——————————————————————————
LANSING STATE JOURNAL
Lansing, Michigan
December 27, 2010

East Lansing set to offer same-sex benefits
City avoids Proposal 2 through method used by MSU, county

by Derek Melot

By next July, the city of East Lansing plans to extend health insurance and other benefits to same-sex partners of city employees, despite the legal restrictions of 2004′s Proposal 2, a state constitutional amendment that barred public recognition of same-sex relationships.

East Lansing will do it by adopting a so-called “Other Eligible Individual” method of designating employee benefits. Already in place at Michigan State University and Ingham County, this method allows qualified employees, principally members of same-sex couples, to designate another adult in the household for benefit coverage.

Proposal 2 defined marriage as between a man and a woman, but also has been determined to bar the extension of benefits to same-sex couples if, by doing so, a same-sex relationship is treated as equal or similar to a marriage. The Michigan Supreme Court turned away a challenge to that interpretation in 2008.

“Our proposed plan … was reviewed by the city’s labor attorney for compliance with all state and federal law,” said Deputy City Manager George Lahanas by e-mail.

Lahanas said city staff had fielded requests from East Lansing employees and members of the City Council to draft up the option. The city’s goal is to implement the expansion on July 1, 2011.

Of the city’s approximately 300 employees, only about 1 percent – three people – are expected to request the new coverage, Lahanas explained. The city estimates an annual cost of $20,000 or less.

“This is a policy change I’ve been working with the city staff on since 2008,” City Councilman Nathan Triplett said. “I’m glad to see that we are finally able to move forward with it. … Residents I talk to are shocked that East Lansing does not already offer this type of benefit to our employees. Simply put, it’s a matter of fundamental fairness and equal pay for equal work.”

MSU began a pilot benefits project in 2007 and made it part of the regular benefits package in July.

The university says 93 people, including dependents, opted for coverage at that time at a cost of $372,000.

Ingham County’s policy dates back to August 2008. Four or five of the county’s 1,000 employees are making use of it, said Jill Rhode, financial services director.

The city of Lansing does not offer an OEI or similar policy, reports the city’s Human Resources Department.

Argument ‘solid’

“East Lansing has already made great strides by acknowledging that Other Eligible Individual programs are necessary to a healthy community,” said Emily Dievendorf of the advocacy group Equality Michigan. “There will always be individuals who are bent on blocking progress. East Lansing should anticipate the possibility of a challenge.

“The argument for the policy’s validity is solid and, as it has been tested before, the community should feel confident that it could win the battle if one arises and Equality Michigan will support their effort 100 percent of the way,” Dievendorf added in a statement released last week.

New tax burden

Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, a backer of the original Proposal 2, disagrees.

“Just because (the plan) may not violate the constitution doesn’t mean it’s good public policy,” he said. “Even in the best of times, taxpayers should not be compelled to subsidize homosexual relationships that many people consider immoral.

“At a time when local governments are facing a $1.6 billion deficit, forcing taxpayers to subsidize new groups of beneficiaries – and especially a group whose choice of sexual behavior is fraught with a dramatically higher incidence of health hazards including serious life-threatening disease – will only further increase the cost of health care for all citizens.”

Earlier in December, the state Civil Service Commission delayed action on a staff proposal for an OEI-style benefit policy for state employees that would, by one estimate, cost almost $6 million in 2011.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/article/20101227/NEWS01/12270316/East-Lansing-set-to-offer-same-sex-benefits
__________________________________________________

Fond Farewell?
Right blasts Ehlers

Not everyone is content to let U.S. Rep. Vern Ehlers ride quietly into the sunset. Following the repeal of “don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military, the American Family Association of Michigan blasted Ehlers for being the only Michigan congressional Republican to vote for “the misguided and immoral policy.” The Midland-based group is headed by Gary Glenn, who touts his military background in attacking the repeal. Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a supporter of Ehlers’ successor Justin Amash, also earned some AFA scorn. True to his libertarian beliefs, Paul also was among the 15 GOP mavericks to favor repeal, or, in the AFA’s view, “to impose homosexual activists’ political agenda onto the U.S. military.”

So how would (Ehler’s successor, Republican congressman-elect Justin) Amash have voted? He says he can’t say for sure without hearing the testimony from the military commanders and others who weighed in.
http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2010/12/polpourri_for_december_26_stat.html
__________________________________________________

Despite the threat to unit cohesion, recruitment, retention, and religious freedom in the military, as well as an increased threat of AIDS and other serious disease transmission via battlefield blood transfusions, both of Michigan’s two Democratic U.S. senators — Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow — voted in favor of forcing our military personnel to share barracks, showers, and foxholes with individuals openly involved in the homosexual lifestyle.

In the U.S. House, all Democratic members of Michigan’s congressional delegation voted in favor of the misguided and immoral policy, as did Republican Vern Ehlers of Grand Rapids, one of only fifteen House Republicans nationwide to do so. All other Michigan Republicans voted against it. Notably, 2008 presidential candidate Ron Paul was also among the fringe group of Republicans who voted to impose homosexual activists’ political agenda onto the U.S. military.

___________________________________________

“‘This is a dark day in American history,’ says Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. He goes on to say, ‘You have left-wing politicians, primarily a Congress that has already been rejected by the voters in November, imposing on the finest military force in the world a radical, left-wing agenda which hopefully at some point in the future we will be able to undo.’”

——————————————————————————

WEYI-TV CHANNEL 25
Flint, Michigan
December 22, 2010

Reaction to ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’ repeal
by Dan Armstrong

It’s a controversial and monumental decision. President Obama signs the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” the 17-year-old policy that forbids homosexuals from serving openly in the military.

Supporters are celebrating, while opponents are disappointed.

Terri Dinsmore is the Genesee County president of PFLAG (parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays). She says, “It’s been a long time coming. It’s a good thing that people are able to serve their country now and be open about who they are.”
Dinsmore, along with President Obama, says open service is an equal rights issue.
“We are a nation that welcomes the service of every patriot,” says President Obama.

Reports show around 14,000 homosexual service members have been sent home for violating the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy.
Obama says, “No longer will tens of thousands be asked to live a lie, or look over shoulder…serve country that they love.”
However, conservative organizations like the American Family Association, say the repeal will do more harm than good.

The AFA website says, “There is no question that repeal will have a harmful effect on recruitment, retention, and readiness, and will mean the end of military careers for officers and chaplains who have moral and religious objections to homosexuality.”
“This is a dark day in American history,” says Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. He goes on to say, “You have left-wing politicians, primarily a Congress that has already been rejected by the voters in November, imposing on the finest military force in the world a radical, left-wing agenda, which hopefully at some point in the future we will be able to undo.”

Supporters say the repeal is a matter of national security for the military members fighting two wars.
“If these people that are serving in silence, if they all decided to be open, and get fired, then where’s that service? They’re going to be down quite a few people.”

The repeal will not be immediately implemented.

Military members still need to create policies, like domestic partner benefits.
The White House says the process will take months, not years.

Homosexual supporters say more needs to be done in Michigan for equal rights, like allowing homosexual marriage and preventing bosses from firing employees because they are gay.

http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/politics/story.aspx?id=558379
__________________________________________________

————————————-

WORLD NET DAILY
Washington, D.C.
December 20, 2010

SPLC: Medical science, Christianity = ‘hate’

by J. Matt Barber

Sometimes the most effective way to deal with a bully is to simply pop him in the chops. While it may not shut him up entirely, it usually gives him pause before he resumes flapping his toxic jaws. It also has the effect of showing the other kids in the schoolyard that they have nothing to fear. Though the bully struts about projecting the tough-guy image, he’s typically the most insecure pansy on the block.

Such is the case with the bullies over at the fringe-left Southern Poverty Law Center. Having been recently “popped in the chops,” if you will, for a series of hyperbolic and disingenuous “anti-gay hate group” slurs against a dozen-or-so of America’s most well respected Christian and conservative organizations – the SPLC now finds itself publicly struggling, outside of an extremist left-wing echo chamber, to salvage a modicum of mainstream credibility.

In response to the SPLC’s unprovoked attacks, a unified coalition of more than 150 top conservative and Christian leaders across the country has launched a shock-and-awe “Start Debating, Stop Hating” media blitz to educate America about the SPLC’s ad hominem, politically driven smear campaign.

The mainstream pro-family conglomerate already includes presumptive Speaker of the House John Boehner, former presidential contender Mike Huckabee, four current U.S. senators, three governors, 20 current or newly elected members of the House of Representatives and many more.

As the controversy wears on and the facts become public, the moribund SPLC has understandably become increasingly defensive, strongly suggesting that it has come to regret this gross political overreach. Catch the tiger by the tail, you get the teeth.

Still, lazily labeling its ideological adversaries “hate groups” has yet to satisfy the anti-Christian law center. It’s taken the slander even further down petty path, launching a succession of amateurish personal attacks against a number of individual Christian advocates (to include yours truly). This is a clear sign that the sexual relativist left recognizes that it’s losing the debate on the merits.

Indeed, the SPLC’s poorly constructed analysis bears deconstructing, but first I’ll make a prediction. The center has yet to pin its official “SPLC designated hate group” badge of honor on either me or Liberty Counsel, the civil rights group with which I’m affiliated.
Somehow we were able only to earn the equally deceptive lower ranking of “anti-gay.” I suspect this is because I’ve been a primary public critic of the center’s feeble “hate group” crusade. Even the far-left understands that premature retaliation would betray dishonest political motives.

Still – and you heard it here first – within the next year or two (maybe less) the SPLC will move to even the score by tagging Liberty Counsel an “official hate group.” At that point – and beyond the question: “If the SPLC calls you a ‘hate group’ in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?” – any remaining media outlet that may wish to treat the center as an objective arbiter of “hate” will do so at grave risk to its own credibility.

Nonetheless, the SPLC has begun to grease the skids. Quotes cherry picked, taken out of context and misapplied are a powerful tool of the propagandist. Such are the Maoist techniques of the SPLC. Among other things, here’s what the group has said about me:

“Barber suggested against all the evidence that there were only a ‘miniscule number’ of anti-gay hate crimes …”

Let me be clear: I didn’t “suggest” there were a “miniscule number of anti-gay hate crimes” in 2007. I proved it. I merely cited the FBI’s own statistics which demonstrate the fact beyond any serious debate. Let’s look at “all the evidence” to which the SPLC refers. Here’s what I actually wrote in the Washington Times:

“Consider that according to the latest FBI statistics, out of 1.4 million violent crimes in 2007; there were a mere 247 cases of aggravated assault (including five deaths) reportedly motivated by the victim’s sexual orientation or gender identity. There is zero evidence to suggest that, where appropriate, perpetrators were not prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law in every instance.”
A bit different than the SPLC portrayal, no? Let’s do the math:

Approximately 247 aggravated “hate crime” assaults, taken within the context of 1.4 million violent crimes means that exactly 0.017643 percent of violent crimes in 2007 were “anti-gay hate crimes.” A miniscule number? You be the judge.

Continued the SPLC:

“Barber had argued that given ‘medical evidence about the dangers of homosexuality,’ it should be considered ‘criminally reckless for educators to teach children that homosexual conduct is a normal, safe and perfectly acceptable alternative.’”

Note that the SPLC neither identifies nor addresses the “medical evidence about the dangers of homosexuality.” It’s no wonder. Again, the evidence proves the case beyond any serious debate.

For instance, a recent study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention finds that, as a direct result of the demonstrably high-risk and biologically incongruous act of male-male anal sodomy, one-in-five “gay” and “bisexual” men in American cities have been infected with HIV/AIDS.

If five people got into a car and were told that one of them wasn’t going to survive the drive, how quickly do you suppose they’d scatter? Yet we systematically promote celebration of homosexual conduct in our public schools.

Criminally reckless? You be the judge.

Or consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka “gays”) from donating blood. Further studies conducted by the CDC 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.

Again I ask: Is it “criminally reckless” to indoctrinate children into this potentially deadly lifestyle?

Again I say: You be the judge.

So, according to its own “hate group” standard, the SPLC is left one of three possible choices: Either it remains consistent, tagging the CDC, the FDA and the FBI with its pejorative “hate group” moniker; it offers a public retraction and apology for its attacks against me and other Christians; or it remains silent while its credibility continues to swirl down the toilet bowl of irrelevancy.

Still, the SPLC has done a significant disservice to its homosexual propagandist and sexual relativist allies. My friend Gary Glenn with the American Family Association of Michigan (a “hate group” target of the SPLC) sums it up nicely:

“The SPLC’s demonization of groups that tell the truth about the public health implications of homosexual behavior may be the biggest boon we’ve seen in years to efforts to publicize those health consequences. We welcome this opportunity. The SPLC has provided a public service by focusing attention and discussion on the severe public health consequences of homosexual behavior.”

Indeed, the SPLC and its allies are flailing violently as they swim upstream against a torrent of settled science, thousands of years of history and the unwavering moral precepts of every major world religion.

It’s little wonder they’ve resorted to childish name calling.

———————————————————————————–

Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=241721
__________________________________________________

Battling for a bully bill

Anti-bullying bill advocates say law would save lives

by Ingrid Jacques

…”Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, objects to any anti-bullying legislation that emphasizes protecting certain students over others and focuses on characteristics such as sexual orientation. He said he would support ‘a bullying bill that simply protects all students from all bullying’ but that ‘any attempt to make homosexual behavior or cross-dressing an express source of protection’ is out of line. A few bills in the Senate listed specific characteristics, but even the House bill which defined bullying in part as ‘reasonably perceived to be motivated by animus or by an actual or perceived characteristic’ went too far in Glenn’s opinion. Given difficulties passing the bill in a Republican-lead Senate, it seems it will be more challenging to move such legislation through the Legislature next session as both House and Senate will be under Republican control.”

http://detnews.com/article/20101209/OPINION01/12090332/1008/Editorial–Benefits-ploy/Battling-for-a-bully-bill
__________________________________________________

…The lawsuit cited the death of Andrew Anthos, a 72-year-old Detroit man allegedly the victim of a ‘hate crime’ because of his ‘sexual orientation.’ In that case, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force ‘blamed … Plaintiff Glenn’s ‘homophobic rants’ for causing his death.’

According to the lawsuit, the homosexual activist said, ‘It is appalling hypocrisy for these forces to pretend that their venomous words and organizing have no connection to the plague of hate violence against gay people, including the murder of Mr. Anthos.’ …But the lawsuit said police and a medical examiner determined that Anthos died of natural causes. The complaint also said, ‘The former director of policy for the Triangle Foundation, a Michigan-based homosexual lobby group that supported the Hate Crimes Act, publicly stated, ‘We personally believe that the AFA may support the murder of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.’”

————————————————–
WORLD NET DAILY
Washington, D.C.
December 9, 2010

FAITH UNDER FIRE

Appeals court asked to remove
bull’s-eye from Christians

‘Hate crimes’ law challenged for
cracking down on biblical beliefs

by Bob Unruh

President Obama’s “hate crimes” law, one of the president’s early fulfillments of a campaign promise to homosexual lobbyists who backed his 2008 campaign, is heading for dangerous new waters as a lawsuit challenging it as being unconstitutional has moved to the appellate court level.

Officials with the Thomas More Law Center say they have appealed their lawsuit over the “hate crimes” law to the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, raising pointed questions including why will the law attack Bible-following Christians who follow its instructions.

“According to the Bible, which Plaintiffs promote through their religious activities, homosexual acts are acts of grave depravity that are intrinsically disordered. The Apostle Paul, writing by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, declares that those who engage in homosexual acts ‘shall not inherit the kingdom of God,’ stating further, ‘And such were some of you…,’” the appeal explains.

“Plaintiffs believe and profess that homosexuality is an illicit lust forbidden by God, who said to His people Israel, ‘Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind; it is abomination.‘ In every place that the Bible refers to homosexuality, the emphasis is upon the perversion of sexuality. The person engaging in homosexual behavior is guilty of ‘leaving the natural use of the woman,’ meaning that his behavior is ‘against nature,’ and thus contrary to God’s will.”

“In Old Testament times in Israel, God dealt severely with those who engaged in homosexual behavior. He warned His people through Moses, ‘If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them,” the appeal continued.

“Consequently, Plaintiffs have ‘willfully’ engaged in, and will continue to ‘willfully’ engage in, conduct that is proscribed by the Hate Crimes Act because the Act does not limit its reach to physical acts of violence, but expressly includes within its reach so-called ‘hate’ speech and ‘hateful words,” thereby subjecting plaintiffs to federal investigation and punishment.”

The lawsuit, which has been endorsed by U.S. Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, was brought on behalf of Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, and Pastors Levon Yuille, Rene Ouellette and James Combs.

It was dismissed by the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan after Attorney General Eric Holder claimed the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction and the plaintiffs failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

The complaint contends that the “hate crimes” law violates the plaintiffs’ civil rights, since it opens Christians to being the target of federal investigations, grand juries and even charges for opposing or publicly criticizing the homosexual lifestyle and “gay” activism.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit include individuals who already have faced accusations by homosexual advocates that they bear responsibility for the actions of others for no other reason than their agreement with biblical condemnations of homosexuality.

The lawsuit cited the death of Andrew Anthos, a 72-year-old Detroit man allegedly the victim of a “hate crime” because of his “sexual orientation.” In that case, the executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force “blamed … Plaintiff Glenn’s ‘homophobic rants’ for causing his death.”

According to the lawsuit, the homosexual activist said, “It is appalling hypocrisy for these forces to pretend that their venomous words and organizing have no connection to the plague of hate violence against gay people, including the murder of Mr. Anthos.”

Anthos also was cited by Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., as evidence of the need to extend federal “hate crimes” legislation to include “sexual orientation” as a privileged classification.

But the lawsuit said police and a medical examiner determined that Anthos died of natural causes.

The complaint also said, “The former director of policy for the Triangle Foundation, a Michigan-based homosexual lobby group that supported the Hate Crimes Act, publicly stated, ‘We personally believe that the AFA may support the murder of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.’”

Such statements, combined with the “hate crimes” law that now exists, provide a “tool” of intimidation for federal officials, including Holder, “to abuse their positions of power to stifle political opinion and opposition to the homosexual agenda,” the complaint explains.

“The Hate Crimes Act was clearly intended to intimidate Christians and their religious leaders into remaining silent concerning their religious beliefs that homosexual conduct is an abomination and a sin,” the law center said today.

Its brief tells the 6th Circuit, “This statute is all about elevating certain persons (homosexuals) to a protected class under federal law based on nothing more than their choice to have sex with persons of the same gender, while marginalizing strong religious opposition to this immoral choice.”

In fact, during congressional debate on the issue, supporters admitted that a homosexual attacking a Christian pastor would be protected from the law’s enhanced penalties that would apply should a Christian pastor attack a homosexual.

“Under the guise of enforcing ‘niceness’ and promoting ‘tolerance,’ homosexual advocacy groups have mobilized their financial power to purchase political clout which they now use to shut down any criticism of their deviant lifestyle. The truth is they are one of the most intolerant groups in our society and viciously attack anyone who opposes their point of view,” said Richard Thompson, chief of the law center.

“The sole purpose of this law is to use the threat of federal prosecutions and long jail sentences to silence Christians from expressing their Biblically based religious belief that homosexual conduct is an abomination and a sin.”

The center confirmed that statistics from homosexual advocacy groups reveal that the greatest threat of violence to homosexuals comes not from Christians but from other homosexuals.

The brief also explains how the attacks on Christians already are being strategized.

At a forum for the homosexual community held by the ACLU of Michigan, Barbara McQuade, the U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, stated, “We’re very eager to enforce the act.”

The brief says another federal prosecutor said, “We are so excited about this new law and the enforcement possibilities it provides for us.”

Robert Muise, the senior trial counsel for the law center, is handling the case, and said, “This new federal law promotes two Orwellian concepts. First, it creates a special class of persons who are ‘more equal than others’ based on nothing more than deviant, sexual behavior. And secondly, it creates ‘thought crimes’ by criminalizing certain ideas, beliefs, and opinions, and the involvement of such ideas, beliefs, and opinions in a crime will make it deserving of federal prosecution. Consequently, government officials are claiming the power to decide which thoughts are criminal under federal law and which are not.”

The law center revealed that all 50 states already have criminal laws punishing violence against others, Holder himself admitted there is no evidence “hate crimes” were unpunished at the state level, and in 2008, of the 1.38 million violent crimes reported, 243 dealt with the victim’s sexual orientation.

The Hate Crimes Act was dubbed by its critics as the “Pedophile Protection Act” after an amendment to explicitly prohibit pedophiles from being protected by the act was defeated by majority Democrats. In fact, during congressional debate, supporters argued that all “philias,” or alternative sexual lifestyles, should be protected.

Yuille is the pastor of The Bible Church in Michigan and national director of the National Black Pro-Life Congress. He hosts a radio program and “is often warned by his Canadian listeners that he will prosecuted under the new U.S. hate-crimes law for his public ministry.”

Ouellette is pastor of First Baptist in Bridgeport, Mich., with about 7,000 members, and the author of five books.

Combs is lead pastor of Faith Church, The Point Church, The Rock Church and The River Church, with about 10,000 members.

Obama signed the “Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act” in October 2009 after Democrats strategically attached it to a “must-pass” $680 billion defense-appropriations bill.

The law cracks down on any acts that could be linked to criticism of homosexuality or even the “perception” of homosexuality. As Congress debated it, there were assurances it would not be used to crack down on speech.

Obama boasted about the “hate crimes” bill when he signed it into law.

“After more than a decade, we’ve passed inclusive hate-crimes legislation to help protect our citizens from violence based on what they look like, who they love, how they pray or who they are,” he said.

The bill signed by Obama was opposed by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights, which called it a “menace” to civil liberties. The commission argued the law allows federal authorities to bring charges against individuals even if they’ve already been cleared in a state court.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=237849
__________________________________________________

State considers health benefits for unmarried partners
Proposal would cover non-related live-in partners
by Todd A. Heywood

“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, says the proposal, so long as it was not just for same-sex partners was legal. But he questioned if it was good public policy. ‘Even in the best of times, taxpayers should not be compelled to subsidize homosexual relationships that many people consider immoral,’ Glenn said in an email to Michigan Messenger.

‘At a time when Michigan is facing a $1.6 billion deficit, forcing taxpayers to subsidize new groups of beneficiaries — and especially a group whose choice of sexual behavior is fraught with a dramatically higher incidence of health hazards including serious life-threatening disease — is unthinkable and will only further increase the cost of healthcare for all of us.’ He says the state should, instead, be actively promoting marriage — specifically and solely, marriage between one man and one woman.”

http://michiganmessenger.com/44495/state-considers-health-benefits-for-unmarriedpartners
__________________________________________________

————————–

HUMAN EVENTS
Washington, D.C.
December 1, 2010

Bradley Manning: poster boy for ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’
by Ann Coulter

The two biggest stories this week are WikiLeaks’ continued publication of classified government documents, which did untold damage to America’s national security interests, and the Democrats’ fanatical determination to repeal “don’t ask, don’t tell” and allow gays to serve openly in the military.

The mole who allegedly gave WikiLeaks the mountains of secret documents is Pfc. Bradley Manning, Army intelligence analyst and angry gay.

We’ve heard 1 billion times about the Army translator who just wanted to serve his country, but was cashiered because of whom he loved.

I’ll see your Army translator and raise you one Bradley Manning.

According to Bradley’s online chats, he was in “an awkward place” both “emotionally and psychologically.” So in a snit, he betrayed his country by orchestrating the greatest leak of classified intelligence in U.S. history.

Isn’t that in the Army Code of Conduct? You must follow orders at all times. Exceptions will be made for servicemen in an awkward place. Now, who wants a hug? Waitress! Three more apple-tinis!”

According to The New York Times, Bradley sought “moral support” from his “self-described drag queen” boyfriend. Alas, he still felt out of sorts. So why not sell out his country?

In an online chat with a computer hacker, Bradley said he lifted the hundreds of thousands of classified documents by pretending to be listening to a CD labeled “Lady Gaga.” Then he acted as if he were singing along with her hit song “Telephone” while frantically downloading classified documents.

I’m not a military man, but I think singing along to Lady Gaga would constitute “telling” under “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

Do you have to actually wear a dress to be captured by the Army’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” dragnet?

What constitutes being “openly” gay now? Bringing a spice rack to basic training? Attending morning drills decked out as a Cher impersonator? Following Anderson Cooper on Twitter?

Also, U.S. military, have you seen a picture of Bradley Manning? The photo I’ve seen is only from the waist up, but you get the feeling that he’s wearing butt-less chaps underneath. He looks like a guy in a soldier costume at the Greenwich Village Halloween parade.

With any luck, Bradley’s court-martial will be gayer than a Liza Minelli wedding. It could be the first court-martial in U.S. history to feature ice sculptures and a “Wizard of Oz”-themed gazebo. “Are you going to Bradley’s court-martial? I hear Patti LaBelle is going to sing!”

Maybe there’s a reason gays have traditionally been kept out of the intelligence services, apart from the fact that closeted gay men are easy to blackmail. Gays have always been suspicious of that rationale and perhaps they’re right.

The most damaging spies in British history were the Cambridge Five, also called “the “Magnificent Five”: Kim Philby, Guy Burgess, Anthony Blunt, Donald Maclean and John Cairncross. They were highly placed members of British intelligence, all secretly working for the KGB.

The only one who wasn’t gay was Philby. Burgess and Blunt were flamboyantly gay. Indeed, the Russians set Burgess up with a boyfriend as soon as he defected to the Soviet Union.

The Magnificent Five’s American compatriot Michael Straight was — ironically — bisexual, as was Whittaker Chambers, at least during the period that he was a spy. And of course, there’s David Brock.

So many Soviet spies were gay that, according to intelligence reporter Phillip Knightley, the Comintern was referred to as “the Homintern.” (I would have called it the “Gay G.B.”)

Bradley’s friends told the Times they suspected “his desperation for acceptance — or delusions of grandeur” may have prompted his document dump.

Let’s check our “Gay Profile at a Glance” and … let’s see … desperate for acceptance … delusions of grandeur … yep, they’re both on the gay subset list!

Obviously, the vast majority of gays are loyal Americans — and witty and stylish to boot! But a small percentage of gays are going to be narcissistic hothouse flowers like Bradley Manning.

Couldn’t they just work for JetBlue? America would be a lot safer right now if gays in an “awkward place” psychologically could do no more damage than grabbing a couple of beers and sliding down the emergency chute.

Look at the disaster one gay created under our punishing “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy. What else awaits America with the overturning of a policy that was probably put there for a reason (apart from being the only thing Bill Clinton ever did that I agreed with)?

Liberals don’t care. Their approach is to rip out society’s foundations without asking if they serve any purpose.

Why do we have immigration laws? What’s with these borders? Why do we have the institution of marriage, anyway? What do we need standardized tests for? Hey, I like Keith Richards — why not make heroin legal? Let’s take a sledgehammer to all these load-bearing walls and just see what happens!

For liberals, gays in the military is a win-win proposition. Either gays in the military works, or it wrecks the military, both of which outcomes they enthusiastically support.

But since you brought up gays in the military, liberals, let’s talk about Bradley Manning. He apparently released hundreds of thousands of classified government documents as a result of being a gay man in “an awkward place.”

Any discussion of “don’t ask, don’t tell” should begin with Bradley Manning. Live by the sad anecdote, die by the sad anecdote.

http://www.humanevents.com:80/article.php?print=yes&id=40325
__________________________________________________

Treason, Bradley Manning, and Army PC
by Jonah Knox

The kid-gloves treatment of Manning demonstrates that the current policy that the Department of Defense and Army have on homosexuals in the military stems from a desire to bow at the altar of political correctness and seek approval from the same-sex advocates and their leftist allies.

I wait for General George Casey, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Army, to send an e-mail to me and my fellow soldiers in regards to homosexual Bradley Manning’s reported treason in the WikiLeaks scandal. You see, General Casey sent an e-mail to soldiers following Major Nidal Hassan’s jihadist massacre at Fort Hood last year in which he said that he was “…concerned about the potential for this speculation to cause a backlash against our Muslim Soldiers and civilians. We need to be vigilant to ensure this does not occur.”

General Casey apparently felt this e-mail did not sufficiently convey his thoughts or where his sympathies resided because he later went on Meet the Press and said of the massacre, “Our diversity not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.”

Therefore, I now wait for General Casey’s e-mail warning soldiers against any backlash against homosexuals.

The Law and Army Regs
The Pentagon’s homosexual exclusion law is controversial and subject to interpretation. The law (Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C.) and Army regulations state that homosexuality is incompatible with the Army (indeed, with all service branches). The Army had to have known that Bradley Manning was a homosexual based on the readily-available evidence. This means that the Army knew that Manning was a homosexual and yet did nothing about it—until Manning’s sexuality apparently led him to betray America and jeopardize lives. Manning, who served as an intelligence analyst and had a security clearance, has been arrested and is reportedly under suicide watch.

The Army states its policy on homosexuality in Army Regulation (AR) 600-20, Paragraph 4-19 (Page 28 of the Regulation—which is page 34 in Adobe Reader). The Army G-1 (Human Resources) also publishes a summary of this regulation in its “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) pamphlet. AR 600-20, Paragraph 4-19, Subparagraph C (“Separation Policy”) states that “Homosexual conduct is grounds for separation from the Army under the terms set forth in paragraph a(3).”

Yet at the same time, Army regulation restricts leaders from determining (officially) if a soldier is a homosexual and therefore someone who should be discharged. For instance, AR 600-20, Paragraph 4-19, Subparagraph d(3) (“Noncredible information”) details instances that are not considered grounds for Army leaders to open an inquiry to determine whether someone is a homosexual and therefore should be discharged. The Army regulation states that “noncredible information” includes, “The only information known is an associational activity, such as going to a gay bar, possessing or reading homosexual publications, associating with known homosexuals, or marching in a gay rights rally in civilian clothes.”

In Manning’s case, he had a Facebook page devoted to homosexual causes that included a photo of him marching in a gay pride parade. His associates said he went to gay bars and he talked openly about his homosexuality to others. Several have said that he was angry with the military because of the failure to repeal the homosexual exclusion policy. Incredibly, however, the Army may not have considered any of the credible evidence that he was a homosexual.

It is true that Army regulations on homosexuality create a lot of confusion. And that may be intentional based on current Department of Defense policy. The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) says this in its analysis of current Department of Defense policy:

The shift in priorities, made effective immediately, worsens confusion and abrogates the 1993 law, Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C., which clearly states that homosexuals are not eligible for military service. By making the law extremely difficult to enforce, apparently by design, the Gates/Mullen regulations have created a new form of institutional dishonesty that is even worse than Bill Clinton’s administrative policy, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.” DADT encourages homosexuals to enlist even though they are not eligible for military service.

Therefore, it does not surprise me that the Army may never have investigated Manning for his support of the homosexual agenda, for his frequenting of homosexual events and/or establishments because Department of Defense policy does not seem to allow it. However, Department of Defense and Army regulations did allow the Army to investigate Manning based on his declarations of being a homosexual who despised the Army for not fully embracing the homosexual agenda and not acting quickly enough to repeal DADT.

Now, however, the damage has been done. He is charged with releasing a video to WikiLeaks and is the suspect in the theft and release of additional classified information that has undermined the war effort and U.S. relations with allies in the region.

As the investigations continue, this is the time to strengthen, not repeal, the policy against homosexuals, and make it clear that involvement in gay rights causes and groups is sufficient grounds for expulsion. Under no circumstances should Congress reward Manning’s conduct by repealing DADT.

The kid-gloves treatment of Manning demonstrates that the current policy that the Department of Defense and Army have on homosexuals in the military stems from a desire to bow at the altar of political correctness and seek approval from the same-sex advocates and their leftist allies. The left has generated enough politically correct pressure that the Department of Defense and Army now go out of their way to ignore homosexuals within their ranks—even if that costs the lives of service personnel and betrays national security.

But there’s yet another interesting and newsworthy aspect to the Manning story: the left supports his anti-American actions and wants more of this kind of treason to occur.

Treason Support Groups
A cursory search of the Internet finds numerous Bradley Manning support and/or defense sites. Many stories across the web have either reported on the support for Manning and treason, or outright defended him and treason. [See, for example, “Antiwar activists rally around soldier suspected of leaking classified material to WikiLeaks,” “Activists rally to ‘Free Bradley Manning’ in WikiLeaks case,” and “Early Struggles of Soldier Charged in Leak Case.”

A Huffington Post propaganda piece, “Pvt. Bradley Manning and the New York Times: Manufacturing a Villain,” is so deranged that it actually portrays a New York Times article defending Manning but openly discussing his homosexual activities as a “smear.” Leftists proudly boast of their support for Manning, who is facing more than 50 years in prison. There are even some leftists, such as Michael Moore, who not only support Manning, but call for more people to commit treason. The Hill reported that Moore “put a link to WikiLeaks on his site, urging readers to ‘LEAK EVERYTHING YOU GOT!’.”

No one can ever again tell me that the left doesn’t hate America or that it doesn’t hate American service personnel. Michelle Malkin has a nice archive of material documenting this left-wing hate stored under her “They don’t support the troops” tag. Those on the political right who refuse to acknowledge this embedded and organic leftist hate are fools or useful idiots. The loyal American is an enemy to the left.

One would think that Manning’s actions would be a rallying point for the right, and that those who take the name of “conservative” would unite in support of morality. But this hasn’t happened. AIM has already noted that some so-called conservatives were slow in discussing how Manning’s homosexuality apparently led to his treason. In addition to the “conservative” silence on the apparent Manning homosexuality-treason link, many so-called conservatives have publically declared their support for the homosexual infiltration of the military and/or homosexual “marriage.”

John Hawkins and his Right Wing News (RWN) are the latest to support the homosexual agenda with the announcement that RWN is supporting Homocon, the homosexual convention coming in September that is going to feature Ann Coulter.

Hence, the Manning story has not only failed to unify those supposedly on the right, but it has become clear that some so-called “conservatives” are intent on fracturing and destroying the conservative movement with their abandonment of morality and their support of the same-sex agenda.

However, if society is going to ignore the apparent connection between Manning’s homosexuality and his treason, and if society is going to ignore the increase of problems that homosexuals in the military have already caused since the implementation of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (see, for example, “Homosexual Assault in the Military” and “Male-on-male sexual assaults in the military”), then we need to be consistent and also get rid of all other standards and regulations that are causing “needed and skilled servicemen” to be discharged from the Department of Defense.

Discrimination and the Physically Unfit
The number of Servicemen the Department of Defense discharges due to homosexuality is minor compared to other reasons. For example, over four times more service personnel are discharged for failing to meet physical fitness standards than are discharged for homosexuality. Why is this? Why do we discriminate against servicemen who want to serve their nation just because they don’t meet someone’s idea of what it means to be “in shape?” The Department of Defense already knows that physical fitness is not a qualifier for competency to serve. That’s why the Army sets lower physical fitness standards for female soldiers and for soldiers of both sexes as we get older. Hence, it could be argued that the regulation on physical fitness should be dissolved because it serves no useful purpose and “needlessly discharges thousands of otherwise qualified soldiers when our country so desperately needs them.”

While we’re at it, why not eliminate all other “antiquated” notions of morality that cause us to lose valuable service personnel. Why not permit soldiers who lie, cheat, and steal to serve with honor? If society now deems “outdated” the notion that homosexuality and the military are incompatible, then so is every other moral standard.

By this standard, Manning should be forgiven—and even honored. After all, he was just “doing his thing” and “being himself.”

There is a final point to consider about the “conservative” silence on the Manning case.

Are alleged conservatives—who are so obsessed with political victory and building a “big tent”—so stupid that they are willing to betray the many millions of Christians who have supported them through the years in exchange for a relative handful of subversive homosexual “supporters” whose actual goal is to make real conservatism extinct?

That is a question that has to be put to website operators such as John Hawkins, as well as Senator John Cornyn and Rep. Pete Sessions, who are attending a pro-homosexual Log Cabin Republican event next month in Washington.

The apparent surrender of the “conservative” movement to the homosexual crowd brings to mind what Robert Knight wrote in “Conservative media fiddle while the military burns” on May 28, 2010 at One News Now:

The military is a linchpin for all of society. It is a bastion of traditional values. Former communist David Horowitz recalls that during the ‘60s, radical leftists determined that if they could destroy the U.S. military, they could destabilize the rest of capitalist America.

Knight says that one of the means by which the left would destroy the Armed Forces was to open up the military to homosexuals. It will inevitably lead to a mass exodus of soldiers devoted to traditional American values.

In the end, if major elements of the “conservative” movement embrace the homosexual agenda, the conservative movement will itself be destroyed, along with the nation that it says it wants to preserve and defend. That is a high price to pay for political correctness and pleasing the liberals.

——————————————————

*Jonah Knox is the pseudonym for a noncommissioned officer and analyst in the United States Army Reserves. He is an Operation Iraqi Freedom veteran who recently returned from an eight-month active duty tour in Iraq where he helped in the counter-improvised explosive device (C-IED) fight. Mr. Knox has also worked for the Army as a civilian contractor.

http://www.aim.org:80/aim-column/treason-bradley-manning-and-army-pc/
__________________________________________________