AFA Michigan.org. American Family Association of Michigan  
Home
About AFA Michigan
Media Center
Links
Contact AFA Michigan
Support AFA Michigan
AFAMI News

Search


AGAPE PRESS — Uphill battle predicted in Ferndale

September 25, 2006

“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, is actively opposing the (Ferndale ‘gay rights’) ordinance. …’We’re called to stand,’ he says, ‘not necessarily to win every time. But win, lose, or draw, we’re called to stand for what’s right; and that’s to say that marriage should remain between a man and a woman as God ordained it.’”
(more…)

WDC MEDIA — Initiatives to counter Kelo on Nov ballots

September 22, 2006

WDC MEDIA NEWS
Christian News and Media Agency
Stonyford, California
September 22, 2006

Initiatives to counter eminent domain
ruling on several November ballots

(AgapePress) — The president of a pro-family group in Michigan says concerned Christian voters in his state have a chance to limit local governments from condemning homes and churches for private development projects.

Michigan is one of six states that will have proposed constitutional amendments limiting eminent domain on their November ballots. In the Kelo decision last summer, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that municipalities have the right to condemn homes, businesses, and churches to make way for private development projects.

Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association of Michigan, says the initiative to counter that ruling has broad support. “Everybody from Center for Law & Policy [legal arm of the American Family Association] to the National Council of Churches to the NAACP has spoken out against this outrageous decision,” says Glenn.
(more…)

MIRROR — (Ferndale) group raises funds to pass gay rights ordinane

September 15, 2006

Dear AFA-Michigan supporter,

Please read the Royal Oak Mirror article below, then please consider making a special contribution to AFA-Michigan today to assist us in opposing homosexual activists’ latest attempt to impose a discriminatory “gay rights” ordinance on another community in Michigan.

I’d like to donate online.

Or by mail to: AFA-Michigan
Box 1904
Midland, Michigan 48641

——————————————————————

“(City Councilman Craig) Covey, who is gay, said Ferndale’s gay and lesbian community is not adequately protected by the law. But he said he is unaware of any discrimination cases that have come up in the last few years. …In response, the American Family Association of Michigan has decried the proposed ordinance as a way to target religious organizations and other groups who have moral objections to homosexuality. ‘We’ll do anything we can to assist Ferndale residents who are opposed to this discriminatory ordinance,’ said Gary Glenn, the AFA of Michigan’s president.”

(more…)

Michigan Dems urge repeal of Marriage Protection Amendment

September 11, 2006

Michigan Democrats urged to rescind call to repeal Marriage Protection Amendment

Nearly 60 percent of voters approved measure in 2004

LANSING — A co-author of Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment — overwhelmingly approved by voters two years ago as Proposal 2 — Monday urged state Democratic Party officials to rescind a newly-adopted party platform provision expressly calling for repeal of the amendment.

Delegates to last month’s Michigan Democratic Party convention approved a platform which stated: “We call for the repeal of 2004 Proposal 2 which adds discrimination to our State Constitution.” http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=20122

Gary Glenn, Midland, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, in a letter e-mailed Monday to Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer, said the party’s new call for repeal of the voter-approved amendment “puts Democratic Party officials demonstrably and dramatically at odds with the values not only of Michigan voters overall, but with major elements of the Democratic Party’s own base.”

“By calling for repeal of the constitutional protection of one-man, one-woman marriage overwhelmingly approved by Michigan voters,” Glenn wrote, “you have allowed a tiny but very loud special interest group of homosexual activists to put the party on record with a slap in the face to the traditional family values shared by most rank-and-file Democrats, particularly African-Americans and union households.”

“On behalf of Michigan voters of all parties, but especially African-American and union households who so strongly supported constitutional protection of marriage between one man and one woman, we urge Michigan Democrats to take their party back from homosexual activist pressure groups and their allies who are now obviously steering the party in the wrong direction,” Glenn wrote.

Proposal 2, the 2004 ballot measure that amended Michigan’s constitution to reaffirm the definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman, was approved by 59 percent of general election voters in November 2004.

The full text of the amendment stated: “To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, 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.�

African-Americans supported amendment

Glenn pointed to the Marriage Protection Amendment’s approval in 2004 by voters in heavily African-American population centers; for example, by 51 percent of the vote in the city of Saginaw, 52 percent in the city limits of Detroit and Flint, 57 percent in Muskegon, and 67 percent in Benton Harbor.

He also cited a Detroit Free Press report the day after the November 2004 general election detailing an exit poll of 2,343 Michigan voters that found the amendment was supported by 59 percent of all black voters in the state. (”Gay marriage ban easily wins in state,” by Dawson Bell, Detroit Free Press, November 3, 2004)

Union households supported amendment

Glenn also pointed to a Detroit News poll in mid-October 2004 which found that “two-thirds of union households support Proposal 2, identical to the level of support in nonunion households,” according to a statewide survey of 600 likely voters conducted by Mitchell Research & Communications, Inc. of East Lansing. (”Same-sex marriage ban likely to pass,” by Charlie Cain and Mark Hornbeck, Detroit News Lansing Bureau, October 22, 2004)

Democrats overall supported amendment

The same Detroit News survey found that 51 percent of Democrats overall were planning to vote in favor of the amendment. (Detroit News, Oct. 22, 2004)

The Michigan Democratic Party in 2004 remained neutral on the issue, acknowledging strong support for protecting one-man, one-woman marriage among traditionally Democratic constituencies.

However, in this week’s issue of Between the Lines, a homosexual activist newsweekly in the Detroit area, activists praised an element of the Democratic Party’s new 2006 platform that had not previously been reported by the news media.

“Obviously, on the Proposal 2 issue, the party has much better hindsight than they did foresight; it’s regrettable that the party did not weigh in on Proposal 2 (in 2004), but I’m glad the party wants it gone,” said Sean Kosofsky, a member of both the Democratic Party and of Triangle Pride PAC’s elections committee. “Calling for the repeal of Proposal 2 is a bold move that we need to unify our state.”

Glenn disagreed. “Michigan voters have already spoken with a strong united voice, and they said they want one-man, one-woman marriage constitutionally protected from homosexual activists and their political agenda.”

Glenn first called for a Marriage Protection Amendment in June 2003 following an Ontario court ruling that legalized so-called homosexual “marriage” just across Michigan’s border. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/19/world/main559437.shtml

After falling short of receiving the required two-thirds vote in the Legislature, the amendment appeared on the 2004 ballot after supporters near-miraculously gathered nearly half a million signatures in less than three months with volunteer petition circulators.

In 2004, the Michigan Republican Party in convention overwhelmingly adopted a resolution endorsing the Marriage Protection Amendment, by a vote of 1,259 to 40.

DAILY MAIL — How Britain is turning Christianity into a crime

September 11, 2006

DAILY MAIL
London, England
September 7, 2006

How Britain is turning Christianity into a crime
by Melanie Phillips

How long will it be before Christianity becomes illegal in Britain? This is no longer the utterly absurd and offensive question that on first blush it would appear to be.

An evangelical Christian campaigner, Stephen Green was arrested and charged last weekend with using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour.

So what was this behaviour? Merely trying peacefully to hand out leaflets at a gay rally in Cardiff.

So what was printed on those leaflets that was so threatening, abusive or insulting that it attracted the full force of the law?

Why, none other than the majestic words of the 1611 King James Bible.

The problem was that they were those bits of the Bible which forbid homosexuality. The leaflets also urged homosexuals to “turn from your sins and you will be saved”.

But to the secular priests of the human rights culture, the only sin is to say that homosexuality is a sin.

Admittedly, Mr Green is not everyone’s cup of tea; other Christians regard him as extreme. But our society is now so upside-down that, by doing nothing more than upholding a fundamental tenet of Christianity, he was treated like a criminal.

And yet at the same time, the police are still studiously refusing to act against Islamic zealots abusing British freedom to preach hatred and incitement against the West.

Prejudice

The Bible is the moral code that underpins our civilisation. Yet the logic of the police action against Mr Green surely leads ultimately to the inescapable conclusion that the Bible itself is “hate speech” and must be banned.

This bizarre state of affairs has arisen thanks to our human rights culture which automatically champions minorities against the majority.

As a result, no one can say anything disobliging about a minority without being accused of prejudice or discrimination.

The problem for Christianity is that it holds that homosexuality is wrong. This, however, it is no longer allowed to say because it treats a minority practice as sinful.

So it can no longer uphold a central tenet of its own faith without being accused of prejudice.

This dilemma is currently tearing apart the Church of England itself. But it is also turning our whole notion of justice on its head.

Author Lynette Burrows received a warning from the Metropolitan Police merely for suggesting that gay people did not make ideal adoptive parents.

The former leader of the Muslim Council of Britain, Sir Iqbal Sacranie, also had his collar felt by police after he said that homosexuality was harmful.

Notably, in his case the matter was swiftly dropped. If there’s one thing that terrifies our PC police even more than being called homophobic, it’s being called Islamophobic — even though Islamic fundamentalism poses a real threat to the human rights of gay people.

If this wasn’t all so frightening, it would be hilarious. Christians, by contrast, get very different treatment.

An elderly evangelical preacher, Harry Hammond, was convicted of a public order offence after he held up a poster calling for an end to homosexuality, lesbianism and immorality.

Although he had been the victim of a physical attack when a crowd poured soil and water over him, he alone was prosecuted.

And Lancashire pensioners Joe and Helen Roberts were interrogated by police for 80 minutes about their ‘homophobic’ views after they had merely asked their local council to display Christian literature alongside gay rights leaflets in civic buildings.

Bullying Christianity is fast becoming the creed that dare not speak its name. It is being written out of the national script by ideologues seeking to hasten its disappearance.

Yesterday, the Mayor of London Ken Livingstone said in a radio interview that Britain was “no longer a Christian country” because people no longer went to church.

Local authorities and government bodies are systematically bullying Christianity out of existence by refusing to fund Christian voluntary groups on the grounds that to be Christian means that they are not committed to ‘diversity’.

Thus local and central government refused to replicate the vocational training provided by the Highfields Happy Hens Centre in Derbyshire for young offenders and pupils excluded from school despite its impressive record of success, simply because it was run with a clear Christian ethos.

Norfolk council objected to the inclusion of the word ‘Christian’ in the constitution of Barnabas House in King’s Lynn, Norfolk, which houses homeless young men.

And the Housing Corporation, the major funder of Romford YMCA in Essex which looks after hundreds of needy young people, objected to the fact that only Christians were board members — which meant, it said, that the YMCA was not capable of ‘diversity’, even though it was open to all faiths and none.

The ‘diversity’ agenda, in other words, is a fig-leaf for an attack on Christianity.

And to cap it all, we can no longer rely on our future monarch to hold the line, since Prince Charles has said that when he becomes King he will no longer be Defender of the Faith but “defender of faith”.

But Christianity is still the official religion of this country. All its institutions, its history and its culture are suffused with it; Britain would lose its identity, its values and its cohesion without it.

But minority rights are now being wielded against it like a wrecking ball.

What started as a commendable desire to ban hatred of the gay minority has morphed into a hatred of the Christian majority.

Behaviour which was previously considered to transgress the moral norms of the Bible has now instead become the norm — and it is biblical values that are treated as beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour. This is no accident.

The sacred doctrine of human rights — which explicitly sets itself up as the religion for a godless age — is the means by which secularism is steadily attacking the Christian roots of our civilisation, on the basis that religion is inherently unenlightened, prejudiced and divisive.

Christianity has been dethroned as this country’s governing creed on the basis that equality demands equal status for minority faiths and secularism. As a result, it is being marginalised as no more than a quaint cultural curiosity.

Offensive

It is a process before which the Church of England has long been on its knees, going with the flow of moral and cultural collapse in accordance with the doctrine of multiculturalism — and then wondering why its churches are so empty, while those of uncompromising evangelicals such as Stephen Green are packed to the rafters.

As a result, Christianity is being steadily removed from the public sphere.

Various councils have banned Christmas on the grounds that it is “too Christian” and therefore “offensive” to people of other faiths, and are replacing it with meaningless “winter festivals”.

This attack on Christianity is not merely something that seems straight out of Alice In Wonderland.

It is not merely a threat to freedom of speech and religious expression. It is a fundamental onslaught on the national identity and bedrock values of this country — and as such will destroy those freedoms which Christianity itself first created.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/

WDC MEDIA — Pro-family leader wants investigation of judge who struck down NSA wiretaps

September 1, 2006

WDC MEDIA
Los Angeles, California
August 31, 2006

Pro-family leader wants investigation of judge who struck down NSA wiretaps
by Allie Martin

AGAPE PRESS — The president of the American Family Association of Michigan says a district judge, who recently struck down the U.S. National Security Agency’s anti-terrorist wiretapping program, should be investigated for a possible conflict of interest in that case.

Earlier this month, Michigan U.S. District Judge Anna Diggs Taylor ruled the federal warrantless wiretapping program unconstitutional. The National Security Agency used the wiretaps to track suspected terrorists and their activities.
(more…)

Click here to visit Clean Hotels.com

Categories
Abortion
Eminent Domain
Homosexual Agenda
AFL-CIO
Public Health
In The News
Marriage
News Releases
Pornography
Public Schools and Universities
Religious Freedom
Religious Heritage

Click here to complain to the FCC