See full AFA-Michigan news release on this story:

http://www.afamichigan.org/2010/03/23/news-saginaw-democrats-elect-homosexual-activist-marriage-amendment-foe-as-party-chair

—————————————————

SAGINAW NEWS
Saginaw, Michigan
March 26, 2010

Garnet Lewis, the 2008 Democratic candidate for the
98th District State House of Representatives, speaks
at Carollton Middle School during the campaign.
Lewis, a lesbian, faced criticism for her sexual orien-
tation during the campaign from Gary Glenn, a critic
of gay officials. Two years later, Glenn is launching
another effort — this time to remove her as Saginaw
County Democratic Party chairwoman.
___________________________________________

Anti-gay critic doesn’t — and shouldn’t — rattle
lesbian Democratic leader from Saginaw

by Justin L. Engel / The Saginaw News

No matter where she goes, Garnet Lewis can’t seem to shake scrutiny from Gary Glenn.

Luckily, the openly-lesbian Saginaw County Democratic Party chairwoman has two things on her side when facing Glenn’s anti-gay ire:

• She finds his efforts humorous.

• Glenn’s point is based on faulty — not to mention, dated — logic.

The American Family Association of Michigan president, upon hearing news earlier this month that the 48-year-old Lewis had ascended the political ranks to become her party’s leader, sent a media release filled with the anti-gay message he’s advocated for years.

“In solidarity especially with African-American and union households who strongly supported the Marriage Protection Amendment,” Glenn said in the statement, “we encourage rank-and-file Democrats in Saginaw County to take their party back from homosexual activists such as Garnet Lewis, who will obviously steer the party in a direction not supported by voters of either party.”

His argument: If Saginaw County voters in 2004 helped the state support an amendment Glenn co-authored which banned same-sex marriage, a gay official shouldn’t hold office in 2010.

He’s not fibbing about the facts. Fifty-nine percent of county residents favored the legislation.

However, the rationale misses the mark. Linking a six-year-old marriage policy decision with the modern-day relevance of a political party leader’s sexual orientation is straw-grasping. While state voters in 2004 defeated gay marriage, it’s unreasonable to attach that decision to 2010’s political landscape or any of the gay figures who may roam it.

That would be like arguing Congress should approve all Republican-issued legislation because the nation voted for George W. Bush in 2004.

Times change, and no one vote serves as a referendum for all remotely-related matters thereafter.

“Honestly, there are more important issues on people’s minds than my private life,” Lewis said. “People care much more about having someone (in the Democratic Party) as it pertains to the economy or getting more jobs back. Things that really matter. That’s what I’m focused on.”

Glenn’s argument also loses points for appearing to include playground-style jabs — the press release twice refers to Lewis as a “chairman” — and a veiled attempt at pre-empting hate speech accusations by appealing to blacks, a demographic familiar with profiling and intimidation.

Lewis, though, said she isn’t intimidated by Glenn.

“I think it’s funny,” Lewis said. “This is how he spends his time.”

She’s familiar with the act. Lewis faced it first when she ran unsuccessfully for the state House 98th District in 2008 when Glenn — and not her competitor, Republican candidate James N. Stamas of Midland Township — publicly brought up Lewis’ sexuality in attack ads.

The only time she has mentioned her lifestyle or gay rights issues to The Saginaw News was in reports sparked by Glenn’s criticism.

“He learns this information by trolling gay Web sites,” she said. “I don’t know what that says about him.”

Glenn has tackled other issues relating to gays.

He and three mid-Michigan ministers in February filed a civil rights suit challenging the constitutionality of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act that President Barack Obama signed in October. The act makes it a federal offense to assault someone because of his or her sexual orientation or gender identity.

Glenn over the years has squabbled with a number of gay rights groups, including the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. In 2007, its executive director blamed Glenn’s “homophobic rants” in part for an alleged hate crime death of a 72-year-old gay Detroit man, Andrew Anthos. A medical examiner later ruled Anthos likely died of natural causes.

No, Glenn isn’t “the bad guy” in this debate. Too often when it comes to gay issues, proponents or opponents are demonized. Glenn merely is protecting what he perceives are the sacred values and morals of the American family. There are plenty of people who agree with him…and they have that right.

But that doesn’t make them right.

http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2010/03/opinion_anti-gay_push_doesnt_-.html#comments
__________________________________________________

School to Ann Coulter: Watch your mouth!
Official warns columnist of limits on free speech

A Canadian college official is warning popular columnist and speaker Ann Coulter to take heed of the country’s hate-speech laws and watch her mouth during her three appearances on Canadian campuses this week.

According to the National Post — http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2710026 — University of Ottawa Vice President Francois Houle warned Coulter about possible criminal charges that could result from her speech at the school tomorrow.

“Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or ‘free speech’) in a matter that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here,” Houle wrote to Coulter.

The Post said it obtained a copy of the e-mail from Houle to Coulter, who has on her calendar appearances at the University of Western Ontario in London tonight, Ottawa tomorrow and the University of Calgary Wednesday.

“Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges,” Houle warned. “I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.”

He continued, “Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.”

Author Mark Steyn, a Canadian citizen, called it a “sad and embarrassing letter, even by the standards of the Canadian academy.”

“Does … Houle write to all University of Ottawa speakers like this? Or does he reserve his telekinetic powers to detect ‘pre-crime’ only for the ideologically suspect?” he wrote.

“I’ve no idea what Ann Coulter’s reaction to this letter is, but I suspect it’s ‘Go ahead, Princess Fairy Pants, make my day,’” said Steyn.

Conservative Canadian activist Ezra Levant told MSN’s Canadian division that objections, including a student group’s attempt to muzzle Coulter, are “fascist.”

“To have a public institution turned into a private club where the only [people] allowed to speak are allowed to meet the very narrow approval of some student politician … that’s gross,” Levant, who is introducing Coulter at her three visits, told the agency.

Coulter, who holds a law degree, was given support by online forum participants, including one who said, “I wonder if … Houle can provide some of the other letters sent to other speakers in this same spirit of civil and [courteous] discourse for which Canadian universities are so well known.”

WND previously reported when officials at Focus on the Family confirmed their family-oriented radio show had to be edited before being broadcast in Canada because of the country’s limits on free speech.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=130877
__________________________________________________

RUSH LIMBAUGH: There’s a lot of anger at Bart Stupak today. Bart Stupak was always going to vote for this. The thing that Bart Stupak needs to be hounded out of office for is for misleading an entire nation and giving an entire nation a big, fake feint job that he and his cohorts were somehow going to do something to stop this on the basis of a false premise, anyway.

I want you to hear a piece of audio from Stupak. This is October 24th in Cheboygan, Michigan. He held a town hall meeting. This is Internet quality, here. He held a town hall meeting, and he told a questioner, one of his voters, that if he liked everything but the abortion funding he would vote for it. He said this last October.

STUPAK: “If everything I want [is] in the final bill, I like everything in the bill except you have public funding for abortion — and we had a chance to run our amendment and we lost. Okay, I voted my conscience, stayed true to my principles, stayed true to the beliefs of this district. Could I vote for health care? Yes, I still could.” (Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URr68joWr1E)

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_032210/content/01125106.guest.html
__________________________________________________

“(Congressman Bart) Stupak has been touted by the national media as a leading combatant against using tax dollars for abortion. But when the bill was finally put to a vote and Stupak voted in favor, many of his constituents were not surprised. Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan explains why. ‘We issued a news release months ago calling Bart Stupak a fraud, because what happened at the last minute from a national perspective was no surprise at all to those of us actually here in Michigan,’ says Glenn.”

WATCH VIDEO: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URr68joWr1E

————————————————————————

ONE NEWS NOW
Tupelo, Mississippi
March 22, 2010

Stupak’s U-turn no surprise
by Charlie Butts

Michigan Congressman Bart Stupak did an about-face Sunday night and voted for the healthcare reform bill — and at least one pro-life Michigander isn’t surprised.

Stupak has been touted by the national media as a leading combatant against using tax dollars for abortion. But when the bill was finally put to a vote and Stupak voted in favor, many of his constituents were not surprised. Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan explains why.

“We issued a news release months ago calling Bart Stupak a fraud, because what happened at the last minute from a national perspective was no surprise at all to those of us actually here in Michigan,” says Glenn.

The AFA-Michigan spokesman explains that reaction is because of a town hall meeting last fall in Cheboygan with Stupak facing his constituents on the issue.

“[Let's say] I offered an amendment that says no public funding for abortion — that’s been the law of the land for many, many decades — and [let's say] we lose that vote: would I vote against healthcare?” Stupak asked rhetorically. “If I had a chance to vote my conscience on it, I probably would not. I probably would still vote for the healthcare bill at the end of the day.” (Watch YouTube video)

The meeting continued as some in attendance sought a clarification from the congressman. “And finally when he had persuaded them that that’s what he really meant, the crowd booed him,” Glenn recalls. As depicted on the YouTube video, they booed him more than once.

Glenn said pro-life Democrats in his state will take note of the vote because Michigan is a pro-life state. Experts say the fact that President Obama issued an executive order banning use of federal dollars for abortion means nothing because it can be rescinded.

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Default.aspx?id=947512
__________________________________________________

59 percent of county voters — including blacks and union
households — approved marriage amendment in 2004

SAGINAW, Mich. — A Midland resident who co-authored Michigan’s
Marriage Protection Amendment — overwhelmingly approved by state and Saginaw County voters in 2004 — Friday said the Saginaw County Democratic Party’s election last week of an openly homosexual activist party chair is further evidence that party officials are at odds not only with county voters but with the party’s own base of African-American and union households who strongly supported the amendment.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said that “by electing an openly homosexual activist committed to repealing constitutional protection of one-man, one-woman marriage, local Democrats have allowed their party to be taken over by a chairman whose personal agenda is dramatically at odds with the traditional family values strongly shared not only by most voters but by key constituencies within the party itself.”

“In solidarity especially with African-American and union households who strongly supported the Marriage Protection Amendment,” Glenn said, “we encourage rank-and-file Democrats in Saginaw County to take their party back from homosexual activists such as Garnet Lewis, who will obviously steer the party in a direction not supported by voters of either party.”

The Saginaw News last Friday reported the county party’s election of former legislative candidate and Central Michigan University administrator Garnet Lewis, but notably failed to disclose to its readers any mention of her self-professed sexual identity, affiliation with state and local homosexual activist groups, or the strong personal offense at voter approval of the Marriage Protection Amendment that she said was the primary motivator of her involvement in county politics. http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2010/03/garnet_lewis_takes_reins_at_sa.html

Coverage of Lewis’ election by a homosexual activist newsmagazine in Detroit was more forthright. Between the Lines reported that Lewis is “an open lesbian (and) advocate for (lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender) rights” who has served on the boards of both statewide and local homosexual activist lobbying groups. http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=40574

Following her loss in a 2008 bid for the state House of Representatives, during which she was endorsed by state and national homosexual activist groups, held a fundraiser at a “gay” bar near Detroit, and benefited from over $300,000 in independent expenditures by a political action committee funded by an openly homosexual billionaire in Kalamazoo, Lewis wrote on a homosexual activist blog, Rainbow Mittens, that her political activism was in direct response to voter approval of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

“I decided to become engaged in local politics on November 5, 2004 at approximately 1:23 a.m.,” Lewis wrote. “George Bush had won a second term but, most importantly, Proposal 2 (the Marriage Protection Amendment) passed here in the state. …(T)he majority of people in this state were saying that my relationship did not matter and should not be legally recognized. It was offensive to me then, and it remains offensive to me now. After discussing the passage of Proposal 2 with my partner, we both decided to get involved locally in our county political organization. It was that or move to Canada or Germany.”

Lewis’ stand — though out of step with the 59 percent of voters who in 2004 approved the amendment both statewide and in Saginaw County — is nonetheless consistent with state Democratic Party officials’ allegiance to homosexual activists’ political agenda, Glenn said.

Delegates to the Michigan Democratic Party convention in 2006 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

The full text of the amendment states: “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 which found that the amendment had been 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 non-union 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)

Half of all Democrats supported the amendment…and still do

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)
Five years later, that support hasn’t waned, according to a September 2009 poll by Lansing
Democratic political consultant Mark Grebner which found that half of all Democrats said they would vote against a ballot measure attempting to repeal the amendment. http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/15250/repealling-michigans-prohibition-on-gay-marriage

Remarkably, Glenn said, the Grebner poll suggests that supporters of the Marriage Protection Amendment would have “a reasonable shot at defeating any ballot campaign to repeal the amendment even if Democrats were the only ones allowed to vote.”

Add in the 58 percent of independents and 91 percent of Republicans who said they too would vote against repeal of the amendment, according to Grebner, and such an election “wouldn’t even be close,” Glenn said.

“That’s why electing a chairman whose primary motivation is her personal agenda of promoting so-called homosexual ‘marriage’ is so curious, unless they’re in the business of helping the opposition, since it likely offends half the Democrats and will further alienate independents and Republicans from Democratic candidates,” Glenn said.

“Politically, it might have been better for Saginaw County Democrats if Chairman Lewis had moved to Canada or Germany instead, as she threatened,” he said.

He noted that in 2004, rank-and-file Michigan Republicans in state convention overwhelmingly adopted a resolution endorsing the Marriage Protection Amendment, by a vote of 1,259 to 40.
__________________________________________________

The well-placed “fear of a voter backlash” cited in the articles below is a direct result of AFA-Michigan supporters such as you taking action in the past. So let’s remind them, especially since articles such as these will no doubt generate calls and e-mails to the Legislature from homosexual activists demanding their “right” to intentionally deny children either a mother or a father.

Please call your state representative today and tell him that this current court case is proof of why House Bill 4131 should be defeated, to stop more innocent children from being used as pawns in court battles to win marriage and adoption “rights” for homosexual relationships.

Click here to find your state representative: http://house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp

Or call House Speaker Andy Dillon’s office — 517-373-0857 — and ask to be connected to your state representative.

Thanks as always for your support!

Gary Glenn, President
AFA-Michigan

————————————————-

“The only people who may adopt in Michigan are married couples and single individuals, either gay or straight. …That in effect bars gay couples from adopting because of Proposal 2, the constitutional amendment Michigan voters approved in 2004. It limits marriage to ‘the union of one man and one woman.’ …A legislative effort to allow adoption by a partner in an unmarried relationship is stalled. House Bill 4131, the so-called second-parent adoption measure, is stuck on the floor of the state House, just like its predecessor two years ago. The chief sponsor, Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith, D-South Lyon, says she can’t get enough votes because some supporters are fearful of a voter backlash from allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt.”

——————————————–

DETROIT FREE PRESS
Detroit, Michigan
March 8, 2010

Battle lines drawn over custody challenge
March 22 hearing set for long-shot suit by Trenton woman
by David Ashenfelter, Free Press Staff Writer

Renee Harmon says there were two turning points in her relationship with Tammy Davis.

The first happened in June 2008, when Davis said she was unhappy and wanted to end their 19-year relationship.

The second occurred last September when, Harmon said, Davis’ new partner slammed the door in her face and told her the children were no longer hers.

“For someone who has only known my children for a short time to tell me that they’re not mine made me angry, and I lost it,” Harmon said recently. “I’m their mother. I have fed them, changed their diapers, nurtured them and loved them unconditionally since the day they were born.”

Harmon said she forced her way into the Grosse Ile home she used to share with Davis in a desperate attempt to see the children — a 10-year-old girl and twin 7-year-old boys. Harmon said they had decided that Davis should carry the children because she is younger.

Days after the blowup, Davis obtained a personal protection order that has prevented Harmon from having any contact with her or the children. Harmon said Davis has refused to have the order amended so Harmon can visit the children.

Last month, Harmon sued for joint custody in Wayne County Circuit Court. The first hurdle for her lawyers will come March 22, when they try to persuade Judge Kathleen McCarthy that Harmon has legal standing to sue.

If they lose, which they said is very possible, they’re prepared to appeal all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court in an effort to secure joint custody rights for nonbiological partners in gay and straight unmarried relationships.

“To say these children are not as important as the children of married, heterosexual parents is the height of insensitivity,” said Dana Nessel, one of Harmon’s lawyers.

Though Davis wouldn’t comment, her lawyer, David Viar of Rochester, said: “It’s an extremely sensitive, private and personal matter. Ms. Davis requests that the public and the media respect her privacy and the privacy of her children.”

The case has created a stir in metro Detroit’s gay and lesbian community. Nessel and co-counsel Nicole Childers of Royal Oak said 275 people attended a legal fund-raiser for Harmon in January.

In 2007, more than 22,000 same-sex couples lived in Michigan and 18% of them were raising children, according to a study from the UCLA School of Law. An estimated 7,800 Michigan children were living in same-sex households then.

Under state law, the only people who can petition for custody are biological parents or the husband of the biological mother if the child was born during their marriage.

An adoptive parent — biological or nonbiological — also may petition for custody. But the only people who may adopt in Michigan are married couples and single individuals, either gay or straight.

Though state law doesn’t expressly prohibit adoptions by unwed couples, Michigan courts and judges require adoptive couples to be married.

That in effect bars gay couples from adopting because of Proposal 2, the constitutional amendment Michigan voters approved in 2004. It limits marriage to “the union of one man and one woman.” The state Supreme Court has interpreted it to also ban civil unions for gay couples.

A legislative effort to allow adoption by a partner in an unmarried relationship is stalled. House Bill 4131, the so-called second-parent adoption measure, is stuck on the floor of the state House, just like its predecessor two years ago.

The chief sponsor, Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith, D-South Lyon, says she can’t get enough votes because some supporters are fearful of a voter backlash from allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt.

Supporters, including the Michigan Department of Human Services, the Michigan Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers, say the bill would protect the children of unmarried couples by enabling them to receive insurance, pension and Social Security benefits from either parent, should one of them die or become disabled. And it would protect their right to continue their relationship and receive financial support from both parents after a breakup.

The Michigan Family Forum opposes the bill, saying it would undermine the sanctity of marriage. The Michigan Catholic Conference opposes the bill because it doesn’t want the state to dictate how faith-based groups handle adoption services.

Though most states allow single gays and lesbians to adopt, only 16 allow adoptions by same-sex couples. Michigan is among six states that prohibit both same-sex and unmarried heterosexual couples from jointly adopting.

ACLU lawyer Jay Kaplan said Michigan’s situation is tragic.

“I’ve seen parents who have been raising children for many years, but because the biological parent holds all of the legal cards, the kids are taken away and they’re never allowed to see them again,” Kaplan said.

“Our courts and our current laws are operating out of a different century,” he added. “We are not taking into account the families that exist in Michigan, and by doing that, we’re doing a great disservice and harm to children.”

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100308/NEWS06/3080449/1001/News/Battle-lines-drawn-over-custody-challenge&template=fullarticle

—————————————

“The Detroit Free Press reports a bill sponsored by Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith — a Democratic candidate for governor — that would allow adoption by an unwed partner is stalled on the House floor, as her peers appear unwilling to vote on an issue that could upset their conservative constituents. After all, Michigan voters in 2004 approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as ‘the union of one man and one woman,’ essentially banning marriage — and the legal rights that come with it — for gay couples.”

————————

MLIVE.COM
Detroit, Michigan
March 8, 2010

Same-sex custody battle: Should Michigan
extend parental rights to gay partners?

by Jonathan Oosting

Renee Harmon and Tammy Davis lived together for 19 years and raised three children in Metro Detroit.

But following the couple’s bitter breakup, Harmon has not seen the kids in more than six months and has no custody rights: Her partner delivered the children after artificial insemination and Michigan does not allow gay marriage or second-parent adoption.

“I love them more than anything in the world,” Harmon told Fox 2. “And then for someone to tell me they’re not my kids? You know, how dare she.”

Harmon filed a lawsuit last month in Wayne Circuit Court seeking joint custody of the children, and a judge will hear arguments later this month.

While her case is considered a long shot, Harmon says she plans on taking the battle to the Michigan Supreme Court if necessary.

Harmon told Fox 2 she last saw the children — twin 7-year-old boys and a 10-year-old girl — on the first day of school in 2009 at the Grosse Ile home the couple used to share, where she said Davis’ new partner slammed the door on her face and refused visitation.

Upset but undeterred, Harmon forced her way inside the home to see her children. Davis responded by taking out a personal protection order, and Harmon has not seen the children since.

As Jessica Carreras of Pride Source wrote last month, Harmon’s custody battle is one of several to pop up around the nation as states deal with a “lack of clear legislation on matters of marriage, adoption and what it means to be a ‘parent.’”

The Detroit Free Press reports a bill sponsored by Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith — a Democratic candidate for governor — that would allow adoption by an unwed partner is stalled on the House floor, as her peers appear unwilling to vote on an issue that could upset their conservative constituents.

After all, Michigan voters in 2004 approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as “the union of one man and one woman,” essentially banning marriage — and the legal rights that come with it — for gay couples.

But Jay Kaplan, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, tells the newspaper situations like Harmon’s are tragic for both parents and children.

“We are not taking into account the families that exist in Michigan, and by doing that, we’re doing a great disservice and harm to children.”

What’s your take: Does Harmon deserve custody rights? Would you support legislation that would allow an unwed individual to adopt the biological child of their domestic partner?

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/03/same-sex_custody_battle_should.html
__________________________________________________

Please read the column below, then please call your Congressman today and urge a “NO” vote to any change in the federal law prohibiting individuals who openly engage in homosexual behavior from enlisting in the U.S. military. Click here to identify and contact your Congressman online — https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml — or call 202-225-3121.

Thanks for standing up for those willing to risk life and limb to protect our families’ safety and freedom.

Gary Glenn, President
American Family Association of Michigan
U.S. Army Reserves and Army National Guard 1990-1998
Michigan Chairman, Sons and Daughters of Pearl Harbor Survivors
_____________________________________________________________

“Current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (aka ‘gays’) from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if (‘gays’) were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk. According to the FDA: ‘['Gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.’ The FDA further warns: ‘(‘Gay’ men) also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion.

For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ['gay' men] than in the general population.’ A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although ‘gay’ men comprise only one to two percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases. Do the math: If ‘gays’ are allowed to serve openly – to appease leftists’ euphemistic demands for ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?”

——————————

WORLD NET DAILY
Cave Junction, Oregon
March 4, 2010

Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed
by J. Matt Barber

The U.S. military has always discriminated. There are a host of malignant behaviors such as illicit drug use or habitual criminality that can render a person ineligible to serve. As my father-in-law learned, there are also benign maladies such as vision impairment or flat feet that can bar an otherwise eligible applicant. Any number of behaviors or conditions with varying degrees of severity can dash one’s hope of donning the uniform.

This is discrimination only insofar as “discriminating minds” with expertise in these matters have found that such restrictions are necessary to maintain excellence in our historically unparalleled fighting force.

In formal recognition of the long-established finding that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service,” federal law – Section 654, Title 10 – objectively prescribes the following:

The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise;

Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion;

The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service;

The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability; and

There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces.

Indeed, federal courts have ruled over and again that a prohibition against homosexual conduct within the ranks of the military is both constitutional and justified.

So now that Barack Obama is president, what has changed? Is there something about “out and proud” homosexuality, hitherto absent or unseen, that suddenly makes it compatible with military service? Is there something about our military that has, for the first time in history, made it compatible with this particular lifestyle?

The answer to both is no.

The fact that “homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline” has not changed. Proponents of military homosexualization offer scant evidence to the contrary. In truth, the only thing that has changed is politics.

Reasons for incompatibility are manifold. They are firmly rooted in both common sense and in the “settled” anthropological, sociopolitical and medical sciences, as well as the theological arena. Taken alone, each provides ample justification for maintaining the status quo. Combined, they prove the case. For now – in the interest of brevity – we’ll focus on but one: medical science.

Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka “gays”) from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk.

According to the FDA: “['Gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.”

The FDA further warns: “['Gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ['gay' men] than in the general population.”

A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although “gay” men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases.

Do the math: If “gays” are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists’ euphemistic demands for “tolerance” and “diversity” – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?

All things considered (and we’ve only scratched the surface), is it any wonder that, according to a 2008 Military Times survey, almost 10 percent of currently enlisted personnel say that should “gays” be allowed to serve openly: “I would not re-enlist or extend my service.” Furthermore, 14 percent warn: “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” The potential exodus of up to 14 percent of military personnel from our all-volunteer services would be devastating.

When we apply these uncompromising medical and administrative realities to the “gays in the military” debate, we find that, objectively, and based solely upon medical science and the imperative to maintain good order and unit cohesion, homosexual behavior and military service remain today as oil and water.

Yet, inexplicably we see reckless movement from this administration, liberals in Congress and even a handful of high-ranking military commanders toward military homosexualization. This type of San Francisco-style social experimentation within the ranks of the armed services would demonstrably weaken, not strengthen, our military, jeopardizing national security.

In a purely civilian world perhaps we can afford to grant liberal social engineers a manageable level of latitude to play fast and loose with wistful “gay rights” rhetoric. However, it’s an entirely different proposition when bad behaviors place others – particularly those who’ve already waged life and limb for country – at both an unnecessary and avoidable level of risk.

For these reasons (and many more) allowing practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle to serve openly in our armed services should not and must not be “tolerated.”

Mr. President, it’s your sworn duty to place national security above misguided ideology and extreme special interests. It’s high time you begin to take your job seriously.

——————-

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126871
__________________________________________________

——————————

WORLD NET DAILY
Cave Junction, Oregon
March 1, 2010

‘Biology-based’ restrooms called ‘discrimination’
‘Schools therefore cannot segregate students based on sexual orientation’

AUGUSTA, Maine — A lawyer for the Maine Human Rights Commission ( A Gay Rights Lobby Group) told members of the state board today that requiring all students to use “biology-based” (aka what we call Traditional Normal Boys Bathrooms for Boys & Girl Bathrooms for Girls…Only) restrooms and locker rooms in the state’s schools is illegal and cannot be allowed to continue.

“Schools cannot discriminate against sexual identity or gender identification. Schools therefore cannot segregate students based on sexual orientation and identity,” commission legal counsel John Gause said at today’s commission meeting, where he was unsuccessful in convincing the board to adopt immediately a set of recommendations.

The commission’s vote was 4-1 to hold a public hearing on the adoption of guidelines that would allow biological males to play on girls’ athletic teams and use girls’ restrooms and locker rooms if they proclaim their gender identity is female.

Today’s public meeting was held before a capacity crowd in the main meeting room of the Senator Hotel in Augusta, Maine. The crowd was divided evenly between opponents and supporters of the proposed guidelines for students who have gender identity issues.

Speaking in favor of the guidelines, Gause said they should be adopted because they are how the 2005 Human Rights Law should be interpreted.

“It’s the commission’s job to interpret the Human Rights Law, and in many cases the courts defer to the commission on the interpretation,” he said.

“The guidelines are how the state will deal with education issues concerning students feeling an affinity for a gender that is not the biological one,” Gause told commission members. “The 2005 statute is worded broadly and is interpreted on a case-by-case basis. The guidance deals with sports teams, bathrooms use and accommodation of the student’s needs.”

Gause further believes deference should be shown to students who have identity issues.

“Students who are transgendered should be allowed access that is consistent with their identity or expression, not with their biological identity,” Gause said. “Also, we should not exclude students with questions of gender identity from playing on the sports teams of their choice.”

He suggested, “We should adopt the guidelines sooner than later.”

However, the guidelines were developed in large part at a Dec. 15 meeting to which homosexual activists were invited but not opponents of the plan.

The meeting was attended by representatives of the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders; Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network; and other “gay,” lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender rights groups as well as the Maine Principals Association and the Maine School Administrators Association.

Representatives of the Maine Family Policy Council and other conservative groups say they were not invited to attend the December meeting.

Commission Chairman Paul Vestal questioned the wisdom of adopting the guidelines while a case is still under litigation.

“There is a case that is still in the courts now. I don’t think it’s wise to adopt these guidelines while the courts are still hearing the case from the Orono schools,” Vestal cautioned.

Vestal was referring to last summer’s commission hearing about the 11-year-old Asa Adams Elementary School student who was a biological male calling himself a female. The commission ruled in favor of the student and the case is still being heard in Penobscot County Superior Court.

Gause warned the court case could take months to resolve, and the commission shouldn’t wait for the court’s answer.

Commissioner Kenneth Fredette read a prepared statement on the dispute.

“I’m speaking here today as neither a Republican nor Democrat, neither a conservative or a liberal and neither gay or straight. I’m looking to the Constitution for my feelings on this issue,” Fredette read. “As I look at the Constitution, all power is inherently held by the people. I have to ask if the commission met the burden of transparency in this process. The answer is ‘No, we did not.’”

He continued, “Each of us must understand that our public schools and colleges are at the heart of our state. Education is of such great importance that our forefathers made reference to it in the Constitution. So when this commission seeks to authorize guidance for our schools, this commission acts beyond its authority,” Fredette said.

“I base my decision on the fundamental principles. Has the commission met its obligation to seek citizen input? Has the commission designed a system of due process that protects civil liberties? Has the commission acted in its delegated authority given to it by the authority?” Fredette read. “Now I condemn those who would threaten or bully those who identify themselves as transgendered. Their liberties are important too. We should protect those citizens too.

“I urge the commission to face this issue in a public and open manner and to not issue the proposed guidelines because we have not acted in an open and public manner. We don’t have to issue guidance. That’s the legislature’s authority,” Fredette said.

Two other commissioners also wanted public input.

The meeting, at which public comment was not allowed, irritated several members of the audience.

“Some of us drove four or five hours to get to this meeting, and it’s nice to know that a bunch of bureaucrats don’t care what the people have to say,” said one man before leaving.

Vestal said the man had a point.

“I think we need to have a public hearing. That’s the only way to make sure we issue guidance that applies to everyone. If you’re eliminating one group in favor of another group, you’re giving up part of your freedom,” he said.

Fredette said the whole concept was a little disconcerting.

“The way I understand it, a student who believes he or she is of a different sex has the right to use the bathroom of the sex with which he identifies. What effect will it have on a student who is of one biological sex and is in the bathroom and a biological person of the opposite sex who identifies with the opposite sex comes in?” Fredette asked.

The proposed guideline:

Transgender students must be allowed access to bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity or expression or, if they prefer, to existing single stall bathrooms.

With respect to locker rooms and shower facilities that involve undressing in front of others, transgender students must be provided with accommodations that meet their needs and that take into account the legitimate privacy concerns of all student involved.

The public hearing is expected to be set up sometime in April or May.

A lobbyist for a homosexual organization earlier argued “an anatomy or biology-based rule for bathroom usage cannot be used to bar transgender students from using a facility consistent with their gender identity.”

The current push apparently started over the commission decision last year that found a school in Orono, Asa Adams School, discriminated against a boy by denying him access to the girls’ restroom.

The ripples from the ruling now are being felt. According to documents obtained in the state, the University of Maine already is expressing alarm.

A letter from the university office of equal opportunity noted, “There will likely be cases in which allowing a transgender student to participate in gender-segregated sports in accordance with the gender identity or expression will raise legitimate concerns about fairness in competitive interscholastic sports. …”

The letter pointed out “unintended consequences,” such as “a transgendered individual’s participation on a gender-segregated team could result in the NCAA’s treating that team as a mixed team. This would have a number of serious consequences including potentially impacting the institution’s compliance with Title IX.”

Currently, Colorado, Iowa, Washington state, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco have rules, policies or laws dealing with transgender restroom accommodations. The Maine rules would make Maine the first state in the U.S. to adopt the policies for elementary and secondary school students and the first to extend the rules to private and sectarian schools.

WND has reported on the Christian Civic League of Maine’s call for the public to contact state legislators and oppose imposition of the regulations.

This is not the first time the argument has arisen. WND previously reported when the city council of Tampa, Fla., voted unanimously to include “gender identity and expression” as a protected class under the city’s human rights ordinance, leading some to fear the council has opened the city’s public bathroom doors to sexual predators masquerading as protected transsexuals.

A statement from the American Family Association explained, “Tampa Police arrested Robert Johnson in February 2008 for hanging out in the locker room–restroom area at Lifestyle Fitness and watching women in an undressed state. The City of Tampa’s ‘gender identity’ ordinance could provide a legal defense to future cases like this if the accused claims that his gender is female.”

WND also reported on a similar plan adopted by fiat in Montgomery County, Md., which opponents said would open up women’s locker rooms to men who say they are women.

The issue also has come up in Colorado, where Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter signed into law a plan that effectively strikes gender-specific restrooms in the state. (SB200 passed in 2008 allowing opposite sex genders to use the bathrooms of their choice).

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126662

——————————————————

Other news sources on this story:

BANGOR DAILY NEWS: “New guidelines under consideration by the Maine Human Rights Commission designed to clarify the rights of transgender students in Maine has sparked a passionate debate over what some feel are impractical or abhorrent new requirements for public schools. The commission’s proposed guidelines, which are scheduled for further consideration on March 1, state that transgender students are guaranteed access to public school bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams based on whatever gender they consider themselves to be. That means a boy who identifies himself as a girl is by law allowed to use girls bathrooms, locker rooms and participate on girls sports teams, or vice versa.”
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/137047.html
__________________________________________________