issue,” April 4, 2007.

——————————————————————————

From: Triangle Foundation, info@tri.org
Date: Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Subject: Anti-bullying Bills Killed by Michigan Senate

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Bernadette Brown, Director of Policy
Triangle Foundation
(517) 643-3549
bernadette@tri.org
www.tri.org
Anti-Bullying Bills Killed by Michigan Senate

Detroit, MI — December 20, 2008 — Negotiations spanning two years and involving parents, educators, law enforcement officials and many others came to a halt late Thursday when Sen. Alan Cropsey (R-Dewitt) said he would not allow anti-bullying legislation to pass the Michigan Senate. The Republican Senate was ready to move on this bill; however, Senator Cropsey was even out of the conservative mainstream.

“Sen. Cropsey has long been an opponent of anti-bullying legislation in Michigan,” said Bernadette Brown, Director of Policy for the Triangle Foundation. “Last night he single-handedly ended an effort to protect young people in Michigan from harassment and assault.”

House Bills 4162 and 4091 would have required all school districts in Michigan to establish policies regarding school bullying, based on a definition of bullying that is in the State Board of Education model policy on this issue. The legislation would also have required all districts to provide a copy of their policies to the Michigan Department of Education, which would then report to the legislature on the status and quality of these policies throughout the state.

The legislative package – titled Matt’s Safe Schools Law in honor of Matt Epling, an East Lansing eight-grader who took his own life in 2002 after a hazing incident – passed the Michigan House in 2007. The package was voted out of the Senate Education Committee Dec. 11. After extensive negotiations, Senate Education Committee Chair Senator Wayne Kuipers (R-Holland) joined a team of legislators who had championed the bill including Senators Glen Anderson (D-Westland), Samuel “Buzz” Thomas (D-Detroit), Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) and Randy Richardville (R-Monroe) in working toward passage of the bill.

The trouble began late Thursday evening and spanned into early Friday morning. After a Republican caucus on the issue, Majority Leader Mike Bishop (R-Rochester) and the caucus were unwilling to challenge Sen. Cropsey.

“It is a sad day for all of us,” said bill sponsor Rep. Pam Byrnes (D-Chelsea), “but especially for the young people of our state and their parents, who were counting on this forward-looking policy to make Michigan schools safe for learning.” Michigan is one of only 11 states that do not have a law requiring some type of anti-bullying policy in schools. Triangle Foundation will continue to fight for all young people in Michigan by pursuing anti-bullying policies in all schools.

It is the mission of Triangle Foundation to promote equality and to secure freedom from violence, intimidation and discrimination for LGBT persons throughout Michigan.

Triangle Foundation, 19641 West Seven Mile Road, Detroit, Michigan 48219-2721

——————————————————————————

MIRS
Michigan Information and Research Service
Lansing, Michigan
December 4, 2008

Anti-bullying bills move

After much delay, the Senate Education Committee also kicked out anti-bullying bills that passed the House a year and a half ago. The Michigan Safe Schools Coalition held another event at the Capitol last month pushing for passage (See “Bits and Tidbits,” 11/13/08).

HB 4091 and HB 4162, which are tie-barred together, would require schools to adopt a policy that prohibits harassment or bullying at school. The bills both moved with unanimous support. HB 4091 would be known as “Matt’s Safe School Law” in honor of Matt EPLING, a 14-year-old from East Lansing who committed suicide after being hazed at school.

The issue became mired in controversy when the American Family Association of Michigan (AFAM) headed by Gary GLENN took aim at legislation (See “Senators: AFAM Not Bullying On Bills,” 3/31/08).

The bills’ definition of harassment and bullying include what is “reasonably perceived to be motivated by an actual or perceived characteristic, such as height, weight, religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or by socioeconomic status or a mental, physical, or sensory disability or impairment, or is reasonably perceived to be based on association with another person who has or is perceived to have any of these characteristics or any other distinguishing characteristic.”

AFAM takes issue with sexual orientation and gender identity being included in the legislation, with Glenn complaining that “promotes the homosexual agenda.”

That issue did not come up in committee today.

Under the bills, the Department of Education would develop a model policy within 30 days after the effective date of the legislation. Schools would then have six months to adopt a policy. Within the following year, the department would submit a report to the Senate and House standing committees on Education on the policies.

“I guess I’ve been one of the problems in getting this bill going,” said Sen. Jerry VAN WOERKOM (R-Norton Shores). “But as a former principal, I found it difficult to find that line between what is teasing and what is bullying.”

Van Woerkom said he was satisfied with language that would allow local schools to make that determination.

http://www.bridges4kids.org:80/articles/12-08/MIRS12-4-08.html
__________________________________________________

“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, coauthored the Marriage Protection Amendment and said Michiganians have shown they are on his side. ‘Marriage between a man and a woman has proven its benefit to society,’ Glenn said. ‘As Michigan voters proved, most people in the state don’t think we should be engaging in the radical experiment of redefining marriage between a man and woman.’

…Mark Grebner, an East Lansing-based political consultant, asked Michigan residents to fill out a mock ballot including a measure to repeal the ban on same-sex marriage. In September, Grebner released the results that 50 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents and 90 percent of Republicans would not vote to overturn the measure.

…’If there is any momentum being built, it’s being built in one direction,’ (Glenn) said.”

——————————-
STATE NEWS
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
November 5, 2009

Gay marriage rights lost in Maine, local fight persists
by Ian Johnson

A Michigan legislator proposed a plan Wednesday to legalize same-sex marriage in the state, a day after the gay rights movement made progress locally and lost momentum nationally.

Michigan House of Representatives Speaker Pro Tempore Pam Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township, announced Wednesday she will introduce a plan that, if passed, will overturn the Marriage Protection Amendment, or Proposal 2, which outlawed same-sex marriage in the state in 2004.

Byrnes’ plan came in the wake of Tuesday’s election, which included both victories and defeats for gay rights activists.

Kalamazoo became Michigan’s 16th city to pass an ordinance preventing discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity for employment, housing and public services.

Byrnes’ proposal would be an amendment to Michigan’s constitution and would need a two-thirds vote by the Legislature in order to be placed on the ballot in the November 2010 election.

If voters approved it, the amendment would legalize same-sex marriage in the state, recognize marriages from other states and include a provision to allow clergy members to deny certifying a marriage at their place of worship.

“This bill boils down to treating people with the dignity and respect everyone deserves,” Byrnes said at a press conference Wednesday at the Capitol.

“So many of us were raised to treat others how we would want to be treated, so it’s about time we started acting that way as well.”

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, coauthored the Marriage Protection Amendment and said Michiganians have shown they are on his side.

“Marriage between a man and a woman has proven its benefit to society,” Glenn said. “As Michigan voters proved, most people in the state don’t think we should be engaging in a radical experiment of redefining marriage between a man and woman.”

However, voters in Maine — formerly one of six U.S. states permitting same-sex marriage — decided to veto marriage legislation passed earlier this year.

Maine Sen. Dennis Damon, who introduced the legislation, said he was disappointed with the election results, but said he couldn’t argue with how democracy works, even if it’s against his cause.

“We have chosen to allow the wall of discrimination and bigotry and bias to remain standing,” he said. “But I think we have put a good-sized crack in it. It’s my hope that someday, through our efforts, that we can finally tear it down.”

No state has legalized same-sex marriage through an election, despite 31 attempts across the country.

Byrnes said despite setbacks such as those in Maine, she will continue to fight to overturn Proposal 2.

“The fact that another state didn’t do the right thing, that doesn’t prevent us from trying to do the right thing,” Byrnes said.

Although Byrnes hopes to gather support to overturn the state’s ban, public opinion might not be on her side.

Ingham County Commissioner Mark Grebner, who also is an East Lansing-
based political consultant at Practical Political Consulting, Inc., asked Michigan residents to fill out a mock ballot including a measure to repeal the ban on same-sex marriage.

In September, Grebner released the results that 50 percent of Democrats, 60 percent of independents and 90 percent of Republicans would not vote to overturn the measure.

Grebner’s results indicate public opinion would need to change in order for Justin Ford, a communications senior and program assistant at the LBGT Resource Center to get married in Michigan.

Ford and his fiancé plan to get married in Boston, because Massachusetts allows same-sex marriage.

“If we could have our wedding and reception right in the same place in Michigan
and have it legal here, that would be awesome,” Ford said.

“All our family and friends would be able to witness our special day with us.”

Ford said he hopes Byrnes’ proposal will gather enough momentum to make it through the Legislature, but Glenn said he considers that a small possibility.

“If there is any momentum being built, it’s being built in one direction,” he said.

http://statenews.com/index.php/article/2009/11/gay_marriage_rights_lost_in_maine_local_fight_persists
__________________________________________________

Correction and retraction

AFA of Michigan hereby retracts its description of political consultant Mark Grebner in a news release as “openly homosexual.” Mr. Grebner asserts that is absolutely untrue. We regret our error.

__________________________________________________

“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, spoke to the audience for the majority of the meeting, explaining the legal side of the issue. He said he believes it ‘boggles the mind’ that some expect to use libraries funded by tax dollars to view adult content. ‘What those who oppose filtering assert is that people have a First Amendment, Constitutionally-guaranteed right to look at pornography — at (taxpayers’) expense — in a public building full of children,’ he said. He added in the United States Supreme Court case of United States v. American Library Association, Inc., the court found filtering Internet content at a public library is not a violation of the First Amendment. ‘We can respect the other side having the opinion that the Supreme Court is wrong, but the Supreme Court has ruled,’ Glenn said. ‘It’s over. It’s been decided by the highest court in the land.’”

————————

ARGUS-PRESS
Owosso, Michigan
September 22, 2009

Group opposed to adult content rallies at Comstock Center
by Michael Peterson, Argus-Press Staff Writer

OWOSSO, Mich. — More than 50 area residents gathered Monday night at the Comstock Inn to discuss ways to remove explicit adult material from the Owosso branch of the Shiawassee District Library.

The meeting, organized by Citizens for Filtering Shiawassee District Library Public Access Computers, comes two days before the library board is set to meet to discuss a policy on regulating such content.

The group also took out three full-page ads in The Argus-Press and The Independent over the weekend expressing its view that adult materials shouldn’t be available on public computers at the library.

The library board is set to meet at 7 p.m. Wednesday at Owosso Middle School.

Library board member Beverly Adcock, who represents Bennington Township, said the board will discuss whether or not to allow two computers in the library to be unfiltered. The Shiawassee District Library began using program Untangle to filter the Internet on all its computers after the Board approved the move in June.

However, those involved in the movement say they want all the computers at the library to remain filtered. The group also claims the Untangle program is not effective and users can still access many inappropriate Web sites. Group member Ronald DeHaas operates locally-based company Covenant Eyes that sells Internet filtering software. He previously offered his program to the library at no charge.

The group also wants the Board to adopt a policy that requires children 13 or younger to be accompanied by a parent or guardian when accessing the Internet, and also requiring children between the ages of 10 and 18 to have permission forms signed by a parent or guardian before they can access the Internet, according to the Web site stoplibraryporn.com.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, spoke to the audience for the majority of the meeting, explaining the legal side of the issue.

He said he believes it “boggles the mind” that some expect to use libraries funded by tax dollars to view adult content.

“What those who oppose filtering assert is that people have a First Amendment, Constitutionally-guaranteed right to look at pornography – at your expense – in a public building full of children,” he said.

He added in the United States Supreme Court case of United States v. American Library Association, Inc., the court found filtering Internet content at a public library is not a violation of the First Amendment.

“We can respect the other side having the opinion that the Supreme Court is wrong, but the Supreme Court has ruled,” Glenn said. “It’s over. It’s been decided by the highest court in the land.”

The controversy began when Owosso resident Catherine Loxen informed board members her 10-year-old granddaughter accidentally caught a glimpse of a man viewing adult material on a computer at the Owosso branch of the Shiawassee District Library.

“When we got to the parking lot she said, ‘Grandma, when we were leaving I looked directly into that man’s screen and I saw all these pictures of naked women.’ And I was just horrified,” Loxen said at the meeting. “My granddaughter, who is 11 now, no longer wants to ever go to the library.”

Glenn said many of the claims of Internet filters making it difficult to access non-pornography sites, such as breast cancer research, are outdated.

The statement was illustrated by Bill Lawson, a customer service manager for Covenant Eyes. Lawson showed the audience a variety of Web searches and sites that could be accessed while using Covenant Eyes software.

Some of the subjects he searched for and was able to access included sites for testicular cancer, sexually transmitted diseases, human sexuality and breast cancer.

“The technology has advanced to where these claims are really a false argument,” Lawson said. “As you can see, it is a little hard to find something that is blocked, unless you are actually looking for pornography.”

http://argus-press.com/articles/2009/09/22/news/news1.txt
__________________________________________________

Only 295 valid signatures of registered voters are required by Jackson city ordinance to place a proposed ordinance on the ballot, so if homosexual activists choose, they can easily do so. With a conceptually identical ordinance already on the ballot this November in Kalamazoo, we still face the possibility of having to fight two city ballot campaigns this fall. Your ongoing support is deeply appreciated.

Click to make your tax-deductible contribution today:
https://www.campaigncontribution.com/version6/process/info.asp?id=1700&jid=

Gary Glenn
AFA-Michigan
_________________________________________________

“(Homosexual) activists pushing the (’gay rights’/cross-dressing) ordinance said they were ready to push the issue in a public ballot initiative. ‘It’s an option I am not thrilled about, but it’s something that is still on the table,’ said Kathleen Conley, who chairs the (Jackson) Human Relations Commission. She said the commission would meet to discuss how to move forward, and said some options included working with councilmembers to pass an ordinance which would only apply to city employees, or putting the issue on the ballot. (Cross-dressing activist John now) Julie Nemecek, co-director of Michigan Equality, said the HRC would only need about 400 signatures of Jackson voters to put the issue to a vote.”

—————————————————
MICHIGAN MESSENGER
Lansing, Michigan
August 12, 2009

Jackson City Council rejects anti-
discrimination ordinance 5-2

by Todd A. Heywood

JACKSON — In a 5-2 vote, the city council on Tuesday night rejected a controversial anti-discrimination ordinance aimed at curbing bias on the basis of sexual orientation, HIV status or gender identity and expression among other categories, setting the stage for what could be an ugly public ballot battle.

City Council members Kenneth Glasier, from the Fourth Ward, and Carl Breeding from the First Ward, voted (against a motion) to reject the ordinance. The motion was put forward by Daniel Greer, who represents the Third Ward and Robert Howe of the Second Ward.

“I feel like we are in Washington. We’re talking about an issue, but we’re not dealing with it,” Mayor Jerry Ludwig said before casting a vote to reject the ordinance. “We’re too small for that. Sure we have a problem. Anyone who would deny that would be a liar. But it’s not a problem to the extent where it will affect the business or housing market.”

The move came after nearly 45 minutes of testimony about the ordinance. About 35 people spoke, with the majority of those speaking in opposition to the ordinance living outside the city, and the majority of those speaking in favor being Jackson residents.

Bryan Ramsey, who owns RTD Manufacturing in the city but lives in Grass Lake, said his concern was about the impact of the ordinance on businesses. Under the ordinance, a business found guilty of violating the ordinance is subject to a fine of $500 a day, as well as back wages and legal fees.

“We have agencies trying to attract businesses to Jackson,” Ramsey told council members. “I know if this ordinance troubles me, I am sure it bothers some of those considering a move to Jackson.”

Stephen Artz, RTD’s vice president, also spoke against the ordinance citing cost concerns for businesses. But when asked if he was aware that many manufacturing companies in the United States, including the Big Three automakers, protected employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation, Artz said, “No, I’m not.”

Activists pushing the ordinance said they were ready to push the issue in a public ballot initiative.

“It’s an option I am not thrilled about, but it’s something that is still on the table,” said Kathleen Conley, who chairs the Human Relations Commission. She said the the commission would meet to discuss how to move forward, and said some options included working with councilmembers to pass an ordinance which would only apply to city employees, or putting the issue on the ballot.

Julie Nemecek, co-director of Michigan Equality, said the HRC would only need about 400 signatures of Jackson voters to put the issue to a vote.

http://michiganmessenger.com/24706/jackson-city-council-rejects-anti-discrimination-ordinance-5-2
__________________________________________________

Cross-dressing activist John (now “Julie”) Nemecek of Spring Arbor, executive director of the Lansing-based homosexual activist group Michigan Equality, failed August 11th in his attempt to compel families, businesses, and community organizations by force of law in Jackson to pretend that his psycho-emotional delusions are reality.

Thankfully, the discriminatory “gay rights”/cross-dressing ordinance he’s pushing — which in other communities has violated the privacy rights of women and children in public restrooms, while being used to discriminate against and punish individual business owners as well as the Boy Scouts, Catholic Charities, Salvation Army, and United Way — was rejected outright by the Jackson City Council on a vote of 5 to 2. (See Jackson Citizen Patriot story below.)

Concerned citizens in Kalamazoo face a ballot campaign this fall on the same issue, which will be heavily funded by homosexual activist billionaire Jon Stryker, a resident of that city.

————————————-

“The City Council voted 5-2 to reject the (so-called ‘gay rights’/cross-dressing) ordinance at its meeting Tuesday. …About 20 people addressed the city council about the ordinance, the majority of whom voiced opposition. The proposed ordinance says no person shall be denied equal protection of the law, their civil or political rights or be discriminated against because of their…’sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or HIV status.’ …Points of contention about the ordinance centered around the sexual-orientation protections it provided, the potential for lawsuits for business owners and additional cost for employers.”

———————————

CITIZEN PATRIOT
Jackson, Michigan
August 12, 2009

Jackson City Council rejects civil rights ordinance in 5-2 vote
by Fredricka Paul

JACKSON, Mich. — A highly debated civil rights ordinance that first came before the Jackson City Council 10 years ago and was revived this year was rejected by the council Tuesday.

The City Council voted 5-2 to reject the ordinance at its meeting Tuesday. Councilmen Carl L. Breeding and Kenneth Gaiser voted in opposition of rejecting the ordinance.

“It appears to me, the majority of the council doesn’t believe certain citizens in the community deserve to be protected,” said George Brown, a member of the Human Relations Commission that brought the ordinance before the council.

“I think they showed that with their vote. I strongly believe they trivialized the process.”

About 20 people addressed the City Council about the ordinance, the majority of whom voiced opposition.

The proposed ordinance says no person shall be denied equal protection of the law, their civil or political rights or be discriminated against because of their “race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, height, weight, condition of pregnancy, marital status, physical or mental limitation, source of income, family responsibilities or status, educational association, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or HIV status.”

The ordinance was initially brought to the City Council in 1999 but eventually stalled in 2002. Points of contention about the ordinance centered around the sexual-orientation protections it provided, the potential for lawsuits for business owners and additional cost for employers.

Kathleen Conley, chairwoman of the Human Relations Commission, said the group has several options it will explore. The commission could send the issue to a public vote, but Conley said she would rather not do that yet.

“We are talking about refining the ordinance,” she said. “We need to talk to other council members and find out what their concerns were.”

Conley said she would also like to talk to residents who still had concerns. But despite being shot down by the council, she said the commission will still work on getting the ordinance considered.

“It is not the end of the story either just a different direction that we need to go in,” she said.

(Cross-dressing activist) Julie Nemecek of Spring Arbor said (he) found it troubling that people were not in support of the ordinance and that its passage is long overdue.

“It is not special rights, it is equal rights,” (he) said. “I can assure you it is needed.”

http://www.mlive.com/news/jackson/index.ssf/2009/08/jackson_city_council_rejects_c.html
__________________________________________________

WLNS-TV
Lansing, Michigan
August 11, 2009

City votes down gay rights amendment
by Alison Himelhoch

WATCH VIDEO: http://www.wlns.com/global/video/flash/popupplayer.asp?ClipID1=4036239&h1=City%20Votes%20Down%20Gay%20Rights%20Amendment&vt1=v&at1=News&d1=97900&LaunchPageAdTag=News&activePane=info&rnd=64319859

A gay rights amendment gets knocked down in Jackson. The city council voted against changes to Jackson’s anti-discrimination ordinance. It’s a law that currently says people can’t be denied rights based on certain characteristics, like race or gender.

The human rights commission wanted to add nine words to the current law, saying that in addition to what’s already on the books, people can not be discriminated against based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or HIV status, but council voted that down 5 to 2.

Before they voted, several spoke out both for and against the proposal. Some say the debate is way overdue and the language should have been changed years ago, but others say changing the ordinance wouldn’t be fair, because the gay and lesbian community chooses to live their life that way, so employers and others shouldn’t be forced to give them equal rights.

Christine Canning-Peterson, supports ordinance: “It’s the right thing to do. I don’t want to live in a neighborhood that discriminates against people for any reason, and I appreciate and celebrate diversity in citizenry, and the city should do the same.”

Brad Foster, against ordinance: “It would be terrible for businesses. It would take out for businesses to choose how to run their business, who do they want representing them at the counter.”

I spoke with someone from the human rights commission after the vote, and he says they’re down, but they aren’t defeated. They will go back to the drawing board to see how they can get changes passed.

http://www.wlns.com/Global/story.asp?S=10890589&nav=menu25_2
__________________________________________________

“(AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn) expects it will be a tough battle. ‘For example, homosexual activists’ campaign will be paid for by a homosexual activist billionaire who lives in Kalamazoo, so they are going to have unlimited funds to run the campaign in favor of this ordinance,’ the pro-family activist points out. Glenn adds that similar ordinances in other cities have been used to discriminate and punish not only Christian business owners, but also charities such as the Salvation Army, Boy Scouts, and United Way.”

————————————

ONE NEWS NOW
American Family Radio
Tupelo, Mississippi
August 6, 2009

“Gay-rights” ordinance — rescind it, or vote on it
by Charlie Butts

Residents of Kalamazoo, Michigan, will have a chance to vote on a city ordinance that bestows special rights on homosexuals, lesbians, and transgendered people.

Earlier the ordinance was passed, and a petition drive was successful to put the issue on the ballot. City officials, however, simply pulled out the ordinance, forcing another petition drive. Gary Glenn heads the American Family Association of Michigan.

“They were required to gather some 1,200 signatures. They gathered over 2,000,” he notes. “What that will force the city commission to do is to either rescind this so-called ‘gay-rights’ ordinance, or put it on the ballot for a vote of the people of Kalamazoo in November.”

Glenn believes they will take it to the people. He expects it will be a tough battle.

“For example, homosexual activists’ campaign will be paid for by a homosexual activist billionaire who lives in Kalamazoo — so they are going to have unlimited funds to run this campaign in favor of this ordinance,” the pro-family activist points out.

Glenn adds that similar ordinances in other cities have been used to discriminate and punish not only Christian business owners, but also charities such as the Salvation Army, Boy Scouts, and United Way.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=627770
__________________________________________________

“Kalamazoo voters will have the last word in November on a controversial, local, gay-rights ordinance… The anti-discrimination measure surfaced in late 2008 when the local gay-rights group Kalamazoo Alliance for Equality proposed ordinance language. …(C)itizens opposing the measure said the new law could require them to violate their personal, moral and religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong by forcing them to offer jobs or rent homes to gay, lesbian or transgender people. Opponents launched a petition challenge and submitted enough signatures…get the ordinance suspended and force the commission to…put the measure to a citywide vote.”

————————————

KALAMAZOO GAZETTE
Kalamazoo, Michigan
August 4, 2009

Voters will decide gay issue
by Kathy Jessup

KALAMAZOO — Kalamazoo voters will have the last word in November on a controversial, local, gay-rights ordinance that had banned gender identity or sexual-orientation discrimination in housing, employment and access to public accommodations.

The Kalamazoo City Commission voted unanimously Monday to reaffirm its support for the ordinance that was officially suspended Friday when challenge petitions were certified by City Clerk Scott Borling.

City Attorney Clyde Robinson now will draft ballot language that will be presented to the commission at its Aug. 17 meeting. Commissioners must approve the language for it to appear on the Nov. 3 ballot.

The anti-discrimination measure surfaced in late 2008 when the local gay-rights group Kalamazoo Alliance for Equality proposed ordinance language. A final version was crafted by Robinson, and the commission passed it unanimously in December.

However, citizens opposing the measure said the new law could require them to violate their personal, moral and religious beliefs that homosexuality is wrong by forcing them to offer jobs or rent homes to gay, lesbian or transgender people. Opponents launched a petition challenge and submitted enough signatures in December to get the ordinance suspended and force the commission to rescind it or put the measure to a citywide vote.

The commission decided in January to withdraw the first ordinance and appointed a three-member committee to hear public comment and attempt to craft a compromise measure. A second version was introduced in June and again unanimously passed by the commission, despite objections from critics who said they would circulate petitions again to place the measure on the ballot.

Borling certified Friday that Kalamazoo Citizens Voting No to Special Rights Discrimination had collected sufficient petition signatures to again suspend the ordinance and prompt a citywide ballot.

http://www.mlive.com/news/kzgazette/index.ssf?/base/news-35/1249397415102620.xml&coll=7
__________________________________________________

Dear AFA-Michigan supporter,

The opposition boasts it will spend “at least $200,000″ on the ballot campaign to pass a discriminatory “gay rights” ordinance in Kalamazoo this November.  Obviously, your generous financial support is needed and appreciated.

Click here to make your tax-deductible contribution today:
https://www.campaigncontribution.com/version6/process/info.asp?id=1700&jid=

Thanks in advance!

Gary Glenn
AFA-Michigan

——————————–

“Hoadley confirmed that other national (homosexual activist) organizations would be assisting the One Kalamazoo campaign with staffing, volunteers and financial assistance…  ‘National organizations can help with messaging, voter outreach, raising money, raising visibility. …The Task Force, Human Rights Campaign, …National Center for Transgender Equality have all been sounding boards for moving forward. People are coming together to help us win in Kalamazoo,’ Hoadley said.  Hoadley expects to spend at least $200,000 on the campaign and plans to raise the money from local and national donors.

…When I asked Hoadley if he thought bringing in a national leader to helm the ballot initative would backfire, he said…  ‘The local (homosexual) community asked me to participate in helping them pass a local ordinance that will help make (their) lives better. The American Family Association is going to send in big guns and spend a lot of money sending out misinformation about our community and our lives. These people aren’t local either,’ Hoadley told me. …’It’s a unique opportunity to tackle right-wing arguments in a complete way; it’ll serve as a laboratory for the nation.  This is why the AFA is picking places like Kalamazoo…  They’re trying to find new ways to scare voters at a local level and move those lessons forward nationally. We want to fight back and win but do it in a way that diffuses their best arguments and can be used as a model for other communities facing similar fights.’”

——————————–

THE BILERICO PROJECT
Indianapolis, Indiana
August 3, 2009

Stonewall Democrats executive director Jon
Hoadley resigns to lead Kalamazoo ballot fight

http://www.bilerico.com/2009/08/stonewall_dems_ex_dir_jon_hoadley_resigns_to_lead.php
__________________________________________________