FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Sun., June 22, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

Women complain doctor told them marriage
is only between one man, one woman

Traditional marriage group praises Spectrum doc for
telling lesbian couple the truth, spiritually and legally

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — The American Family Association of Michigan Sunday praised a west Michigan doctor accused by a lesbian couple of so-called “discrimination” by telling them during a recent office visit that marriage consists only of a spiritual and legal union of one man and one woman.

The Triangle Foundation, a Detroit-based homosexual activist group that supports radically redefining marriage in Michigan to include homosexual couples, ramped up the rhetoric this weekend by accusing the physician — an as yet unnamed employee of Spectrum Health South Pavilion Urgent Care Center in Grand Rapids — of “spiritual violence” against the lesbian couple, who say they were “married” during the last two years in Canada, where marriage has already been redefined by activist judges.

(See “Same-sex couple complain about Spectrum doctor’s comments,” Grand Rapids Press:
http://blog.mlive.com/…)

AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn, Midland, noted that Michigan voters in 2004 overwhelmingly approved a Marriage Protection Amendment to the state constitution, which he co-authored.

“First, we commend the physician for telling these two women the simple truth, that under God’s law as well as the laws and constitution of the state of Michigan, marriage is in fact only between one man and one woman, regardless of what activist judges in some other country or state have to say about it,” Glenn said.

“Second, we urge Spectrum and the Grand Rapids area news media not to play along with homosexual activists’ obviously manufactured melodrama and political propaganda ploy,” Glenn said.

“A doctor dared express his opinion to two adult women who were and are completely free to disagree with him, and free to simply tell him so,” Glenn said. “Instead, they’re collaborating with a homosexual activist group trying to manufacture yet another melodrama of hurt feelings and alleged ‘discrimination’ to portray individuals who engage in homosexual behavior as ‘victims’ in the news media, in hopes of winning public sympathy for their aggressive agenda to legalize so-called homosexual ‘marriage’ in Michigan.”

“Third, it would be unprofessional for a physician not to question a homosexual couple about their lifestyle given the seriously increased personal and public health risks associated with homosexual behavior,” Glenn said. “In response, a truly compassionate doctor, or Christian, or community that truly cares about the health and well-being of others will discourage rather than enable or affirm medically harmful and self-destructive behavior.”

He cited multiple medical studies indicating increased health risks among women who have sex with other women:

* Homosexual women are more than twice as likely as women involved in normal heterosexual activity to be overweight or obese, which puts them at greater risk for obesity-related health problems and death from diabetes, heart disease, and other ailments, according to study of almost 6,000 women by Boston University School of Public Health published last year in the American Journal of Public Health. http://www.news.com.au:80/dailytel…

* Homosexual women have “a significantly higher prevalence of bacterial vaginosis (associated with pelvic inflammatory disease), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors compared to” normal heterosexual women, according to a study of 1,408 lesbian and bisexual women by the Sexual Health Unit at Alice Springs Hospital in Australia, published in the October 2003 issue of the Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The same study found higher rates of “high-risk behaviors, including drug use,” smoking tobacco, and that “hepatitis B was also more common” among lesbian women. http://www.curvemag.com/Detailed/13.html

* “Lesbians and bisexual women are more promiscuous than straight women,” being four times more likely than heterosexual women to report having had “more than 50 sex partners” in their lifetimes, “six times more likely to inject drugs, and…significantly more at risk from hepatitis B and C,” according to the Australian study, as reported by The Guardian, a mainstream secular newspaper in London. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/24/3

* The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported that “women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women.” MISH also found “significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals.” (Medical Institute of Sexual Health: www.medinstitute.org, Executive Summary, “Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality,” 1999)

* The National LGBT Cancer Network reports: “The U.S. government listed (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender) people as one of six population groups experiencing health disparities in this country, meaning that the burden of disease is not evenly distributed, but falls most heavily on these groups. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that LGBT people have a substantially greater risk of developing cancer than the general population.” http://www.cancer-network.org/info.php

* Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE), a cancer victim research and advocacy group, reports: “(T)here is a body of evidence suggesting that lesbians have a dense cluster of risk factors, significantly raising their risk of developing breast, ovarian and other cancers. Research shows, for example, that lesbians have higher rates of obesity and lower rates of childbearing before age 30, increasing the risks for both breast and ovarian cancer.” http://www.facingourrisk.org/risk_management/breast_and_ovarian_cancer.html

* “(T)he National Cancer Institute announced that lesbians have a two- to threefold higher lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Suzanne Haynes, an epidemiologist and former chief of the health education section of the National Cancer Institute, took known risk factors and looked to see if they occurred more among lesbians and found that they did. It was partly bad habits—overweight lesbians drinking and smoking too much—and partly science: Interruptions of the body’s estrogen production, which can be brought about by bearing children or taking the pill, are believed to decrease the risk of cervical and breast cancer.” http://www.villagevoice.com/people/0552,hunter,71342,24.html

* Compared to heterosexual women, females who engage in homosexual behavior are four times more likely to have suffered a substance use disorder, 2.4 times more likely to have suffered mood disorders, and twice as likely to have suffered two or more mental disorders during their lifetimes, according to a study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2001. “The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders,” the study reported.
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/58/1/85

# # #

ONE NEWS NOW
Tupelo, Mississippi
June 11, 2008

School silences one, but not the other
by Charlie Butts

A pro-family advocate believes school officials erred in their attempts to censor student speeches at graduation ceremonies in Park Township, Michigan.

Valedictorian Jed Grooters was warned not to make biblical references in his speech and complied, but class president Andrew Webster did cite scripture. Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan contends school attorneys were wrong in demanding separation of church and state, and he bases that belief on an appeals court ruling.

“‘The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state,” Glenn points out. “And the [court's] decision went further and called the ACLU’s repeated references to the so-called separation of church and state as ‘extra-constitutional and tiresome,’” he notes.

6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals: http://www.afamichigan.org/2005/1…

Glenn explains that Webster “picked up the mantle” denied Grooters and referred to the Bible in his speech. Webster received a standing ovation at the conclusion of the speech.

“We are proud of these two high school seniors,” says Glenn. “[We are proud] for their commitment, their faithfulness to the Lord, and their unwillingness to be muzzled when it comes to testifying to the role [Jesus] has played in their lives.”

The Michigan family advocate believes Christian legal organizations are standing in line to help either student, if necessary.

http://www.onenewsnow.com…

URGENT

Dear AFA-Michigan supporter,

Please read the news release below. Then, please contact West Ottawa Schools Superintendent Patricia Koeze and urge her to reverse her attempt to force a Christian high school senior and valedictorian to either remove references to the Bible from his valedictory speech or not be allowed to speak at all.

Even if you can’t reach Supt. Koeze live, please leave a message.

Supt. Patricia Koeze
Phone: 616-738-5700
E-mail: KoezeP@westottawa.net

Thanks as always for your support!

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

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Sat., June 7, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

Family group: Holland schools violate Constitution
by censoring Christian valedictorian’s “life lesson”

Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals: “The First Amendment does
not demand a wall of separation between church and state.”

HOLLAND, Mich. — West Ottawa Public Schools Superintendent Patricia Koeze’s censorship of a Christian high school senior’s valedictory address — planned for graduation ceremonies Sunday — is a “clear, outrageous, and unconstitutional violation of the student’s First Amendment free speech rights,” a statewide family values group said Saturday.

The American Family Association of Michigan blasted Koeze’s censorship of planned remarks by West Ottawa High School valedictorian Jed Grooters, who included quotations from the New Testament book of Corinthians. AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn, Midland, said Koeze’s action “is a clear case of unconstitutional discrimination based on the content of the student’s speech, propped up by some obviously very poor legal advice from the school district’s attorneys.”

“Since the U.S. Supreme Court long ago prohibited school officials from unconstitutionally
forcing students to surrender their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse door,” Glenn said, “Supt. Koeze’s heavy-handed intolerance and discrimination toward this student’s expression of his Christian worldview is an engraved invitation for a First Amendment free speech lawsuit against the school system for which local taxpayers would have to foot the bill for attorneys fees and damages.”

The Grand Rapids Press Saturday reported that Grooters — a 4.0 GPA student and eight-time varsity athlete who won the sportsmanship award in three different varsity sports this year — was asked by school officials to give a valedictory address Sunday talking about a “life lesson” he wished to share with fellow students.
http://blog.mlive.com/grpress/2…

But upon submitting a draft of his speech to school officials, Grooters was told he would not be allowed to speak unless he removed his speech’s references to the Bible. The student refused, and the matter was referred to Koeze.

According to the Press, Koeze labeled Grooters’ comments “a religious speech” and insisted that allowing him to present it during the school’s graduation ceremonies would violate the so-called “separation of church and state.”

Glenn said the federal Appeals Court which acts on all federal court decisions originating in Michigan has ruled exactly opposite of Koeze’s faulty interpretation of the First Amendment.

He cited a April 2006 case in which the Sixth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals — by a vote of 19 to 5 — upheld a three-judge panel of the court’s earlier rejection of the American Civil Liberties Union’s claim that a Kentucky courthouse violated the First Amendment by displaying a copy of the Ten Commandments found in the Old Testament of the Bible.
http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions…

In its ruling, the Sixth Circuit went beyond the specifics of the Kentucky case, issuing a broad statement of the Constitution’s original intent, dramatically declaring that religious speech is protected by, not at odds with, the First Amendment.

“The First Amendment does not demand a wall of separation between church and state,” the three-judge panel had unanimously ruled in December 2005 in an opinion authored by Senior Judge Richard Suhrheinrich of Williamston, a graduate of Michigan State University-Detroit College of Law and a full-time faculty member at Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing.

The Suhrheinrich-authored decision further characterized the American Civil Liberties Union’s repeated references to the so-called “separation of church and state” as “extra-constitutional” and “tiresome.”

See page 13 of the Court of Appeals panel’s December 2005 decision: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions…

“To quote the same Appeals Court that will eventually rule on any free speech lawsuit that
results if Supt. Koeze continues to censor Jed Grooters’ quotation of the Bible, the superintendent’s false claim that the First Amendment requires her to do so is both ‘extra-constitutional’ and ‘tiresome,’” Glenn said. “In fact, the First Amendment requires school officials to both respect and allow Jed to fully practice his First Amendment free speech rights.”

Glenn said if the school district refuses to back off its unconstitutional censorship of Grooters’ speech Sunday, “Christian legal defense foundations across the country will be waiting in line to provide free legal representation to this courageous, principled young man and his family.”

“The question Supt. Koeze and West Ottawa school board members should ponder is how school district taxpayers are likely to feel about being forced to pay attorneys fees and damages when the federal courts reject her blatant violation of Jeb Grooters’ First Amendment free speech rights,” he said.

The American Family Association of Michigan’s mission is to promote and defend traditional Judeo-Christian family values, Glenn said.

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thurs., May 29, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

Family group urges Ferndale police to enforce public
nudity, indecency laws at homosexual “pride” festival

Ferndale “transgender” activist: “I’ve been approached many
times by people concerned about public nudity at PrideFest.”

Ferndale businesswoman: young children were exposed to
“shocking” nudity, “lewd behavior” at last year’s Pride event

FERNDALE, Mich. — A statewide family values organization is urging Ferndale police to assure the public it will effectively enforce state laws prohibiting public nudity and indecency during Motor City Pride, a homosexual street festival scheduled in the city this Sunday, citing concerns about such behavior at the event in past years published in a Ferndale “transgender” activist’s daily e-mail newsletter.

The American Family Association of Michigan Thursday alerted Ferndale Police Chief Michael P. Kitchen to comments published in “Ferndale Friends,” a daily e-newsletter issued by Stephanie Loveless, a 47 year old Ferndale man formerly named Thomas Ness, a Green Party candidate for Congress in 2000, who now dresses as a woman.
http://www.transgenderdetroit.org/?page_id=6

“On behalf of children whose parents may exercise the poor judgment of taking them to such an event,” AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn wrote, “we urge you to alert police officers responsible for policing the event to these locally published accounts of public nudity and indecency at past Motor City Pride festivals, remind them of state laws strictly prohibiting such activity in public, and instruct them to faithfully and fully enforce state laws regarding public nudity and indecency and child sexually abusive activity.”

Glenn cited accounts published by Loveless in his May 8th newsletter, in which Loveless wrote that he had “been approached many times by people concerned about public nudity at PrideFest.”

“Most recently, members of the (gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender community talked to me about it,” Loveless wrote. “As gays and lesbians, they are certainly very much in favor of Pride-Fest, but they’re not happy about seeing exposed buttocks, etc. I agree completely. I’m not exactly a prude, by any means, but I feel our downtown district must always be kept family-friendly… What do you think? …Have you also been offended by public nudity at Pride-Fest?”

The next day, Loveless published several responses, including comments by Ferndale insurance agent Robin J. Wojta, who said she and her young children were exposed to public nudity and indecency during last year’s event.”

“I am not a prude in any way…but I have to say, that some of the ’stuff’ I saw at this community event was shocking!” Wojta wrote. “Totally not family friendly! My mistake was having my husband bring our 12 and 13 year old daughters to hang out with me for awhile. I had a lot of explaining to do! There were many inappropriate displays of dress (or non-dress as the case may be), lewd behavior and general disrespect for the Ferndale community. …I will not be participating in this year’s Pride Fest because of the inappropriate behavior at last year’s event.”

Glenn noted state laws prohibiting erotic nudity and indecency in public, particularly in front of children:
“A person shall not knowingly make any open or indecent exposure of his or her person or of the person of another.” Violation of the statute is punishable “by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both.” http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qfo25luhlavlne55zuhdcr55))/mileg.as…

Michigan Penal Code 750.145 (c)(1)(j) defines “child sexually abusive activity” to include “passive sexual involvement” — “an act, real or simulated, that exposes another person to or draws another person’s attention to an act of sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse, masturbation, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity because of viewing any of these acts or because of the proximity of the act to that person, for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification or stimulation of 1 or more of the persons involved.” http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jxqazl55qat44h45…

Glenn cited media reports of public sex acts and nudity during homosexual street festivals in Toronto and San Francisco in which police reportedly failed to enforce laws against such behavior in public. He included as an example a YouTube video of a lesbian couple simulating a sex act on the trunk of a Toronto police car. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u3kw2b1-M8

“We hope that the Ferndale Police will take a different approach this Sunday, despite published accounts by a local ‘transgender’ activist supportive of the event, including eyewitness commentary by a local Ferndale business person, which indicate that your department has failed to effectively police public nudity and indecency during past Motor City Pride events,” Glenn wrote Kitchen.

“Please issue a public statement assuring the public that your department will in fact this Sunday be faithfully enforcing state laws against public nudity, public indecency, and child sexually abusive activity, including laws against allowing children to witness public nudity or real or simulated sex acts on the streets of Ferndale,” he wrote.

“Or, if you do not intend to do so, or are not confident that you can effectively do so, please issue a public statement warning the public that if they attend, they and their children may be exposed to illegal acts of public nudity, indecency, and sexual activity on the streets of Ferndale.”

# # #

To read the full text of Glenn’s e-mail to Chief Kitchens, including full text at the end of comments published by Stephanie Loveless in his e-mail newsletter “Ferndale Friends”, click on more.

(more…)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., May 21, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

Michigan homosexual lobby backs jail, lawsuits
for refusal to recognize homosexual “marriage”

Columnist: Triangle Fdn’s Kosofsky says business owners
should be jailed, newspapers sued and “slapped publicly”

SEATTLE — Michigan’s largest homosexual activist group says once marriage is legally redefined to include homosexual couples, business owners and even news media outlets who refuse to recognize such marriages should be jailed or sued and “publicly slapped,” a Jewish and openly bisexual columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported Tuesday.

Statements attributed in the column to homosexual lobbyist Sean Kosofsky, director of policy for the Detroit-based Triangle Foundation, were denounced Wednesday by American Family Association of Michigan President Gary Glenn, co-author of the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by voters in 2004 to constitutionally reaffirm the legal definition of marriage in Michigan as only between one man and one woman.

“The Triangle Foundation openly admits homosexual activists’ intentions, once they gain sufficient political power, to impose their radical social agenda on America by brute force, trampling cherished American values such as religious freedom, freedom of speech, academic freedom, and even freedom of the press if it stands in their way,” Glenn said.

Glenn pointed to comments by Kosofsky reported Monday by David Benkof, author of Gay Essentials: Facts for Your Queer Brain and founder of the Q Syndicate, a “gay”-press syndicate that provides columns and other material to a hundred homosexual newspapers.

Benkof, who strays from “gay” political orthodoxy by opposing the redefinition of marriage, wrote in a column published Tuesday by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that he had interviewed homosexual activists nationally about the legal implications of a California Supreme Court ruling last week declaring a constitutional “right” to so-called homosexual “marriage.”

Benkof wrote: “A representative of the largest Michigan gay-rights group, the Triangle Foundation…told me that people who continue to act as if marriage is a union between a man and a woman should face being fined, fired and even jailed until they relent. What happens if a traditionally religious business owner wants to extend his ‘marriage discount’ only to couples married in his eyes? Sean Kosofsky of Michigan’s largest gay-rights group, the Triangle Foundation, says, ‘If you are a public accommodation and you are open to anyone on Main Street, that means you must be open to everyone on Main Street. If they don’t do it, that’s contempt and they will go to jail.’ ”

(See full Benkof column: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/363878_califgays21.html)

Glenn said the Triangle Foundation routinely justifies its hostility toward individuals and organizations who disagree with homosexual activists’ political agenda, as well as Triangle’s
admitted plans to suppress their opponents’ free speech rights, by demonizing those who support traditional one-man, one-woman marriage as promoters of “hate” and violence.

* The Triangle Foundation’s web site currently features a news release charging that support for Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment by Glenn and Catholic Cardinal Adam Maida of the Archdiocese of Detroit was a motivating factor in the alleged beating death of a homosexual senior citizen last year in Detroit. “It is appalling hypocrisy,” the statement reads, “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.” http://www.tri.org/violence/pdfs/taskforce.pdf

Triangle’s claims were proven false when police reported they found no evidence of assault and
the Wayne County medical examiner’s office concluded the man had died from natural causes after a fall resulting from arthritic paralysis. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262308,00.html

* Kosofsky has for years publicly accused Glenn’s organization of supporting murder, though only one news media outlet has ever published the allegation. “We personally believe that the AFA may support the murder of gay, lesbian and bisexual people,” Kosofsky said, as reported in 2001 by State News, the student newspaper at Michigan State University.
http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2001/11/gay-rights_group_fights

And Kosofsky in a published column in 2005 called Cardinal Maida “recklessly wicked,” accused him of “arrogance, bigotry and hypocrisy,” and said the Catholic church’s position in support of one-man, one-woman marriage “should be tossed in the trash.”
http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=13021

Glenn also noted that when Kosofsky said news media outlets should be sued and “slapped publicly” if they report material to which homosexual activists object, one example may have been fresh on his mind. Last month, Kosofsky attacked WNEM-TV Channel 5, Saginaw, for its coverage of a pro-homosexual student protest in public schools. “WNEM has run one of the worst stories I have seen in recent years on Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender issues by using insensitive and inflammatory terms,” Kosofsky wrote on his blog, Blog O’ Queer.
http://www.blogoqueer.org/2008/04/horrible-coverage-of-day-of-silence-in.html

Violations of religious freedom, free speech rights, academic freedom, and freedom of the press have become routine in countries and states that have already adopted so-called homosexual “marriage” or “hate crime” laws based on homosexual behavior, Glenn said.

* Swedish Pastor Ake Green in 2004 was sentenced to 30 days in jail for preaching a sermon in which he defined homosexual behavior as sinful and harmful to society. http://www.akegreen.org

* Baptist Press reported in 2005: “A Catholic bishop in Canada is under investigation by a government agency for condemning ‘gay marriage’… The bishop, Fred Henry of Calgary, is being investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for comments he made about homosexuality in both a letter to parishioners and a Calgary Sun newspaper column. Two homosexuals filed the complaints.” http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=20716

* The Irish Times reported in 2003: “Clergy and bishops who distribute the Vatican’s latest publication describing homosexual activity as ‘evil’ could face prosecution under incitement to hatred legislation. …Those convicted under the Act can face jail terms of up to six months.”
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2003/0802/1059775167952.html

* The London Daily Telegraph reported in 2006: “New Government proposals on equality could require clergy to bless homosexual ‘weddings’ or face prosecution, the Church of England said yesterday. It said the proposed regulations could undermine official teaching and require Christians to act against their religious convictions.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1520849/Church-%27could-be-forced-to-bless-gay-weddings%27.html

* Catholic Charities in Boston was forced by a state “sexual orientation” law to either process the adoption of children to homosexual couples, a direct violation of Vatican policy, or abandon their century-old adoption referral services altogether. They chose the latter. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions

* The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix newspaper was ordered by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal to pay three homosexual men $1,500 each after the newspaper agreed to run an ad that featured Bible verses critical of homosexual behavior. “As the Star-Phoenix lawyer said in his closing statement (before the Tribunal), ‘A Human Rights ruling against the Star-Phoenix and Mr. Owens could limit freedom of speech in the media, in churches and in classrooms.’” http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/1999_Sept_Oct/article_7.html

* A British couple were questioned by police on possible “hate crime” charges after they wrote a letter-to-the-editor of their local newspaper criticizing city officials for distributing brochures at city hall promoting homosexual behavior. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/4555406.stm

* The London Daily Telegraph reported last month: “A Christian couple who have taken in 28 children have been forced to give up being foster parents after they refused to promote homosexuality. Vincent Matherick, 65, and his 61-year-old wife Pauline were told by social services that they had to comply with legislation requiring them to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567160/Christian-foster-parents-condemn-’gay-laws’.html

* A British Anglican bishop in February was fined for refusing to hire an openly homosexual man as a church youth minister. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021104.html

* The London Daily Telegraph reported in 2003: “A bishop who angered homosexuals by suggesting they seek a psychiatric cure is to be investigated by police to see if his outspoken views amount to a criminal offence, it emerged yesterday.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1446318/Bishop%27s-anti-gay-comments-spark-legal-investigation.html

* Eleven Christians in Philadelphia — including two grandmothers in their 70’s, one white and one African-American — were arrested and charged with “ethnic intimidation” under Pennsylvania’s “hate crimes” law when they tried to read Bible verses out loud during a homosexual street festival. They faced a cumulative 47 years in prison had they been convicted. http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=6542&department=CFI&categoryid=nation

* A New Mexico Christian photographer was fined $6,600 for refusing on religious grounds to photograph a homosexual marriage-like “commitment” ceremony.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200804/CUL20080416a.html

* Catholic bishops in Belgium and Spain were sued in 2004 by homosexual activist groups for making public statements in opposition to homosexual behavior and homosexual “marriage.”
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=43235

* Boston public school teachers were threatened with termination if they failed to portray so-called homosexual “marriage” in a positive light. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=27201

###

American Family Association of Michigan President Gary Glenn testified before the Royal Oak City Commission in March, urging commissioners to adopt an ordinance requiring the the installation of pornography-blocking software on all computers in the city’s public library. View Glenn’s testimony here: http://www.afamichigan.org/2008/04/02/afa-michigan-urges-royal-oak-to-filter-internet-porn-at-city-library

AFA-Michigan urges you to contact your local library and/or city officials to urge them to follow Royal Oak’s example…see below.

DAILY TRIBUNE
Royal Oak, Michigan
May 20, 2008

Library forced to use filters
Commission passes law limiting
Internet access to pornography

By Catherine Kavanaugh
Daily Tribune Staff Writer

ROYAL OAK– The public library will get filtering devices on all but one of the computers used by adults following passage Monday of an ordinance aimed at restricting Internet access.

In a 4-3 vote, the City Commission mandated the installation of software technology designed to block adult computer users from viewing Web sites with obscene material.

The Royal Oak Public Library has always filtered computers in its children’s department. The February arrest of a man who allegedly looked at child pornography in the adult computer lab resurrected the debate of filtering those terminals, too.

City Commissioners Michael Andrzejak, Terry Drinkwine, Stephen Miller and Chuck Semchena backed the ordinance. They said they want to provide maximum protection to library patrons and employees who could walk by a computer screen showing pornography and anyone who wouldn’t want to share the facility with someone looking for that kind of information.

“I believe there’s a danger from people willing to commit these crimes not only at home in private but in a public place,” Semchena said.

Semchena also said he was looking for a reason to change his vote but doesn’t think the steps taken by the Library Board of Trustees, such as requiring adults to show identification before using a computer, go far enough.

“I think you did some good work but it doesn’t rise to that level for me,” Semchena told library board members who attended the commission meeting.

Drinkwine complimented the board for its stricter ID policy, which has significantly reduced demand for computer time, according to library officials.

“You have to wonder why that it is,” Drinkwine said.

If the filters end up blocking access to legitimate research, too, the commission can reconsider the ordinance, Drinkwine added.

“It’s not something we can’t revisit if you prove it is totally unworkable,” he told the library board. “The only way we will know is to put it into practice and see how it shakes out.”

Mayor James Ellison and City Commissioner Carlo Ginotti and Gary Lelito said they don’t think the ordinance is necessary. No filters block all pornography and the devices can prevent people from going to useful Web sites dealing with health issues, such as sexually transmitted diseases.

“You can’t protect yourself from a chainsaw by taking away 50 percent of its teeth,” Ellison said. “A filter might cut out some of what is out there but it can’t filter all of it.”

The mayor said he prefers filtering patrons with ID checks and constant staff monitoring, which the library does, instead of filtering Internet content.

“I think the library board has the situation under control,” Ellison said just before the vote. “But the ordinance will pass. We will filter our computers and go from there. I wish it wasn’t happening but it’s not the end of the world.”

Ordinances go into effect 10 days after passage. David Palmer, the library board chairman, said the volunteer group will act as quickly as it can to comply.

“We have a directive and we will move ahead with it,” Palmer said.

Frank Houston, another member, said the library board has looked at filters offered by five companies and is leaning toward a device called WebBlocker, which stops access to Web page addresses in dozens of content categories.

One computer must be left unfiltered for Royal Oak to comply with the Michigan Library Privacy Act, which was amended in 1999 to strike a balance between respecting the free speech and privacy of adults while protecting children from obscene material.

Royal Oak could be the first city in Michigan to pass an ordinance forcing the library board to install filters, according to a spokesperson with the Michigan Municipal League. Other libraries leave only one terminal unfiltered as a matter of policy.

In his opposition to the ordinance, Ginotti said, “The worst way to fix a problem is to legislate it.”

However, Andrzejak said he hasn’t heard any public outcry in the cities where public libraries filter computers to the maximum level allowed by state law.

“I’ve been involved in this discussion going back a decade when I was on the library board and advocated for filters,” Andrzejak said. “…I’m not a holy roller. I’m not a liberal. I’m a man in the middle and I think this is right for the community.”

http://www.dailytribune.com/stories/052008/loc_localn04.shtml

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thurs., May 15, 2008

CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

California decision proves wisdom of Michigan voters’ approval of marriage amendment in ‘04

Marriage law in Michigan at risk if federal Defense of Marriage Act repealed, amendment co-author says

Midland, Mich. — The California Supreme Court ruling Thursday legalizing so-called homosexual “marriage” proves Michigan voters’ “wisdom and foresight” in approving a Marriage Protection Amendment to the state constitution in 2004 to put the definition of marriage beyond the reach of activist judges, a co-author of the amendment said.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, first proposed the amendment in June 2003, the day an Ontario, Canada, court issued a ruling legalizing so-called homosexual “marriage” on Michigan’s border. Nearly 60 percent of Michigan voters voted to approve the amendment seventeen months later on the November 2004 ballot.

Glenn noted that in declaring a constitutional “right” to so-called homosexual “marriage,” the California Supreme Court overturned a state law approved by 61 percent of California voters on the ballot in 2000. Had that ballot measure been not just a statute, but a constitutional amendment as it was in Michigan, it could not have been overturned by the court, he said. http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/elections/2000-2002.htm

“The California decision proves that activist judges cannot be trusted to uphold either existing marriage laws or even a vote of the people themselves,” Glenn said, “and it proves how right Michigan voters were to secure the definition of marriage in Michigan in our state constitution in advance, before judges tried the same thing here.”

“It should also be a wakeup call to Americans that the real threat to radically redefine marriage is still very much alive,” Glenn said. “Even here in Michigan, our state laws and constitutional protections of marriage could be undone by activist judges if the federal Defense of Marriage Act is amended or repealed as early as next year, as major candidates for federal office are promising to do if elected.”

The federal DOMA was enacted in 1996 and provides that a state cannot be forced to accept or recognize so-called homosexual “marriages” legally performed in other states. Glenn said repeal of that federal law would allow a federal judge to order Michigan to recognize so-called homosexual “marriages” performed in California or in Massachusetts, where activist judges redefined marriage in 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Glenn noted that Democratic U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has called for full repeal of DOMA. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/would-obama-pos.html

Plus, Glenn said, all Democrats representing Michigan in Congress, plus three Republicans — House members Joe Knollenberg, Thad McCotter, and Candice Miller — last year voted in favor of openly homosexual Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.’s “Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” which both the White House and House Republican leaders said would empower federal judges to force states to recognize homosexual “marriages” performed in other states. Only President Bush’s veto threat has thus far stopped Frank’s bill from becoming law.

The White House in a statement said Frank’s legislation threatened to add federal recognition to homosexual “marriages” recognized under state law, as in Massachusetts and now California. “Provisions of this bill purport to give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law. These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr3685sap-r.pdf

House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Frank’s legislation if enacted “puts activist judges in the position of imposing same-sex marriage and civil union laws on states. Simply by using ENDA as the basis of their decisions – just as state Supreme Courts have done with state-level ENDA laws in the past – liberal judges will be empowered under this legislation to single-handedly undermine state and federal marriage laws across the country. I’m disappointed that the Majority turned back a straightforward proposal offered by House Republicans to protect state and federal marriage laws from being overturned, modified, or restricted by activist judges as a result of this deeply flawed legislation.” http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=78178

Glenn pledged that the American Family Association of Michigan “will continue to stand firmly for constitutionally protecting marriage between one man and one woman and to uphold and defend the vote of the people of Michigan.”

“What the California decision should make clear is that the fight to protect one-man, one-woman marriage from the politically powerful homosexual lobby is far from over,” Glenn said. “It’s an ongoing fight that, for the sake of our children, requires eternal vigilance nationwide and here in Michigan.”

###

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