FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thurs., May 24, 2007
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

Amendment co-author welcomes court move

Pro-marriage group applauds ruling, urges government and university employers to “obey the law” on homosexual benefits

Benefit plans offered to all employees would be allowed

LANSING — The Michigan Supreme Court will uphold an appeals court decision that the state’s Marriage Protection Amendment — approved by nearly 60 percent of Michigan voters in 2004 — prohibits public employers from recognizing homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for the purpose of providing taxpayer-financed benefits to government employees, a family values group that first proposed and co-authored the amendment predicted Thursday after the high court announced it will hear the case.

“We’re confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the clear language of the Marriage Protection Amendment and the clear intent of Michigan voters that homosexual relationships not be formally recognized for any purpose, including to force taxpayers to provide spousal-type benefits to a tiny special interest group of a couple hundred government employees,” Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan said. Glenn and Thomas More Law Center attorney Patrick Gillen co-authored the amendment.

“In the meantime, we urge state and local government officials and university administrators to honor the will of the voters, obey the law, and follow the Supreme Court’s order that the appeals court ruling prohibiting government benefits based on recognizing homosexual relationships now takes immediate effect,” Glenn said.

In an amicus brief last year to the Michigan Court of Appeals, AFA-Michigan documented that prior to the 2004 election, prominent spokesmen on both sides of the issue repeatedly told voters and the news media that the amendment would eliminate public employee benefits specifically based on government recognition of homosexual or other “domestic partnerships.”

Those prominent voices included the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which filed the lawsuit before the court challenging the amendment, the Triangle Foundation, a Detroit homosexual activist group, and Between the Lines, a Detroit homosexual newsmagazine, Gov. Jennifer Granholm, the Michigan Education Association, and the Michigan AFL-CIO — all of whom have argued in court that the amendment does not affect “domestic partner” benefits.

The Coalition for a Fair Michigan, the registered campaign committee that opposed the amendment, also told voters that approval of the amendment would eliminate so-called “domestic partner” benefits. Strikingly, the brief cites a news release issued by the Coalition praising Glenn for publicly agreeing with them prior to the election that the amendment would prohibit any public employee benefits plan based specifically on recognizing homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage.

“In light of the overwhelming evidence we provided the court documenting amendment opponents’ brazen falsehoods and flip-flops in this case, the ACLU and its allies should be embarrassed to even show up in front of the Supreme Court,” Glenn said.

AFA-Michigan argued in its brief that “the issue before the court is one of government recognition, not government benefits.”

Glenn explained that while the amendment’s language plainly prohibits public employee benefits that are specifically based on government recognition of homosexual relationships, nothing about the amendment prohibits public employees involved in such relationships from receiving benefits as part of a broader plan available to all employees — in other words, benefits not based in any way on a government employer’s singling out or recognizing homosexual “domestic partnerships” or other relationships.

AFA-Michigan’s brief cited, for example, a current proposal by the labor union representing graduate employees at the University of Michigan as the type of benefits plan that could constitutionally include but not be limited to public employees involved in homosexual relationships. The union’s proposed “designated beneficiary” plan would “allow (union) members to insure an additional adult without regard to marital or partner status,” according to a report by Between the Lines.

“Government employers currently don’t let an employee put her sick grandmother or a friend with no healthcare on her government insurance, so how do they justify singling out only employees involved in homosexual relationships for special rights and special treatment?” Glenn said. “The answer is obvious. They argue that homosexual ‘domestic partnerships’ deserve benefits at taxpayers’ expense because they insist such relationships based on homosexual behavior are equal or similar to marriage. which is specifically what the Marriage Protection Amendment prohibits,” he said.

The brief also cites a major newspaper’s public opinion poll suggesting that voters clearly intended to prohibit benefits based on such relationships. A month before the 2004 election, the Detroit Free Press published a poll which found that 53 percent of respondents said they intended to vote in favor of the marriage amendment. “Even more (54 percent) say local governments and universities should not provide benefits, such as health and life insurance, to the partners of gay and lesbian employees,” the Free Press reported.

A month later, 59 percent of voters actually supported the amendment.

AFA-Michigan first proposed the amendment in June 2003, in response to a neighboring Ontario, Canada, court decision legalizing so-called homosexual “marriage” on Michigan’s border.

# # #

Homosexual activists rallied at the state Capitol Tuesday to protest a Michigan Court of Appeals ruling in February that public employers may not recognize homosexual relationships among government employees for the purpose of providing taxpayer-financed spousal benefits…

“Sean Kosofsky, director of policy for the (homosexual) Triangle Foundation, exhorted the crowd: ‘Are you tired of a polluted political atmosphere caused by the toxic diatribes of Gary Glenn and the American Family Association?’ The crowd replied with a resounding ‘yes.’

…Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan and co-author of the 2004 (Marriage Protection Amendment), feels that the outcome lives up to its original intent. ‘The issue is about government recognition,’ he said in an interview last week. ‘And government recognition includes taxpayer-provided benefits.’ …Glenn cited an October 2004 Detroit Free Press poll taken before the proposal’s passage. At the time, 53 percent of those polled approved of the proposal, and 54 percent opposed allowing government and university employers to provide benefits to same-sex couples. According to Glenn, this proves that voter intent was parallel with the authors’ intent and that voters saw the proposal as a way to prohibit such benefits.”

CITY PULSE
Lansing, Michigan
May 23, 2007

Rapper plea: ‘Where homophobia ends, true freedoms begin’

by Clay Taylor and Wes Holing

The Michigan Supreme Court will soon decide on the ultimate fate of 2004’s Proposal 2, the so-called gay marriage amendment, and its opponents are not going quietly.

At a rally at the state Capitol Tuesday, about 100 people heard Lansing resident Dennis Finceth tell them, “There’s an awful lot of good families that I know and partners that I’m acquainted with who have left Michigan (because of the amendment), and it’s a shame to lose those people over something so regressive.�

The University of Michigan Social Workers, Michigan Equality, Triangle Foundation and several other groups organized the rally to kick off an effort to educate Michiganders about the adverse effects of Proposal 2 on gay couples who stand to lose domestic-partner health benefits.

The ballot initiative passed with 59 percent of the vote, defining marriage only as “the union of one man and one woman.� It also says that such a union will be “the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.�

State Attorney General Mike Cox has argued that the language makes domestic-partner benefits for same sex couples illegal. The State Court of Appeals agreed with Cox, overturning a ruling by Ingham County Circuit Judge Joyce Draganchuk that would have kept same-sex benefits intact.

At stake primarily are health benefits at MSU, U of M, LCC and several other state universities and colleges. But some governments also offer them to employees, including Ingham County.

Ingham County Commissioner Todd Tennis told the crowd, “I think I can speak on behalf of all my fellow county commissioners when I say that Ingham County is going to do everything in its power to continue to offer domestic partner benefits in the future and to fight this horrible decision.�

Sean Kosofsky, director of policy for the Triangle Foundation, exhorted the crowd: “Are you tired of a polluted political atmosphere caused by the toxic diatribes of Gary Glenn and the American Family Association?�.

The crowd replied with a resounding “yes.�

“Are you ready to proclaim that children do not need protection from homosexuals, but from homophobic zealots that thrive on panic and fear?� Kosofsky called. This time, an even louder “yes� answered him.

Offering a decidedly untraditional approach was speaker Kevin Correa, a full-time staff member at the University of Michigan’s LGBT Affairs office. When he took the podium, he rapped.

“I’m saying all I can so that justice can win, where homophobia ends, true freedoms begin,� Correa said. “Our tastes may be different but we’re humans the same, so just be real with us, stop playing these games.�

The rally was followed by a march to the Hall of Justice to present a resolution denouncing the early February Court of Appeals decision.

Derek Smiertka, executive director of Michigan Equality, a statewide gay rights advocacy group based in Lansing, said a petition on its Web site opposing the court decision has 1,225 signatures so far.

As opponents wait for the State Supreme Court to take up the case, they are arguing that the voters did not intend to end domestic-partner benefits for public employees when they banned same-sex marriage. “Intent� can be a reason to overturn a law.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan and co-author of the 2004 ballot proposal, feels that the outcome lives up to its original intent. “The issue is about government recognition,� he said in an interview last week. “And government recognition includes taxpayer-provided benefits. One does not require the other.�

Glenn cited an October 2004 Detroit Free Press poll taken before the proposal’s passage. At the time, 53 percent of those polled approved of the proposal, and 54 percent opposed allowing government and university employers to provide benefits to same-sex couples. According to Glenn, this proves that voter intent was parallel with the authors’ intent and that voters saw the proposal as a way to prohibit such benefits.

However, Doug Meeks, president of Michigan Equality, disagrees. He feels that this was not what voters asked for, nor should the amendment be read in such a way. In a May 16 interview on “City Pulse on the Air� on WDBM-FM, Meeks said, “The proponents of the amendment basically had gone out and told voters that domestic partner benefits would not be affected by this proposal.�

Nancy English, Michigan Equality’s executive assistant, agrees, pointing out the proposal’s supporters have been inconsistent in their claims. She cited a quote from Marlene Elwell of Citizens for the Protection of Marriage, a group supporting the amendment. In October 2005, Elwell told USA Today, “This has nothing to do with taking benefits away. This is about marriage between a man and a woman.�

English also cited Glenn himself in an interview with the Ann Arbor News, stating that public and private employers could continue to offer domestic partner benefits.

http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1092&Itemid=29

Thanks to all who responded to the recent Detroit News editorial defending Saginaw Valley State University’s presentation of a homosexual-themed play featuring full frontal male nudity, all at taxpayers’ expense. The following letters to the editor were published Monday, unanimously objecting to the use of tax dollars to violate Michigan’s “indecent exposure” law on the campus of a state-funded institution.

Gary Glenn
AFA-Michigan

DETROIT NEWS
Detroit, Michigan
May 21, 2007

(Letters to the Editor)

Don’t back indecent exposure
Full frontal nudity is not just a lot of “derrieres and buttocks” as The Detroit News so poetically states (”Don’t punish state colleges for ‘Angels’ play,” May 14). It’s indecent exposure. Is that phrase still in your vocabulary or has it been thrown out along with morality, and ethics?
Carolyn Rowe - Grayling

Degradation won’t aid jobs
How is tax funding for the showing of obscene plays at state universities going to fuel economic recovery? The devastating effects of porn and obscenity are all too clear. The dehumanization, enslavement and degradation of fellow human beings can ultimately never bring about economic prosperity. Reason and logic which are supposed to be important themes at universities also depart.
Mrs. Leeta von Buelow - Dexter

No frontal nudity subsidy
The play didn’t just show a few “bottoms.” It featured full frontal nudity. That is immoral, and I don’t appreciate my tax dollars paying for that filth. Enough is enough! I’m getting sick and tired of colleges thinking they can do whatever they want. That’s being immoral with my tax dollars. If a play were presented of a “conservative” nature, I’m sure the story would be much different.
Get your priorities in order.
Rosemary McKnight - Ortonville

Fund schools or play?
The editorial omits the charge that “Angels in America” displayed full frontal male nudity. Remarks by the director of the play beforehand further indicate that he knowingly flouted the tastes of the public as well as the laws.
Why should taxpayers pay for this, particularly when our Legislature is wondering how to balance the budget? Shall we deprive public school children of needed funds so that Saginaw Valley State University can stage frontal nudity? I don’t think so.
Richard Alan - Detroit

Dwelling on sex
Yes, it is damaging to our society to have such plays in our universities as “Angels in America.” If it were not damaging, we would have had them before now for our students and faculty.
We know that dwelling on the sexual side of life a great deal of our time puts us on the sexual path to much play and too much adultery and sex outside of marriage.
Mary S. Vaughan - Taylor

How far do ‘rights’ extend?
I noticed in the editorial defending the “right” of Saginaw Valley State University to produce “Angels in America” that The News neglected to note that the play contained full frontal male nudity. Wonder if the newspaper would be so quick to defend the university if it chose to do a play with a “Christian” theme?
Judy Duff - Muskegon

Free speech not involved
If someone wants to fund porn, I may not like it, but at least it isn’t tax dollars. “Angels” at Saginaw Valley State University involves the use of our tax dollars and is not freedom of speech.
Dale Munk - East Lansing

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070521/OPINION01/705210319/1008

Dear AFA-Michigan supporter,

As always, thanks for your support.

Gary Glenn, President
American Family Association of Michigan

DETROIT NEWS
Detroit, Michigan
May 14, 2007

(Editorial)

Don’t punish state colleges for ‘Angels’ play
Lawmakers should drop threats to slice universities’ funding

If the American Family Association of Michigan gets its way, a few buttocks will derail Michigan’s economic resurgence.

The AFA and its supporters have been raising a stink, even threatening to lobby for a decrease of state funding to Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU) and other Michigan colleges and universities for hosting a play that includes bare derrieres. The focus of their protest: Saginaw Valley’s student production of the Pulitzer Prize-winning “Angels in America,” which explores AIDS.

“The people I’ve talked to, including the Democrats, are willing to nick their budget, just to send a message,” state Rep. Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison Township, said Friday. SVSU and other universities are nervously waiting to hear what their public funding allotment will be as the state Legislature scraps over the budget.

Brandenburg says he’ll push for funding cuts to any public university that shows “Angels” or other plays with swear words or nudity.

Don’t Brandenburg and his supporters have anything better to do than cause a tizzy over a few naked bottoms? Their example supports our case that the state Legislature should be downsized from full- to part-time. Then the politicos might not waste taxpayer money on such meddling.

Michigan is relying on its public universities to be the engine of new job growth. The universities bring in millions of dollars in research jobs and development money.

More important, they are the bridge for thousands of Michigan residents to get a college education, the new foundation of a viable American livelihood and life.

With every dip in state funding, tuition goes up, and fewer students can afford it. There’s a direct link with rising college costs and falling or stagnant student attendance.

Decreasing Saginaw Valley’s or other universities’ budgets to protest a play will only hurt students — and the state. Four other Michigan universities — including Michigan State University and the University of Michigan — have performed “Angels,” says SVSU spokesperson J.J. Boehm.

To be sure, Brandenburg’s concern over America’s crass culture and media being increasingly filled with obscenity-laden songs, violence and sex is warranted. But “Angels” dramatizes the painful lives of AIDS patients and their devastating deaths. Seeing people suffer is far from glamourous.

He admits he hasn’t seen the play himself, but he’s open to trying it out. We encourage him and other state legislators to see such plays before punishing all Michigan students and their parents by dinging college funding.

In the context of a sophisticated play such as “Angels,” students know better than to interpret nudity as obscene. Brandenburg and his circle of supporters should focus on what matters most in Michigan: adequately funding public universities to fuel the state’s comeback.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070514/OPINION01/705140318/1008

“Despite the constant drumbeat of bigotry and small-minded meanness from Gary Glenn of the American Family Association and his small band of vocal groupies, (lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender) organizers, allies and activists across the state have been engaged in trainings to mobilize for equal rights and protections for our families. …We can be sure that Glenn will again flood legislators with e-mails containing threatening messages, promising doom to them and their political careers if they vote in favor of equal rights and protections for Michigan’s LGBT citizens. …Glenn will try to scare legislators, and pressure them with threats of retribution at the polls. …(Saginaw Valley State University’s president) stood up to critics like Glenn who demanded he shut down the school’s production of ‘Angels in America.’ … It’s time for our state legislators to take a lesson from SVSU and just say no to hysterical Gary Glenn.”

BETWEEN THE LINES
(homosexual newsmagazine)
Detroit, Michigan
May 3, 2007

(Editorial)

It’s time for Michigan to turn back bigotry

Despite the constant drumbeat of bigotry and small minded meanness from Gary Glenn of the American Family Association and his small band of vocal groupies, LGBT organizers, allies and activists across the state have been engaged in trainings to mobilize for equal rights and protections for our families. These dedicated volunteers are not cowed by the poison coming from the AFA, and they are learning how to speak up, speak out and hold our political leaders accountable for their votes and actions.

Second parent adoption legislation is being introduced in the Michigan legislature and it appears to have a decent chance of passage. We can be sure that Glenn will again flood legislators with emails containing threatening messages, promising doom to them and their political careers if they vote in favor of equal rights and protections for Michigan’s LGBT citizens.

But we still believe this is America and that most people believe in the basic tenets of our nation and our Constitution - that freedom, family, love and community are created by individuals in harmony with each other. Second parent adoption rights would hold loving couples responsible for their dependent children. It would guarantee that children could count on the continued support from two parents - not just one and a “roommate” that has no legal authority to protect and defend that child.

It’s absurd that there is even a debate as to whether two parents are better for a child than one parent. Every childs needs and deserves as much support and attention as possible, and it is ridiculous for the state to deny a child the protections of two parents simply because it may object to the two people because they are of the same gender. Glenn will try to scare legislators, and pressure them with threats of retribution at the polls. But we are watching too, and if our political leaders are not willing to stand up for basic human and American values, then we will have no time for them when it comes to voting.

Saginaw Valley State University’s president understood that hysterical propaganda intended to vilify an entire group of people is wrong. They stood up to critics like Glenn who demanded he shut down the school’s production of “Angels in America.” We find it highly encouraging that President Gilbertson just said no to the AFA and their political patsy, State Rep. Brandenberg. How dare a state representative threaten the funding for an entire university based on the production of one play - a Pulitzer prize winning one at that! Has he nothing more important to do, especially given the state’s current fiscal crisis, than to become an arts censor?

It’s time for our state legislators to take a lesson from SVSU and just say no to hysterical Gary Glenn. Taking healthcare away from children is not promoting family values. Denying children two responsible parents does not promote family values.

Demonizing people because they are different creates fear, it does not teach expansive, inclusive thinking. Yet Glenn and his bunch do all of these things under the false mantle of family values.

We believe it is high time that people stand up and say “enough!” It is time for Michigan to move forward with courage. Instead of the “Land of the Free, Home of the Brave,” Glenn wants Michigan to become the “Land of the Mean, Home of the Scared.” We are better than that. We want our leaders to know that and to lead the state, the legislature and our institutions of higher learning to a better, safer and more just place.

http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=24963

“A state representative has asked that Saginaw Valley State University president Eric Gilbertson resign because he has allowed the university to perform a play that has a scene involving full frontal nudity and uses profanity. He also wants to put a hold on university funding. …A letter of protest was sent to Gilbertson’s office from members of the Michigan House of Representatives. …The university’s police department also received a complaint April 27 from Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan, but the Saginaw County Prosecutor’s Office said there was no basis to file charges, (an SVSU spokesman) said.”

MIDLAND DAILY NEWS
Midland, Michigan
May 2, 2007

University’s performance
continues to draw protest
by Noel Lyn Smith

A state representative has asked that Saginaw Valley State University president Eric Gilbertson resign because he has allowed the university to perform a play that has a scene involving full frontal nudity and uses profanity. He also wants to put a hold on university funding. The play, “Angels in America – Part One: Millennium Approaches” is a Pulitzer Prize winning play by Tony Kushner and an HBO production. The play is a story about politics and the AIDS crisis in America during the mid-80s, and is centered around a group of separate, but connected people.

“I feel President Gilbertson has been very remiss in his duties,” State Rep. Jack Brandenburg, R-Harrison Township, said in a statement. “If he wants to promote this type of promiscuity at a taxpayer funded institution, I want him to resign.”

Brandenburg said he objects to the play’s use of profanity and frontal male nudity. Controversy has surrounded the play since its first performance April 20. A letter of protest was sent to Gilbertson’s office from members of the Michigan House of Representatives. “We did receive the letter…and are aware of it,” SVSU spokesman J.J. Boehm said.

The university’s police department also received a complaint April 27 from Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan, but the Saginaw County Prosecutor’s Office said there was no basis to file charges, Boehm said. Brandenburg, a three-term representative and member of the House Appropriations Committee, has questioned the role the production has in the university environment. “I would challenge the president to come down to Lansing to explain just how this play enhances the education of students who go there,” Brandenburg said.

Gilbertson has said the issue of one of freedom of expression for all involved – both students and protesters. “It is their right to protest these things; it may even be their duty,” he said. “And whether we may agree or disagree with them, their views are entitled to a respectful hearing. They are citizens and taxpayers and thinking people who are entitled to their freedom of expression too.” Brandenburg requested the House Appropriations Subcommittee for Higher Education investigate the issue but the request was denied by state Rep. Pam Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township, the subcommittee’s chairwoman. “We heard these comments from Brandenburg before,” Boehm said.

“Angels in America” was performed April 20 to 22 and 27 to 29 at SVSU’s Malcolm Field Theatre for Performing Arts. “We perform a broad arrange of theatrical productions,” Boehm said. “We do children’s plays, comedies and classics but our students’ experience would be incomplete if they did not get the opportunity to perform a modern play that may include controversial themes and adult subject matter.” Brandenburg said he would like to put a hold on state funding for the university. “The money that taxpayers send to the university is not going to the school with the intent to produce filth but to educate students,” Brandenburg said.

“This will not be forgotten for next year’s budget when Saginaw Valley requests for money,” he said.

Four other Michigan universities – including Michigan State University and the University of Michigan – have performed the play, Boehm said. If other Michigan schools were to perform “Angels in America,” Brandenburg said he would take the same action against those schools. Almost 900 people attended the performance at Saginaw Valley, Boehm said.

http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18289638&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=472542&rfi=6