Time to Amend
by Chuck Colson

Protecting Traditional Marriage

Next week the House of Representatives will be voting on the Marriage Protection Amendment, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Our opponents say there is no need for this amendment because the states will do it, and they cite last week’s New York Court of Appeals decision supporting heterosexual marriage as evidence. Well, they’re wrong.

Yes, the Court of Appeals in New York did uphold New York’s law limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But in holding that there was a “rational basis� for this, the New York court is swimming against the tide of recent Supreme Court decisions in the area of gay rights.

This “tide� makes it virtually certain that when state statutes or constitutional provisions barring gay “marriage� reach the Supreme Court, they will be struck down.

Let me tell you why: In Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, Justice Kennedy affirmed the right of abortion by defining “liberty� as the right to “define one’s own concept of existence, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.�

As Justice Scalia noted in his dissent, such a definition could embrace anything. Scalia is right.
(more…)

The following guest opinion was published in response to the Lansing State Journal’s July 10th misleading editorial found by clicking here.

LANSING STATE JOURNAL
Lansing, Michigan
July 13, 2006

(Editorial Page)

Proposal 2 clearly written, clearly backed
by Gary Glenn

As usual, the LSJ (July 10 editorial) misrepresented the American Family Association of Michigan’s lawsuit against Michigan State University.

The purpose of the Marriage Protection Amendment is to protect not just the word “marriage,” but the unique legal and social standing of the institution of marriage.

MSU’s same-sex benefits policy unconstitutionally establishes eligibility by using the requirements for marriage found in state law, inserting the words “domestic partnership” instead.

MSU’s policy itself discriminates, applying only to homosexual employees. Appropriately, unmarried heterosexual couples don’t qualify. Neither do an employee’s mother, sister or roommate. If MSU doesn’t let an employee put her sick grandmother on university insurance, how do they justify singling out only homosexual employees? Constitutionally, they cannot.
(more…)

Conservative group sues Michigan
university over gay-partner benefits

Click here and then click on the “Play Audio” button to hear Focus on the Family’s radio coverage of the American Family Association of Michigan lawsuit to enforce our state Marriage Protection Amendment and protect taxpayers from being forced to financially subsidize homosexual behavior by government employees.

AFA-Michigan defends Marriage Protection Amendment, taxpayers

Click below to watch news report, live
interview on WNEM-TV Flint Channel 5

News: AFA-Michigan files suit against MSU

Live interview: AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn

AGAPE PRESS
Tupelo, Mississippi
July 6, 2006

MSU not above the law, pro-family activist says

by Jody Brown

No state institution is above the law, says a pro-family activist in Michigan — and that’s why his organization and a legal group in Ann Arbor have filed a lawsuit against Michigan State University (MSU).

Voters in the Wolverine State overwhelmingly approved a marriage protection amendment to the state constitution in 2004.

But Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, alleges that MSU’s policy providing spousal-type benefits to school employees’ homosexual partners violates the now-amended constitution because it uses taxpayer monies to subsidize those same-sex relationships as if they are equal or similar to marriage.
(more…)

“A conservative group on Wednesday sued to stop Michigan State University from offering health insurance to the partners of gay workers and said the school is violating a 2004 amendment to the state constitution. The American Family Association of Michigan filed the lawsuit…and hopes to get a ruling setting a precedent that would block domestic partner benefits at other state universities. …The purpose of the suit is to ensure that courts rule on the constitutionality of domestic partner benefits at public universities, said Patrick Gillen, an attorney for the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor, which is representing the American Family Association.

…In 2004, Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment that made the union between a man and a woman the only agreement recognized as a marriage ‘or similar union for any purpose.’ …’If MSU doesn’t allow an employee to put her elderly grandmother or little sister on the university’s health insurance, how do they justify singling out only employees involved in a homosexual relationship for special treatment?’ said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. Glenn and Gillen wrote the 2004 amendment.”

(more…)

AFA-Michigan lawsuit says MSU violating Marriage Protection Amendment, state law

Family group sues to stop university recognition, spending based on homosexual relationships

LANSING — The co-authors of a Marriage Protection Amendment to Michigan’s state constitution overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2004 are joining forces again to stop what they say is Michigan State University’s unconstitutional recognition and use of public funds to subsidize university employees’ homosexual relationships as if they are equal or similar to marriage.

Gary Glenn, Midland, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, the plaintiff in the case, and Patrick Gillen, Ann Arbor, attorney for the Thomas More Law Center, Wednesday filed suit in Ingham County Circuit Court alleging that MSU’s “use of state funds for the purpose of defining and recognizing…and providing benefits to MSU-recognized same-sex domestic partnerships violates the constitution of the state of Michigan as well as state law.”

(more…)

“A federal judge barred the Lubbock Gay Straight Alliance from meeting on (a high school) campus, citing the school district’s right to determine ‘what subject matter is considered obscene or inappropriate.’ (American Family Association of Michigan President Gary) Glenn says if Forest Hills School Board in Michigan ‘truly cared about young people who are ensnared by deviant behavior, they would tell them the truth that homosexuality is harmful and to be avoided.’ The family advocate explains that no school is mandated to allow clubs that promote deviancy.”

————————

AGAPE PRESS
Tupelo, Mississippi
July 3, 2006

Activist says clubs promoting risky
behavior should be booted from campus
By Jim Brown

A Michigan school board is defying the requests of parents who want Gay Straight Alliance (GSA) clubs banned in the district.

Despite the objections of concerned parents, the Forest Hills School Board has vowed it will not shut down three GSA clubs in the district. The board claims the federal Equal Access Act requires schools to allow sex-based clubs. But Gary Glenn, director of the American Family Association of Michigan, says schools can ban student groups that promote risky behavior — and it has already been done, he adds.
(more…)