FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Sun., June 22, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

Women complain doctor told them marriage
is only between one man, one woman

Traditional marriage group praises Spectrum doc for
telling lesbian couple the truth, spiritually and legally

GRAND RAPIDS, Mich. — The American Family Association of Michigan Sunday praised a west Michigan doctor accused by a lesbian couple of so-called “discrimination” by telling them during a recent office visit that marriage consists only of a spiritual and legal union of one man and one woman.

The Triangle Foundation, a Detroit-based homosexual activist group that supports radically redefining marriage in Michigan to include homosexual couples, ramped up the rhetoric this weekend by accusing the physician — an as yet unnamed employee of Spectrum Health South Pavilion Urgent Care Center in Grand Rapids — of “spiritual violence” against the lesbian couple, who say they were “married” during the last two years in Canada, where marriage has already been redefined by activist judges.

(See “Same-sex couple complain about Spectrum doctor’s comments,” Grand Rapids Press:
http://blog.mlive.com/…)

AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn, Midland, noted that Michigan voters in 2004 overwhelmingly approved a Marriage Protection Amendment to the state constitution, which he co-authored.

“First, we commend the physician for telling these two women the simple truth, that under God’s law as well as the laws and constitution of the state of Michigan, marriage is in fact only between one man and one woman, regardless of what activist judges in some other country or state have to say about it,” Glenn said.

“Second, we urge Spectrum and the Grand Rapids area news media not to play along with homosexual activists’ obviously manufactured melodrama and political propaganda ploy,” Glenn said.

“A doctor dared express his opinion to two adult women who were and are completely free to disagree with him, and free to simply tell him so,” Glenn said. “Instead, they’re collaborating with a homosexual activist group trying to manufacture yet another melodrama of hurt feelings and alleged ‘discrimination’ to portray individuals who engage in homosexual behavior as ‘victims’ in the news media, in hopes of winning public sympathy for their aggressive agenda to legalize so-called homosexual ‘marriage’ in Michigan.”

“Third, it would be unprofessional for a physician not to question a homosexual couple about their lifestyle given the seriously increased personal and public health risks associated with homosexual behavior,” Glenn said. “In response, a truly compassionate doctor, or Christian, or community that truly cares about the health and well-being of others will discourage rather than enable or affirm medically harmful and self-destructive behavior.”

He cited multiple medical studies indicating increased health risks among women who have sex with other women:

* Homosexual women are more than twice as likely as women involved in normal heterosexual activity to be overweight or obese, which puts them at greater risk for obesity-related health problems and death from diabetes, heart disease, and other ailments, according to study of almost 6,000 women by Boston University School of Public Health published last year in the American Journal of Public Health. http://www.news.com.au:80/dailytel…

* Homosexual women have “a significantly higher prevalence of bacterial vaginosis (associated with pelvic inflammatory disease), hepatitis C, and HIV risk behaviors compared to” normal heterosexual women, according to a study of 1,408 lesbian and bisexual women by the Sexual Health Unit at Alice Springs Hospital in Australia, published in the October 2003 issue of the Journal of Sexually Transmitted Diseases. The same study found higher rates of “high-risk behaviors, including drug use,” smoking tobacco, and that “hepatitis B was also more common” among lesbian women. http://www.curvemag.com/Detailed/13.html

* “Lesbians and bisexual women are more promiscuous than straight women,” being four times more likely than heterosexual women to report having had “more than 50 sex partners” in their lifetimes, “six times more likely to inject drugs, and…significantly more at risk from hepatitis B and C,” according to the Australian study, as reported by The Guardian, a mainstream secular newspaper in London. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/oct/24/3

* The Medical Institute of Sexual Health reported that “women who have sex with women are at significantly increased risk of bacterial vaginosis, breast cancer and ovarian cancer than are heterosexual women.” MISH also found “significantly higher percentages of homosexual men and women abuse drugs, alcohol and tobacco than do heterosexuals.” (Medical Institute of Sexual Health: www.medinstitute.org, Executive Summary, “Health Implications Associated with Homosexuality,” 1999)

* The National LGBT Cancer Network reports: “The U.S. government listed (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender) people as one of six population groups experiencing health disparities in this country, meaning that the burden of disease is not evenly distributed, but falls most heavily on these groups. In fact, there is a growing body of evidence suggesting that LGBT people have a substantially greater risk of developing cancer than the general population.” http://www.cancer-network.org/info.php

* Facing Our Risk of Cancer Empowered (FORCE), a cancer victim research and advocacy group, reports: “(T)here is a body of evidence suggesting that lesbians have a dense cluster of risk factors, significantly raising their risk of developing breast, ovarian and other cancers. Research shows, for example, that lesbians have higher rates of obesity and lower rates of childbearing before age 30, increasing the risks for both breast and ovarian cancer.” http://www.facingourrisk.org/risk_management/breast_and_ovarian_cancer.html

* “(T)he National Cancer Institute announced that lesbians have a two- to threefold higher lifetime risk of developing breast cancer. Suzanne Haynes, an epidemiologist and former chief of the health education section of the National Cancer Institute, took known risk factors and looked to see if they occurred more among lesbians and found that they did. It was partly bad habits—overweight lesbians drinking and smoking too much—and partly science: Interruptions of the body’s estrogen production, which can be brought about by bearing children or taking the pill, are believed to decrease the risk of cervical and breast cancer.” http://www.villagevoice.com/people/0552,hunter,71342,24.html

* Compared to heterosexual women, females who engage in homosexual behavior are four times more likely to have suffered a substance use disorder, 2.4 times more likely to have suffered mood disorders, and twice as likely to have suffered two or more mental disorders during their lifetimes, according to a study published by the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2001. “The findings support the assumption that people with same-sex sexual behavior are at greater risk for psychiatric disorders,” the study reported.
http://archpsyc.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/58/1/85

# # #

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thurs., May 29, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

Family group urges Ferndale police to enforce public
nudity, indecency laws at homosexual “pride” festival

Ferndale “transgender” activist: “I’ve been approached many
times by people concerned about public nudity at PrideFest.”

Ferndale businesswoman: young children were exposed to
“shocking” nudity, “lewd behavior” at last year’s Pride event

FERNDALE, Mich. — A statewide family values organization is urging Ferndale police to assure the public it will effectively enforce state laws prohibiting public nudity and indecency during Motor City Pride, a homosexual street festival scheduled in the city this Sunday, citing concerns about such behavior at the event in past years published in a Ferndale “transgender” activist’s daily e-mail newsletter.

The American Family Association of Michigan Thursday alerted Ferndale Police Chief Michael P. Kitchen to comments published in “Ferndale Friends,” a daily e-newsletter issued by Stephanie Loveless, a 47 year old Ferndale man formerly named Thomas Ness, a Green Party candidate for Congress in 2000, who now dresses as a woman.
http://www.transgenderdetroit.org/?page_id=6

“On behalf of children whose parents may exercise the poor judgment of taking them to such an event,” AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn wrote, “we urge you to alert police officers responsible for policing the event to these locally published accounts of public nudity and indecency at past Motor City Pride festivals, remind them of state laws strictly prohibiting such activity in public, and instruct them to faithfully and fully enforce state laws regarding public nudity and indecency and child sexually abusive activity.”

Glenn cited accounts published by Loveless in his May 8th newsletter, in which Loveless wrote that he had “been approached many times by people concerned about public nudity at PrideFest.”

“Most recently, members of the (gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender community talked to me about it,” Loveless wrote. “As gays and lesbians, they are certainly very much in favor of Pride-Fest, but they’re not happy about seeing exposed buttocks, etc. I agree completely. I’m not exactly a prude, by any means, but I feel our downtown district must always be kept family-friendly… What do you think? …Have you also been offended by public nudity at Pride-Fest?”

The next day, Loveless published several responses, including comments by Ferndale insurance agent Robin J. Wojta, who said she and her young children were exposed to public nudity and indecency during last year’s event.”

“I am not a prude in any way…but I have to say, that some of the ’stuff’ I saw at this community event was shocking!” Wojta wrote. “Totally not family friendly! My mistake was having my husband bring our 12 and 13 year old daughters to hang out with me for awhile. I had a lot of explaining to do! There were many inappropriate displays of dress (or non-dress as the case may be), lewd behavior and general disrespect for the Ferndale community. …I will not be participating in this year’s Pride Fest because of the inappropriate behavior at last year’s event.”

Glenn noted state laws prohibiting erotic nudity and indecency in public, particularly in front of children:
“A person shall not knowingly make any open or indecent exposure of his or her person or of the person of another.” Violation of the statute is punishable “by imprisonment for not more than 1 year, or a fine of not more than $1,000.00, or both.” http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(qfo25luhlavlne55zuhdcr55))/mileg.as…

Michigan Penal Code 750.145 (c)(1)(j) defines “child sexually abusive activity” to include “passive sexual involvement” — “an act, real or simulated, that exposes another person to or draws another person’s attention to an act of sexual intercourse, erotic fondling, sadomasochistic abuse, masturbation, sexual excitement, or erotic nudity because of viewing any of these acts or because of the proximity of the act to that person, for the purpose of real or simulated overt sexual gratification or stimulation of 1 or more of the persons involved.” http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(jxqazl55qat44h45…

Glenn cited media reports of public sex acts and nudity during homosexual street festivals in Toronto and San Francisco in which police reportedly failed to enforce laws against such behavior in public. He included as an example a YouTube video of a lesbian couple simulating a sex act on the trunk of a Toronto police car. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u3kw2b1-M8

“We hope that the Ferndale Police will take a different approach this Sunday, despite published accounts by a local ‘transgender’ activist supportive of the event, including eyewitness commentary by a local Ferndale business person, which indicate that your department has failed to effectively police public nudity and indecency during past Motor City Pride events,” Glenn wrote Kitchen.

“Please issue a public statement assuring the public that your department will in fact this Sunday be faithfully enforcing state laws against public nudity, public indecency, and child sexually abusive activity, including laws against allowing children to witness public nudity or real or simulated sex acts on the streets of Ferndale,” he wrote.

“Or, if you do not intend to do so, or are not confident that you can effectively do so, please issue a public statement warning the public that if they attend, they and their children may be exposed to illegal acts of public nudity, indecency, and sexual activity on the streets of Ferndale.”

# # #

To read the full text of Glenn’s e-mail to Chief Kitchens, including full text at the end of comments published by Stephanie Loveless in his e-mail newsletter “Ferndale Friends”, click on more.

(more…)

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., May 21, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

Michigan homosexual lobby backs jail, lawsuits
for refusal to recognize homosexual “marriage”

Columnist: Triangle Fdn’s Kosofsky says business owners
should be jailed, newspapers sued and “slapped publicly”

SEATTLE — Michigan’s largest homosexual activist group says once marriage is legally redefined to include homosexual couples, business owners and even news media outlets who refuse to recognize such marriages should be jailed or sued and “publicly slapped,” a Jewish and openly bisexual columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported Tuesday.

Statements attributed in the column to homosexual lobbyist Sean Kosofsky, director of policy for the Detroit-based Triangle Foundation, were denounced Wednesday by American Family Association of Michigan President Gary Glenn, co-author of the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by voters in 2004 to constitutionally reaffirm the legal definition of marriage in Michigan as only between one man and one woman.

“The Triangle Foundation openly admits homosexual activists’ intentions, once they gain sufficient political power, to impose their radical social agenda on America by brute force, trampling cherished American values such as religious freedom, freedom of speech, academic freedom, and even freedom of the press if it stands in their way,” Glenn said.

Glenn pointed to comments by Kosofsky reported Monday by David Benkof, author of Gay Essentials: Facts for Your Queer Brain and founder of the Q Syndicate, a “gay”-press syndicate that provides columns and other material to a hundred homosexual newspapers.

Benkof, who strays from “gay” political orthodoxy by opposing the redefinition of marriage, wrote in a column published Tuesday by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that he had interviewed homosexual activists nationally about the legal implications of a California Supreme Court ruling last week declaring a constitutional “right” to so-called homosexual “marriage.”

Benkof wrote: “A representative of the largest Michigan gay-rights group, the Triangle Foundation…told me that people who continue to act as if marriage is a union between a man and a woman should face being fined, fired and even jailed until they relent. What happens if a traditionally religious business owner wants to extend his ‘marriage discount’ only to couples married in his eyes? Sean Kosofsky of Michigan’s largest gay-rights group, the Triangle Foundation, says, ‘If you are a public accommodation and you are open to anyone on Main Street, that means you must be open to everyone on Main Street. If they don’t do it, that’s contempt and they will go to jail.’ ”

(See full Benkof column: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/363878_califgays21.html)

Glenn said the Triangle Foundation routinely justifies its hostility toward individuals and organizations who disagree with homosexual activists’ political agenda, as well as Triangle’s
admitted plans to suppress their opponents’ free speech rights, by demonizing those who support traditional one-man, one-woman marriage as promoters of “hate” and violence.

* The Triangle Foundation’s web site currently features a news release charging that support for Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment by Glenn and Catholic Cardinal Adam Maida of the Archdiocese of Detroit was a motivating factor in the alleged beating death of a homosexual senior citizen last year in Detroit. “It is appalling hypocrisy,” the statement reads, “for (Glenn and Maida) 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.” http://www.tri.org/violence/pdfs/taskforce.pdf

Triangle’s claims were proven false when police reported they found no evidence of assault and
the Wayne County medical examiner’s office concluded the man had died from natural causes after a fall resulting from arthritic paralysis. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262308,00.html

* Kosofsky has for years publicly accused Glenn’s organization of supporting murder, though only one news media outlet has ever published the allegation. “We personally believe that the AFA may support the murder of gay, lesbian and bisexual people,” Kosofsky said, as reported in 2001 by State News, the student newspaper at Michigan State University.
http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2001/11/gay-rights_group_fights

And Kosofsky in a published column in 2005 called Cardinal Maida “recklessly wicked,” accused him of “arrogance, bigotry and hypocrisy,” and said the Catholic church’s position in support of one-man, one-woman marriage “should be tossed in the trash.”
http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=13021

Glenn also noted that when Kosofsky said news media outlets should be sued and “slapped publicly” if they report material to which homosexual activists object, one example may have been fresh on his mind. Last month, Kosofsky attacked WNEM-TV Channel 5, Saginaw, for its coverage of a pro-homosexual student protest in public schools. “WNEM has run one of the worst stories I have seen in recent years on Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender issues by using insensitive and inflammatory terms,” Kosofsky wrote on his blog, Blog O’ Queer.
http://www.blogoqueer.org/2008/04/horrible-coverage-of-day-of-silence-in.html

Violations of religious freedom, free speech rights, academic freedom, and freedom of the press have become routine in countries and states that have already adopted so-called homosexual “marriage” or “hate crime” laws based on homosexual behavior, Glenn said.

* Swedish Pastor Ake Green in 2004 was sentenced to 30 days in jail for preaching a sermon in which he defined homosexual behavior as sinful and harmful to society. http://www.akegreen.org

* Baptist Press reported in 2005: “A Catholic bishop in Canada is under investigation by a government agency for condemning ‘gay marriage’… The bishop, Fred Henry of Calgary, is being investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for comments he made about homosexuality in both a letter to parishioners and a Calgary Sun newspaper column. Two homosexuals filed the complaints.” http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=20716

* The Irish Times reported in 2003: “Clergy and bishops who distribute the Vatican’s latest publication describing homosexual activity as ‘evil’ could face prosecution under incitement to hatred legislation. …Those convicted under the Act can face jail terms of up to six months.”
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2003/0802/1059775167952.html

* The London Daily Telegraph reported in 2006: “New Government proposals on equality could require clergy to bless homosexual ‘weddings’ or face prosecution, the Church of England said yesterday. It said the proposed regulations could undermine official teaching and require Christians to act against their religious convictions.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1520849/Church-%27could-be-forced-to-bless-gay-weddings%27.html

* Catholic Charities in Boston was forced by a state “sexual orientation” law to either process the adoption of children to homosexual couples, a direct violation of Vatican policy, or abandon their century-old adoption referral services altogether. They chose the latter. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions

* The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix newspaper was ordered by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal to pay three homosexual men $1,500 each after the newspaper agreed to run an ad that featured Bible verses critical of homosexual behavior. “As the Star-Phoenix lawyer said in his closing statement (before the Tribunal), ‘A Human Rights ruling against the Star-Phoenix and Mr. Owens could limit freedom of speech in the media, in churches and in classrooms.’” http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/1999_Sept_Oct/article_7.html

* A British couple were questioned by police on possible “hate crime” charges after they wrote a letter-to-the-editor of their local newspaper criticizing city officials for distributing brochures at city hall promoting homosexual behavior. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/4555406.stm

* The London Daily Telegraph reported last month: “A Christian couple who have taken in 28 children have been forced to give up being foster parents after they refused to promote homosexuality. Vincent Matherick, 65, and his 61-year-old wife Pauline were told by social services that they had to comply with legislation requiring them to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567160/Christian-foster-parents-condemn-’gay-laws’.html

* A British Anglican bishop in February was fined for refusing to hire an openly homosexual man as a church youth minister. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021104.html

* The London Daily Telegraph reported in 2003: “A bishop who angered homosexuals by suggesting they seek a psychiatric cure is to be investigated by police to see if his outspoken views amount to a criminal offence, it emerged yesterday.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1446318/Bishop%27s-anti-gay-comments-spark-legal-investigation.html

* Eleven Christians in Philadelphia — including two grandmothers in their 70’s, one white and one African-American — were arrested and charged with “ethnic intimidation” under Pennsylvania’s “hate crimes” law when they tried to read Bible verses out loud during a homosexual street festival. They faced a cumulative 47 years in prison had they been convicted. http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=6542&department=CFI&categoryid=nation

* A New Mexico Christian photographer was fined $6,600 for refusing on religious grounds to photograph a homosexual marriage-like “commitment” ceremony.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200804/CUL20080416a.html

* Catholic bishops in Belgium and Spain were sued in 2004 by homosexual activist groups for making public statements in opposition to homosexual behavior and homosexual “marriage.”
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=43235

* Boston public school teachers were threatened with termination if they failed to portray so-called homosexual “marriage” in a positive light. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=27201

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thurs., May 15, 2008

CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

California decision proves wisdom of Michigan voters’ approval of marriage amendment in ‘04

Marriage law in Michigan at risk if federal Defense of Marriage Act repealed, amendment co-author says

Midland, Mich. — The California Supreme Court ruling Thursday legalizing so-called homosexual “marriage” proves Michigan voters’ “wisdom and foresight” in approving a Marriage Protection Amendment to the state constitution in 2004 to put the definition of marriage beyond the reach of activist judges, a co-author of the amendment said.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, first proposed the amendment in June 2003, the day an Ontario, Canada, court issued a ruling legalizing so-called homosexual “marriage” on Michigan’s border. Nearly 60 percent of Michigan voters voted to approve the amendment seventeen months later on the November 2004 ballot.

Glenn noted that in declaring a constitutional “right” to so-called homosexual “marriage,” the California Supreme Court overturned a state law approved by 61 percent of California voters on the ballot in 2000. Had that ballot measure been not just a statute, but a constitutional amendment as it was in Michigan, it could not have been overturned by the court, he said. http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/elections/2000-2002.htm

“The California decision proves that activist judges cannot be trusted to uphold either existing marriage laws or even a vote of the people themselves,” Glenn said, “and it proves how right Michigan voters were to secure the definition of marriage in Michigan in our state constitution in advance, before judges tried the same thing here.”

“It should also be a wakeup call to Americans that the real threat to radically redefine marriage is still very much alive,” Glenn said. “Even here in Michigan, our state laws and constitutional protections of marriage could be undone by activist judges if the federal Defense of Marriage Act is amended or repealed as early as next year, as major candidates for federal office are promising to do if elected.”

The federal DOMA was enacted in 1996 and provides that a state cannot be forced to accept or recognize so-called homosexual “marriages” legally performed in other states. Glenn said repeal of that federal law would allow a federal judge to order Michigan to recognize so-called homosexual “marriages” performed in California or in Massachusetts, where activist judges redefined marriage in 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Glenn noted that Democratic U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has called for full repeal of DOMA. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/would-obama-pos.html

Plus, Glenn said, all Democrats representing Michigan in Congress, plus three Republicans — House members Joe Knollenberg, Thad McCotter, and Candice Miller — last year voted in favor of openly homosexual Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.’s “Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” which both the White House and House Republican leaders said would empower federal judges to force states to recognize homosexual “marriages” performed in other states. Only President Bush’s veto threat has thus far stopped Frank’s bill from becoming law.

The White House in a statement said Frank’s legislation threatened to add federal recognition to homosexual “marriages” recognized under state law, as in Massachusetts and now California. “Provisions of this bill purport to give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law. These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr3685sap-r.pdf

House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Frank’s legislation if enacted “puts activist judges in the position of imposing same-sex marriage and civil union laws on states. Simply by using ENDA as the basis of their decisions – just as state Supreme Courts have done with state-level ENDA laws in the past – liberal judges will be empowered under this legislation to single-handedly undermine state and federal marriage laws across the country. I’m disappointed that the Majority turned back a straightforward proposal offered by House Republicans to protect state and federal marriage laws from being overturned, modified, or restricted by activist judges as a result of this deeply flawed legislation.” http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=78178

Glenn pledged that the American Family Association of Michigan “will continue to stand firmly for constitutionally protecting marriage between one man and one woman and to uphold and defend the vote of the people of Michigan.”

“What the California decision should make clear is that the fight to protect one-man, one-woman marriage from the politically powerful homosexual lobby is far from over,” Glenn said. “It’s an ongoing fight that, for the sake of our children, requires eternal vigilance nationwide and here in Michigan.”

###

“The people of Michigan have constitutionally protected marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman, period, and that includes prohibiting the recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including offering spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees,” said Gary Glenn, one of the co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment and head of the American Family Association of Michigan.

CATHOLIC NEWS AGENCY
Denver, Colorado
May 8, 2008

Michigan court rules that marriage law
bans same-sex partnership benefits

Lansing, Mich. (CNA) — The Michigan General Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that the state’s constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriages also blocks Michigan governments and state universities from offering “domestic partnership” benefits for homosexual couples.

The Marriage Protection Amendment was approved by nearly sixty percent of voters in 2004. Considered the broadest of the 11 state marriage amendments barring same-sex marriage, the language of the Michigan amendment says “…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.”

The Michigan ACLU, representing the AFL-CIO homosexual activist group National Pride at Work, had challenged the application of the law as based in Attorney General Mike Cox’s interpretation of the amendment.

The Michigan court’s 5-2 decision did not rule on whether government employment benefits can be offered to homosexual partners on some broader basis also available to other employees. Some local governments and universities have attempted to maintain present benefits by amending the eligibility requirements.

“The people of Michigan have constitutionally protected marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman, period, and that includes prohibiting the recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including offering spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees,” said Gary Glenn, one of the co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment and head of the American Family Association of Michigan.

Richard Thompson, President and Chief Counsel of the Thomas More Law Center, praised the decision, saying, “The Michigan Supreme Court courageously upheld the will of the people.”
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=12591

“Gay rights advocates said the (Michigan Supreme Court) ruling is devastating but also are confident that public-sector employers have successfully rewritten or will revise their benefit plans so same-sex partners can keep getting health care. …

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said last year that he didn’t anticipate further suits on the issue. But he said Wednesday: ‘You never say never.’ Glenn, who co-wrote the (Marriage Protection Amendment), said the legality of the new policies depends on whether they’re written broadly enough to cover many other unmarried employees.”

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Lansing, Michigan
May 7, 2008

Michigan high court says gay
partners can’t get health benefits

by David Eggert
The Associated Press

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that a voter-approved ban against gay marriage also prevents governments and state universities from recognizing domestic partnerships to provide health insurance to the partners of gay workers.

The 5-2 decision affects up to 20 universities, community colleges, school districts and governments in Michigan with policies covering at least 375 gay couples.

Gay rights advocates said the ruling is devastating but also are confident that public-sector employers have successfully rewritten or will revise their benefit plans so same-sex partners can keep getting health care.

The constitutional amendment, which passed 59 percent to 41 percent in November 2004, says the union between a man and woman is the only agreement recognized as a marriage “or similar union for any purpose.”

The majority ruled that while marriages and domestic partnerships aren’t identical, they are similar because they’re the only relationships in Michigan defined in terms of gender and lack of a close blood connection. Voters “hardly could have made their intentions clearer,” Justice Stephen Markman wrote, citing the law’s “for any purpose” language.

He was joined by Chief Justice Clifford Taylor and Justices Maura Corrigan, Elizabeth Weaver and Robert Young Jr.

Dissenting Justices Marilyn Kelly and Michael Cavanagh countered that statements made by backers of the measure before the election suggest they only intended to prohibit gay marriage, not take away employment benefits. The dissent also noted that gay partners who qualify for health care aren’t given other benefits of marriage — equal rights to property, for instance.

“It is an odd notion to find that a union that shares only one of the hundreds of benefits that a marriage provides is a union similar to marriage,” Kelly wrote.

The ruling is believed to be one of the first from a state high court interpreting the scope of measures barring gay marriage. Alaska courts went the other way, ruling that it’s unconstitutional to deny benefits. Ohio courts found that domestic violence laws don’t conflict with a ban on gay marriage.

But numerous states have yet to grapple with how their gay marriage bans apply to same-sex partner benefits.

At least 27 states have passed constitutional bans, mostly since 2004 in response to gay marriages being performed in Massachusetts. At least 18 of those states, including Michigan, have broader amendments that also prohibit the recognition of civil unions or same-sex partnerships.

“It’s a sad day in Michigan when we decide which children and which families are valuable enough to cover,” said Tom Patrick, 50, who gets health insurance through his partner, Dennis Patrick, a professor at Eastern Michigan University. The couple from Washtenaw County’s Superior Township has adopted four children and has a foster child, one with a developmental disability. Tom Patrick works part-time to care for the kids and said it would hurt the family to have to pay for his benefits out of pocket.

The Patricks joined 20 other gay couples and filed a lawsuit in 2005 when Republican Attorney General Mike Cox interpreted Michigan’s measure as making unconstitutional same-sex benefits at the city of Kalamazoo and elsewhere.

Sixteen plaintiffs worked for employers who offered same-sex benefits. Another five were employed by the state, which in 2004 agreed to start providing same-sex benefits but delayed them until courts could clear up their legality. Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm’s administration is reviewing the ruling.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan, which represented the couples, called the decision “flawed and unfortunate.” It pledged to work with public employers to write “neutral” policies ensuring employees’ partners don’t lose health coverage, but also expressed uneasiness and warned that gays will have to go through more hoops.

New policies no longer acknowledge domestic partnerships but make sure “other qualified adults,” including gay partners, are eligible for medical and dental care. The adults have to live together for a certain amount of time, be unmarried, share finances and be unrelated.

“The university believes all current benefit offerings are in full compliance with Michigan law,” University of Michigan spokeswoman Kelly Cunningham said.

It remains to be seen whether the revised policies will be challenged in court.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said last year that he didn’t anticipate further suits on the issue. But he said Wednesday: “You never say never.”

Glenn, who co-wrote the 2004 measure, said the legality of the new policies depends on whether they’re written broadly enough to cover many other unmarried employees.

The ACLU is weighing whether a federal lawsuit is warranted, while Cox applauded the decision.

The dissent argued that the ballot committee sponsoring the gay marriage ban consistently assured voters that the initiative was only about protecting marriage.

But the majority said other supporters and even opponents of the amendment said ahead of time that benefits would be prohibited by the amendment.

“The role of this Court is not to determine who said what about the amendment before it was ratified, or to speculate about how these statements may have influenced voters,” Markman wrote. “Instead, our responsibility is, as it has always been in matters of constitutional interpretation, to determine the meaning of the amendment’s actual language.”

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/news-53/121017504644810.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., May 7, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

5-to-2 ruling validates Cox, marriage amendment supporters

Michigan Supreme Court upholds constitutional ban on govt. recognition of homosexual relationships “for any purpose,” including employment benefits

LANSING, Mich. — The Michigan Supreme Court Wednesday ruled that under a Marriage Protection Amendment approved by Michigan voters in 2004, government employers cannot recognize homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including for the purpose of offering spousal-type employment benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees.

The Court did not rule on whether government employment benefits can be offered to homosexual partners on some broader basis also available to other employees, which some local governments and universities — in anticipation of the court’s ruling — have attempted by amending the eligibility requirements for such benefits.

The decision validates the views of amendment supporters and Attorney General Mike Cox, whose interpretations of the amendment and its effects was challenged by the Michigan ACLU, representing the national AFL-CIO’s in-house homosexual activist group, National Pride at Work. www.PrideatWork.org

Gary Glenn, one of two co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment, who as president of the American Family Association of Michigan first proposed such an amendment in June 2003 following an Ontario court decision legalizing homosexual “marriage,” welcomed the court’s 5-to-2 decision.

“The Michigan Supreme Court has made clear that universities and state and local governments are not above the law and cannot choose to simply ignore a vote by the people of Michigan,” Glenn said. “The people of Michigan have constitutionally protected marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman, period, and that includes prohibiting the recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including offering spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees.”

Glenn said the issue of employment benefits itself was not before the court, citing the court’s clear statement when it wrote that “the only pertinent question (before the court) is whether the public employer is recognizing a domestic partnership as a union similar to marriage for any purpose.” (Bottom of page 13: http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/11-07/133429/133429-Opinion.pdf)

“When public employers provide domestic partners health-insurance benefits on the basis of the domestic partnership, they are without a doubt recognizing the partnership,” the court ruled. (page 21: http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/11-07/133429/133429-Opinion.pdf)

It is government recognition of such relationships which the Marriage Protection Amendment prohibits, not the benefits themselves, Glenn said.

He said the high court’s ruling “validates 100 percent and in full our interpretation of the Marriage Protection Amendment and its intended effects, which AFA-Michigan has clearly and consistently maintained throughout the 2004 election and over three years of court proceedings that followed. The decision three times in its 34-page decision cited or quoted directly from a legal brief submitted to the court by AFA-Michigan, he noted.

Glenn also noted that in the wake of last year’s Court of Appeals decision on the amendment, upheld Wednesday by the state Supreme Court, “even opponents of the amendment have been forced to admit that AFA-Michigan’s interpretation of its effects has been right all along.”

Homosexual activists and the Michigan ACLU argued during the 2004 campaign that the amendment would prohibit government employee benefits based on government recognition of homosexual relationships; then, after losing the election, the same groups argued in court that the amendment did not prohibit such benefits. Then, after the Court of Appeals decision last year, they reversed course again.

Attorney Jay Kaplan of the Michigan ACLU last June told Lansing City Pulse: “‘The Michigan Court of Appeals decision never said that public employers could not provide health care coverage to domestic partners of employees,’ Kaplan wrote in an e-mail. He said that employers can provide health insurance coverage for domestic partners as long as they do not specifically recognize the domestic partner relationship — by filing domestic partner benefit forms, for example — when determining criteria for insurance eligibility.” http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1133&Itemid=2

Between the Lines, a homosexual activist newsweekly in Detroit, reported: “(ACLU-Michigan lawyer Jay) Kaplan says that even under the Appeals Court ruling, benefits can be offered, but they have to be done in a way which does not recognize same-sex partners or relationships.” http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=25497

Kalamazoo Alliance for Equality, a homosexual activist group, said last June in a news release: “The Michigan Court of Appeals did not say that health insurance coverage for domestic partners is illegal. The court said that public employers cannot use criteria that recognizes the domestic partner relationship.” http://www.tri.org/docs/Kzoodprallies.doc

In order to be constitutional, the Court of Appeals had ruled, the eligibility criteria for benefits must be broad-based, not based specifically on singling out and recognizing homosexual partnerships for special treatment as if they are equal or similar to marriage between a man and a woman.

As a result, the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and other public employers in the state have expanded the eligibility criteria of their benefit plans so as not to unconstitutionally offer benefits based on exclusively recognizing and benefiting homosexual relationships as if they’re equal or similar to marriage. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/15/benefits

“The irony is that despite all the manufactured outrage and falsehoods from homosexual activists and their newspaper editorial board allies over the last three years, the direct result of the changes required by the Marriage Protection Amendment is that more not fewer Michigan citizens are today eligible for coverage under health insurance plans offered by government employers,” Glenn said.

During the 2004 campaign, the campaign committee opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment praised Glenn and AFA-Michigan for openly acknowledging the effect the amendment would have regarding benefits based on government recognition of homosexual partnerships:

“The Coalition for a Fair Michigan said today that they were happy to find common ground with the Michigan affiliate of the American Family Association, one of the lead proponents of the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban legal recognition of any relationships other than opposite-sex marriage. Last night, at a forum on the amendment…both sides agreed that the amendment would go much further than defining marriage by also eliminating any government-sanctioned domestic partnership benefits. ‘I’m glad we could find common ground with the AFA, and I want to thank Gary Glenn for his willingness to be upfront on this point,’ said Wendy Howell, Campaign Manager for CFM.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20040920142248/www.coalitionforafairmichigan.org/6_24.htm

Dear AFA-Michigan supporter,

Here’s additional testimony to AFA-Michigan’s effectiveness in providing a voice for traditional family values in the mainstream news media. Earlker this week, we issued a news release which resulted in the following story broadcast by and appearing on the website of WNEM-TV Channel 5 in Saginaw.

One of the most telling measures of AFA-Michigan’s effectiveness is how professional homosexual activists react when they realize their propaganda message no longer enjoys a monopoly in mainstream media news coverage. Please note immediately following the WNEM-TV story below a commentary written by Sean Kosofsky of the homosexual activist group Triangle Foundation, posted today on his online blog. At the end, Kosofsky urges homosexual acitivists to contact WNEM-TV to protest their factually accurate coverage.

As always, thank you for your continued support, which makes all that we do possible!

Gary Glenn, President
American Family Association of Michigan
www.AFAMichigan.org

WNEM-TV
Saginaw, Michigan
April 24, 2008

“Day Of Silence” has parents, group upset

American Family Association of Michigan
urging parents to keep kids home from school

SAGINAW, Mich. — A statewide family values organization is urging parents to keep their children home from school if their school is among those planning to allow a national homosexual activist group’s scheduled protest Friday to protest the treatment of gay teens.

Earlier this week, TV-5 broke the story of how students across Michigan, including Clare High School, are planning Friday to protest bullying, especially when it comes against kids leading alternative lifestyles.

Participating students will not talk or participate in class discussions during the school day.

The American Family Association of Michigan, which proposed and co-authored a Marriage Protection Amendment approved by voters in 2004, said its national affiliate has contacted tens of thousands of parents and grandparents statewide, urging them to “stage a protest of their own, using their public school tax dollars,” association President Gary Glenn said Wednesday.

“Many parents and grandparents are displeased that their local school is being used by a national homosexual activist group to stage a protest promoting and enabling sexual activity that poses a severe threat to children’s health,” Glenn said.

“If school officials are willing to allow the normal education process to be disrupted for the sake of promoting immoral and unhealthy behavior, one way parents can express their displeasure is by refusing to expose their children to that message.”

For more information on the two organizations promoting the event and boycotting it, visit GLSEN and AFA.

Mission America, a national organization that monitors homosexual activists’ activities in public schools, including the so-called “Day of Silence,” lists the following schools in Michigan that are reported by GLSEN or other sources to be sponsoring or supporting the protest or allowing students to refuse to participate in normal classroom activities:

ACADEMY OF FLINT
ARTS ACADEMY IN THE WOODS
ATHENS HIGH SCHOOL
BATH HIGH SCHOOL
BERKLEY HIGH SCHOOL
BLACK RIVER HIGH SCHOOL
BLOOMFIELD HILLS ANDOVER HIGH SCHOOL
CANTON HIGH SCHOOL
CESAR CHAVEZ ACADEMY
CITY MIDDLE/HIGH SCHOOL
CLARE HIGH SCHOOL
COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL
CRANBROOK KINGSWOOD SCHOOL
CRESTON HIGH SCHOOL
DEWITT HIGH SCHOOL
DEXTER HIGH SCHOOL
EAST GRAND RAPIDS HIGH SCHOOL
EAST KENTWOOD HIGH SCHOOL
EAST LANSING HIGH SCHOOL
EASTERN HIGH SCHOOL
EVERETT HIGH SCHOOL
FARMINGTON HIGH SCHOOL
FRUITPORT HIGH SCHOOL
GREENHILLS SCHOOL
GREENVILLE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
GROSSE POINTE SOUTH HIGH SCHOOL
GULL LAKE HIGH SCHOOL
WYLIE E.GROVES HIGH SCHOOL
HASLETT HIGH SCHOOL
HAZEL PARK HIGH SCHOOL
HOLLAND HIGH SCHOOL
HURON HIGH SCHOOL –Ann Arbor
INTERNATIONAL ACADEMY
JACKSON HIGH SCHOOL
KALAMAZOO CENTRAL HIGH SCHOOL
KENOWA HILLS HIGH SCHOOL
KELLOGGSVILLE HIGH SCHOOL
LAKEVIEW HIGH SCHOOL–Battle Creek
L’ANSE CREUSE HIGH SCHOOL
LANSING SEXTON HIGH SCHOOL
LAPEER WEST SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL
LOY NORRIX HIGH SCHOOL
MATTAWAN HIGH SCHOOL
MONA SHORES HIGH SCHOOL
NORTH FARMINGTON HIGH SCHOOL
OAK PARK HIGH SCHOOL
OKEMOS HIGH SCHOOL
PINCKNEY COMMUNITY HIGH SCHOOL
PIONEER HIGH SCHOOL
PLAINWELL HIGH SCHOOL
PLYMOUTH HIGH SCHOOL
RIVER ROUGE HIGH SCHOOL
THE ROEPER CITY AND COUNTRY UPPER SCHOOL
ROGERS HIGH SCHOOL
ROYAL OAK HIGH SCHOOL
SALEM HIGH SCHOOL
SALINE HIGH SCHOOL
TAWAS AREA HIGH SCHOOL
WEST OTTAWA HIGH SCHOOL
WYOMING PARK HIGH SCHOOL

————————————————–

BLOG O’ QUEER
Detroit, Michigan
April 25, 2008

Horrible coverage of Day of Silence in Michigan

by Sean Kosofsky, Director of Policy
The Triangle Foundation

WNEM has run one of the worst stories I have seen in recent years on LGBT (Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender) issues by using insensitive and inflammatory terms to cover the Day of Silence today..

First, the headline is pure AFA propaganda. Then referring to the AFA as a “family values” organization is a flat out lie. Then they referred to gays and lesbians as living an “alternative lifestyle” and referred (to) us as “homosexuals.” They also keep referring to DOS as a protest, as if there will demonstrations occurring in schools. The AFA lies in the piece by saying they have contacted tens of thousands of parents in MI. They have no such list in MI. If they mean they are reaching parents through the meda (sic).

They also ran no response to Gary Glenn of the AFA. It is completely biased coverage. They basically ran the press release of AFA.

Contact them at:

WNEM-TV
Building C, Suite D
55409 Gateway Centre
Flint, MI 48507
Phone: 810-232-3900
Newsroom: 810-234-5607
Email Ian Rubin
ian.rubin@wnem.com

MICHIGAN INFORMATION AND RESEARCH SERVICE
The State Capitol
Lansing, Michigan
April 1, 2008

Senators: AFA-Michigan not bullying on bills

The American Family Association of Michigan (AFAM) is crowing that two GOP senators have yanked their sponsorship of anti-bullying legislation, issuing joint press releases with Sens. Randy Richardville (R-Monroe) and Valde Garcia (R-Howell).

HB 4162 and HB 4091 passed the lower chamber last year and have been sitting in the Senate Education Committee ever since, but a Capitol rally last week brought the bills back to the forefront. There’s also SB 107 sponsored by Sen. Glenn Anderson (D-Westland), but proponents say they’re focused on the House bills.

AFAM blasted a lobby day event put on by the Safe Schools Coalition on Wednesday pushing “Matt’s Safe School Law,” named after Matt Epling, an East Lansing eighth-grader who took his own life in 2002 after severe hazing incidents.

School districts would have six months to adopt an anti-bullying policy or face potential future action by the Legislature (”Bullying Bills Primed For Movement,” 3/13/07).

AFAM President Gary Glenn blasts the legislation as promoting the “homosexual agenda” by including gender identity and homosexuality as personal characteristics a person could not be bullied for. But Sean Kosofsky, policy director for the gay rights group the Triangle Foundation, said the House bills don’t have a list of protected groups.

In an e-mailed release Wednesday morning, Glenn accused the Triangle Foundation of instituting a dress code for the lobby day, which attracted more than 100 people, including Michigan State Police Director Peter Munoz.

Glenn unleashed a response that raised the ire of the Triangle Foundation: “In the sad reality of enabling emotional trauma and delusion that comprises their stock in trade,” Glenn said, “it is not a joking matter to wonder if the Triangle Foundation’s wardrobe instructions will further traumatize or inhibit the emotionally disturbed men who claim they’re really women, who had every serious intent of wearing a dress to the state Capitol and using the women’s restrooms while they’re there. Is the Triangle Foundation asking ‘lobbying day’ participants to go back into the closet for mere political expedience?”

Kosofsky retorted: “There’s no dress code for our lobby day. We’ve had people with Mohawks and people in jeans and T-shirts. It’s come as you are. …This is the politics of distraction. That’s why they bring up cross-dressing and women’s restrooms. … The AFAM isn’t a pro-family organization. They’re a hate group.”

AFAM issued a press release announcing Garcia had dropped his support for SB 0107 four hours later on Wednesday. A similar release with Richardville followed on Friday. But the senators stress AFAM didn’t bully them into retracting their support.

“The AFAM had concerns, but they didn’t pressure me to change my mind,” Garcia said. “They’re just now getting involved…I always had concerns.”

“That’s not the reason I do things,” Richardville told MIRS. Anderson concurred that he didn’t believe his colleagues had caved to AFAM, saying he held them both in “high regard.”

Garcia said he became more aware of problems with the bill after he signed on last year. Furthermore, he points out neither have technically withdrawn their names because that can’t happen until legislation comes before the Senate. Anderson said Garcia had told him of his decision. He stressed they’re “still in the process of working out differences.”

Kosofsky said it’s moot. The focus is on getting the House bills passed, which have more updated language than Anderson’s bill. He described Garcia’s and Richardville’s actions as “disheartening,” but felt confident they’d sign on to the final legislation.

“Gary Glenn is manufacturing dissent where there’s not any,” he said.

Garcia and Richardville said they were concerned about bullying as a problem, but did not want to protect specific classes of people based on sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. It’s the same argument used against hate crime legislation — a crime’s a crime, so it’s no different to attack someone even if race, for instance, is a motivating factor.

Richardville notes sexual orientation is included, but factors like “physical size, what part of the city kids live in and what their clothes look like” are not. He would like to see a more general anti-bullying bill. “Everyone should be protected,” Richardville said, “not just certain classes.”

Garcia agrees that “inadvertently, you leave something out, someone out.”
Glenn calls the legislation a “Trojan horse.”

“(It) would have no real effect on bullying but is being backed by homosexual activist groups who hope to use legitimate public concern about student safety as a ruse to establish — for the first time ever, anywhere in Michigan law — special ‘protected class’ status based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing,” Glenn claims.

Richardville said he’s not interested in championing anyone’s “agenda.”

Anderson said he’s received several e-mails from people “who don’t believe some people should be protected. I believe all children should. (Gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender) students should not be in fear.”

He also said AFAM is using the bill as a fundraiser and to motivate its base. He said it’s “fanning bigotry across the state, anxiety across the state.”

“Unfortunately, we’re talking about school kids here,” Anderson said. “It’s difficult to express how I feel about someone using that to raise money when not all children are afforded a safe environment to learn.”

Richardville said he doesn’t doubt that gay students — and those perceived as gay — face bullying at school.

“I don’t espouse that lifestyle, but there are students figuring those things out. I just don’t think we should spell things out (in legislation),” Richardville said. “That’s not my agenda item.”

He condemns “radical” groups that use hate speech, like the Kansas Westboro Baptist Church’s “God hates fags” campaign. Richardville said he views issues through a Christian lens in which you “love the sinner, but hate the sin.”

Richardville said after talking with Education Chair Wayne Kuipers (R-Holland), he believes taking out the specific groups will make it easier to pass the bill. Anderson said he’s willing to compromise and remains optimistic.

“If you try to get everything, you won’t get everything,” Richardville said.

http://www.mirsnews.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Fri., March 28, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978
Sen. Randy Richardville 517-373-3543

Richardville: “I will in no way support” bills as written

Trojan Horse “bullying”
bill loses 2nd GOP sponsor

Further blow to bill following homosexual activists’ “lobbying day”

LANSING — Two days after homosexual activist groups gathered at the state Capitol to pressure lawmakers to support a bill purported to protect public school students from bullying, a second Republican state senator who originally co-sponsored the legislation announced that he no longer supports the bill and would vote against it as written.

SB 107 original co-sponsors: http://www.legislature.mi.gov…2007-SB-0107

Sen. Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, one of only four Republicans listed among twenty co-sponsors of Democratic Sen. Glenn Anderson’s Senate Bill 107, said Friday in an e-mail to the American Family Association of Michigan that while he supports protecting students from bullying, he no longer agrees with the legislation’s segregation of students into special “protected class” categories.

(See full text of Richardville e-mail below)

The loss of a second senator previously on record supporting the legislation came as a blow to the bill’s promoters after over a hundred homosexual activists and their allies gathered at the state Capitol Wednesday for a so-called “Safe Schools Lobbying Day,” specifically intended to pressure more state senators to support the bill. The original list of 20 cosponsors had itself constituted a majority of the 38-member Senate; with the loss of two of those cosponsors, the bill no longer has a sure majority.

Original cosponsor Sen. Valde Garcia, R-Howell, Wednesday was the first to withdraw his support, and AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn, Midland, Friday predicted the bill may lose other original co-sponsors as well, and not just among the two remaining Republicans, Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, and Sen. Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks.

Glenn has characterized the bill as “Trojan Horse” legislation that would have no real effect on bullying but is being backed by homosexual activist groups who hope to use legitimate public concern about student safety as a ruse to establish — for the first time ever, anywhere in Michigan law — special “protected class” status based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.

Richardville, who Thursday evening discussed the legislation with Glenn by phone, Friday wrote that he had originally supported the bill’s approach but has since changed his mind.

“Per our conversation, let me reiterate I will in no way support the current version of Senate Bill 107 or (similar House-passed legislation),” Richardville wrote. “…First, I thought it best to delineate every potential cause of bullying, however I realize by segregating some I diminished the importance of others.”

Glenn noted that Richardville’s change of heart echoed Garcia’s objections to the bill.

“After being told that the goal was to prevent bullying in our public schools, a concept I support, I signed on as a co-sponsor of this legislation,” Garcia wrote Glenn Wednesday. “It was not until after the bill was introduced that I became aware of the exact definition of ‘harassment and bullying’ used in the bill, giving me serious concern about the bill’s intent. Because the bill gave special protection to certain groups of people, I immediately contacted the bill sponsor and told him that I could not support the bill as drafted and urged him to amend the bill so I could support it. …(S)hould this bill come before (the Senate) for consideration with no changes to the current definition of ‘harassment or bullying,’ I will not support the legislation.”

Glenn said the two senators’ experience “is proof of the deceptive nature of this Trojan Horse legislation and the way homosexual activist groups and their Democratic allies have tried to mislead not only state legislators but the general public.”

Glenn said SB 107 as written would require public schools to segregate students into special “protected” class categories, then dole out protection against bullying to students based on their membership in those categories — including, for the first time ever in Michigan law, categories based on “sexual orientation” (homosexual behavior) and “gender identity and expression” (cross-dressing). The precedent of those new segregated categories are the real agenda behind the legislation, he said, proven by the bill’s supporters’ opposition last year to AFA-Michigan-supported language that instead of creating segregated categories would have simply prohibited bullying against all students, no matter what the motivation.

Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Midland, last year attempted to amend the House version of the legislation to strike the language segregating students into “protected class” categories and replace it with language simply and expressly prohibiting all bullying against all students for all reasons. House Democratic leaders refused to even allow a vote on Moolenaar’s amendment, and the legislation passed the House on a largely party-line vote. http://www.gophouse.com/readarticle.asp?id=4231&District=98

The Michigan Association of School Boards has in the past warned school districts against referring to “sexual orientation” in their anti-harassment policies.

As the Oakland Press reported: “Bill Scharffe, director of bylaw and policy services for the Michigan Association of School Boards, advises local districts not to include the term ’sexual orientation’ in their anti-harassment policies. ‘Schools need to be very careful with that,’ he said, noting that neither federal nor state civil rights laws consider people of a particular sexual orientation a protected class. He added that literal interpretation of ’sexual orientation’ could include people who gravitate toward any sort of sexual activity, including that with animals, children and corpses.” http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/031305/edu_20050313006.shtml

Glenn said he has informed lawmakers and supporters of the legislation that if it is amended to protect all students from bullying without creating precedent-setting “protected class” status for the first time based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing, AFA-Michigan will no longer urge lawmakers to oppose it.

He noted however, that some lawmakers and mainstream media have opposed the legislation on a broader basis. The Lansing State Journal and the Grand Rapids Press, for example, have editorially opposed the bills, arguing that public school safety is being competently handled by caring local parents, educators, school boards, and law enforcement personnel without mandates by the state Legislature.

To read the full text of both Sen. Richardville’s and Sen. Garcia’s emails, click on the link below.

(more…)

“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, which is opposed to the measures, said he doesn’t think all 20 of (the bill’s) co-sponsors would vote for the bill if it came to the Senate floor… Much of the controversy regarding the bills hinges on a requirement that, while local school districts would have to have some form of anti-bullying policy, they would be encouraged to adopt a model policy drafted by the state Department of Education (that)…includes protections for students bullied because of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.

Glenn called that provision a ruse to establish ’special “protected class” status based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.’ Advocates were dealt another blow Wednesday when Sen. Valde Garcia, R-Howell, who had originally signed on as a co-sponsor for the bill, said he would not vote for it should it reach the Senate floor.”

LANSING STATE JOURNAL
Lansing, Michigan
March 27, 2008

Anti-bullying bills advocates
“optimistic” at Capitol rally

“Matt’s Safe School Law” stalls

by Derek Wallbank

Concerns over whether anti-bullying legislation would give homosexual and transgendered students protected status appear to have stalled the measure in the state Senate.

The legislation is “Matt’s Safe School Law,” a two-bill package that would require local schools to adopt rules prohibiting bullying.

The bills are named after Matt Epling, an East Lansing teenager who killed himself in 2002 after a school hazing incident.

The bills passed the House in March 2007 and have languished in the Senate Education Committee ever since.

Rallying for support

On Wednesday, Matt’s father, Kevin Epling, and about 150 other anti-bullying activists gathered in the Capitol rotunda to rally support for the law.

“I’m optimistic,” Epling said of the bills’ chances. “I have to be optimistic or I wouldn’t be doing this.”

Twenty of 36 senators have co-sponsored the legislation, enough to pass it by majority vote.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, which is opposed to the measures, said he doesn’t think all 20 of those co-sponsors would vote for the bill if it came to the Senate floor, but said his group isn’t taking any chances.

“The easiest way to make sure this doesn’t pass is to make sure it doesn’t come up for a vote,” Glenn said.

Similar bills have been offered since 1999, though none have been signed into law.

Liz Boyd, spokeswoman for Gov. Jennifer Granholm, said the governor will sign the bill into law if it passes the Senate.

State Superintendent Mike Flanagan said the bill would be especially useful because it would get communities talking about bullying.

“First of all, it gets us out of denial to pretend this isn’t a problem. It is,” Flanagan said.

Committee Chair Sen. Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, could not be reached for comment.

Model policy

Much of the controversy regarding the bills hinges on a requirement that, while local school districts would have to have some form of anti-bullying policy, they would be encouraged to adopt a model policy drafted by the state Department of Education.

That policy already exists and it includes protections for students bullied because of sexual orientation, gender identity or expression.

Glenn called that provision a ruse to establish “special ‘protected class’ status based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.”

Advocates were dealt another blow Wednesday when Sen. Valde Garcia, R-Howell, who had originally signed on as a co-sponsor for the bill, said he would not vote for it should it reach the Senate floor.

“I want to stop bullying, but I don’t want a laundry list,” Garcia said of the state’s list of protected students.
“Rather than be specific about it, let’s just focus on bullied persons.”

Work will continue

Despite the setback, advocates said they would continue pressing the issue.

“I was kind of told to go home back in 2003,” Epling said, adding that he hopes a bullying bill will pass this year.

http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080327/NEWS04/803270346/1005/news

Sen. Garcia “will not support” legislation as written

Trojan Horse “bullying”
bill loses GOP co-sponsor

Loss comes as blow to bill on homosexual activists’ “lobbying day”

LANSING — On a day hundreds of homosexual activists gathered at the state Capitol to pressure lawmakers to support a bill purported to protect public school students from bullying, a Republican state senator who originally co-sponsored the legislation Wednesday announced that he no longer supports the bill and will vote against it as written.

SB 107 co-sponsors: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/….2007-SB-0107

Sen. Valde Garcia, R-Howell, one of only four Republicans listed among twenty co-sponsors of Democratic Sen. Glenn Anderson’s Senate Bill 107, said Wednesday in an e-mail to the American Family Association of Michigan that while he supports protecting students from bullying, he was not aware of the bill’s specific provisions until after agreeing to co-sponsor it.

(See full text of Garcia e-mail below)

The loss of a senator previously on record supporting the legislation came as a blow to the bill’s supporters on the day hundreds of homosexual activists gathered at the state Capitol for a so-called “Safe Schools Lobbying Day,” specifically intended to pressure more state senators to support the bill.

AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn, Midland, predicted the bill may lose other original co-sponsors as well, and not just among the three remaining Republicans — Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, Sen. Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, and Sen. Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks.

Glenn has characterized the bill as “Trojan Horse” legislation that would have no real effect on bullying but is backed by homosexual activist groups who hope to use legitimate concerns about student safety as a ruse to establish — for the first time ever, anywhere in Michigan law — special “protected class” status based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.

Garcia’s letter proves that even some solidly conservative lawmakers were initially misled, he said.

“After being told that the goal was to prevent bullying in our public schools, a concept I support, I signed on as a co-sponsor of this legislation,” Garcia wrote Glenn. “It was not until after the bill was introduced that I became aware of the exact definition of ‘harassment and bullying’ used in the bill, giving me serious concern about the bill’s intent. Because the bill gave special protection to certain groups of people, I immediately contacted the bill sponsor and told him that I could not support the bill as drafted and urged him to amend the bill so I could support it.”

Garcia concluded that “should this bill come before (the Senate) for consideration with no changes to the current definition of ‘harassment or bullying,’ I will not support the legislation.”

Glenn praised Garcia’s record on family values issues in the Senate and said the GOP lawmaker’s experience “is proof of the deceptive nature of this Trojan Horse legislation and the way homosexual activist groups and their Democratic allies have tried to mislead not only state legislators but the general public.”

Glenn said SB 107 as written would require public schools to segregate students into special “protected” class categories, then dole out protection against bullying to students based on their membership in those categories — including, for the first time ever in Michigan law, categories based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing. The precedent of those new segregated categories are the real agenda behind the legislation, he said, proven by the bill’s supporters’ opposition last year to language that instead of creating segregated categories would have simply prohibited bullying against all students, no matter what the motivation.

Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Midland, last year attempted to amend the House version of the legislation to strike the language segregating students into “protected class” categories and replace it with language simply and expressly prohibiting all bullying against all students for all reasons. House Democratic leaders refused to even allow a vote on Moolenaar’s amendment, and the legislation passed the House on a largely party-line vote. http://www.gophouse.com/readarticle.asp?id=4231&District=98

The Michigan Association of School Boards has in the past warned school districts against referring to “sexual orientation” in their anti-harassment policies. As the Oakland Press reported: “Bill Scharffe, director of bylaw and policy services for the Michigan Association of School Boards, advises local districts not to include the term ’sexual orientation’ in their anti-harassment policies. ‘Schools need to be very careful with that,’ he said, noting that neither federal nor state civil rights laws consider people of a particular sexual orientation a protected class. He added that literal interpretation of ’sexual orientation’ could include people who gravitate toward any sort of sexual activity, including that with animals, children and corpses.” http://www.theoaklandpress.com…20050313006.shtml

Glenn said he has informed lawmakers and supporters of the legislation that if it is amended to protect all students from bullying without creating precedent-setting “protected class” status for the first time based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing, AFA-Michigan will no longer urge lawmakers to oppose it.

He noted however, that some lawmakers and mainstream media have opposed the legislation on a broader basis. The Lansing State Journal and the Grand Rapids Press, for example, have editorially opposed state-mandated “bullying” bills, arguing that public school safety is being competently handled by caring local parents, educators, school boards, and law enforcement personnel without mandates by the state Legislature.

Click on the link below to read the full text of Sen. Garcia’s email to AFA-MI:

(more…)

Triangle Foundation urges dress code Wed. at Capitol

Homosexual activist groups don’t want to
be “recognized” as homosexual activists

Family group: What don’t they want lawmakers to see?

LANSING — A who’s who of Michigan homosexual activist groups will convene at the state Capitol Wednesday to push legislation that a statewide family values organization calls a Trojan Horse bill only masquerading as protection against bullying in public schools.

The American Family Association of Michigan says the legislation would have no actual effect on student safety, but would set the precedent of creating — for the first time anywhere in Michigan law — special “protected class” status based on so-called “sexual orientation” (homosexual behavior) and “gender identity and expression” (cross-dressing).

“Obviously sensitive to the waning political prospects of their now thoroughly exposed Trojan Horse strategy, homosexual activists apparently hope it might help if they take their masquerade tactic one step further, this time literally so,” said AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn of Midland.

Glenn pointed to the website of the Triangle Foundation, a homosexual activist group based in Detroit. Denying any attempt to “censor who we are,” the Triangle website Tuesday posted an online dress code urging those planning to participate in Wednesday’s “Safe Schools Lobbying Day” not to wear clothing or costumes by which they might be “recognized” or “labeled” as involved in the homosexual lifestyle or cross-dressing.

“What is it that homosexual activists don’t want Michigan lawmakers to see?” Glenn asked.

“In the sad reality of enabling emotional trauma and delusion that comprises their stock in trade,” Glenn said, “it is not a joking matter to wonder if the Triangle Foundation’s wardrobe instructions will further traumatize or inhibit the emotionally disturbed men who claim they’re really women, who had every serious intent of wearing a dress to the state Capitol and using the women’s restrooms while they’re there. Is the Triangle Foundation asking ‘lobbying day’ participants to go back into the closet for mere political expedience?”

According to Triangle’s website, Wednesday’s “lobbying day” is sponsored by the Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, Michigan Equality (a Lansing “gay rights” group), the Human Rights Campaign (purportedly the largest national “gay rights” group), ACLU-Michigan (which represents “gay rights” groups in court), the American Friends Services Committee’s Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender Issues Program, Affirmations (a “gay and lesbian” community center in Ferndale), the Coalition for Adoption Rights for Everyone (which lobbies for “gay” adoption rights), the National Organization of Women-Michigan, and, of course, the Triangle Foundation.

“All these groups have something obviously in common,” Glenn observed. “But Triangle doesn’t want the people representing all these lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender activist groups to be ‘recognized’ or ‘labeled’ as a lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender activist group.”

The “lobbying day” dress code appeared Tuesday on Triangle’s website as follows:

“Due to the importance and sensitivity of this day, we ask that those planning to attend reflect their views and opinions in their dialogs (sic) with individuals and not with their attire. Items that may be a sign of your status as Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender or ally could distract from the message of the day. This legislation is for safe schools for all students, including those in our community. Lansing should recognize us as equal residents and not label us as Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender. We hope that you understand our request and accept that this is not an attempt to censor who we are, but to allow us to be seen as concerned citizens first.” http://www.tri.org/ssld.html

“Homosexual activists are trying to disguise who they are,” Glenn said, “just as they’re trying to disguise the real agenda behind this Trojan Horse ‘bullying’ legislation.”

“Since homosexual activists and their political allies oppose language that would simply protect all children from all bullying for all reasons, it’s clear that their real agenda is to use legitimate concern over student safety to sneak special rights based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing into Michigan law for the first time,” he said. “And then to use that as a precedent to add special rights and protected status based on that unhealthy behavior to Michigan’s civil rights and hate crime laws, threatening the religious freedom and free speech rights of individuals and organizations who oppose homosexual activists’ political agenda.”

Last year, Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Midland, attempted to amend the legislation to strike language segregating students into special “protected class” categories — including, for the first time ever in Michigan law, “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression” — and replace it with language prohibiting all bullying against all students for all reasons.”
http://www.gophouse.com/readarticle.asp?id=4231&District=98

House Democrats refused to even allow a vote on that amendment. The legislation was passed a year ago by the House and has since languished in the state Senate.

The Michigan Association of School Boards warns members not to include “sexual” orientation in school harassment or bullying policies: “Bill Scharffe, director of bylaw and policy services for the Michigan Association of School Boards, advises local districts not to include the term “sexual orientation” in their anti-harassment policies. ‘Schools need to be very careful with that,’ he said, noting that neither federal nor state civil rights laws consider people of a particular sexual orientation a protected class. He added that literal interpretation of ’sexual orientation’ could include people who gravitate toward any sort of sexual activity, including that with animals, children and corpses.” (The Oakland Press, March 13, 2005: http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/031305/edu_20050313006.shtml)

The Lansing State Journal editorially opposes the so-called “bullying” legislation: “A state law isn’t going to make school hallways bully free. …The most recent bills already have cleared the House and are awaiting action by the Senate. Their prospects are uncertain, though, as Republicans and ‘family values’ advocates are protesting the inclusion of ’sexual orientation’ as one of the characteristics specifically mentioned in the bills. Michigan isn’t going to benefit right now from a battle over which characteristics deserve protection from bullies. It’s divisive and unnecessary. …Whenever the Legislature has taken up the bullying issue, the impression left is that local school districts and boards lack the interest to act. How can that be? …Do state lawmakers really think that school boards don’t care about protecting schoolchildren; that lawmakers in the state Capitol have a better grip on hallway happenings than parents and community members?” (April 17, 2007)

The Grand Rapids Press editorially opposes the so-called “bullying” legislation: “Proposed legislation in Lansing that would require schools to adopt a policy that prohibits bullying and harassment is well-intentioned but unnecessary. Lawmakers should reject it. Schools already have policies to combat bullying and effectively deal with those perpetrators who assault, harass or intimidate other students. …The Senate should realize the bully matter isn’t being overlooked by schools. Educators don’t need the state to take control.” (April 4, 2007)

Dear AFA-Michigan supporter,

The Triangle Foundation, Michigan Equality, Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, and other homosexual activist groups are urging individuals involved in the homosexual lifestyle to contact their state senator this Wednesday to urge support for homosexual activists’ Trojan Horse “bullying” bills.

As one state legislator observed to me over the phone this past weekend, these so-called “bullying” bills have nothing to do with bullying. In fact, homosexual activists and their Democrat allies in the state House of Representatives opposed language that would have simply prohibited all bullying against all students for all reasons. (See Midland Daily News: http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18143125&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=472542&rfi=6)

The real agenda behind this Trojan Horse legislation is to establish — for the first time ever, anywhere in Michigan law — special “protected class” status on the basis of homosexual behavior and cross-dressing; in this case, public school students who engage in such behavior.

Homosexual activists hope to use legitimate concern about student safety as a subterfuge to sneak special rights based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression” into law for the first time, then use that as precedent for inserting special protection for such behavior into Michigan’s “hate crime” and “civil rights” laws. And as it has in other countries and cities that have already created special status based on homosexual behavior, that will pose a direct threat to your religious freedom and free speech rights.

Even the Michigan Association of School Boards has warned school boards about the legal hazards of creating special rights and protections based on so-called “sexual orientation.”

As the Oakland Press reported:

“Bill Scharffe, director of bylaw and policy services for the Michigan Association of School Boards, advises local districts not to include the term ’sexual orientation’ in their anti-harassment policies. ‘Schools need to be very careful with that,’ he said, noting that neither federal nor state civil rights laws consider people of a particular sexual orientation a protected class. He added that literal interpretation of ’sexual orientation’ could include people who gravitate toward any sort of sexual activity, including that with animals, children and corpses.”

Please help AFA-Michigan stop this dangerous precedent-setting “gay rights” legislation:

1. Please click here to find your state Senator: http://senate.michigan.gov

2. Please send your Senator an e-mail urging him to vote against homosexual activists’ so-called “bullying” legislation. Specifically, urge him to vote against Senate Bill 107 and House Bills 4091 and 4162.

3. Please also e-mail Senate Education Committee Chairman Wayne Kuipers and urge him not to even schedule these “bullying” bills for consideration. E-mail: senwkuipers@senate.michigan.gov

4. Finally, please make the largest tax-deductible contribution you can today to the American Family Association of Michigan to make sure we have the resources to continue to stand guard for you and your family.

Contribute online: https://www.campaigncontribution.com/version6/process/info.asp?id=1700&jid=

Contribute by mail:
AFA-Michigan
PO Box 1904
Midland, Michigan 48641

We deeply appreciate your support!

God bless and keep you strong…

Gary Glenn, President
AFA-Michigan