| March 7, 2010 | Dear AFA-Michigan supporter, Please read the column below, then please call your Congressman today and urge a “NO” vote to any change in the federal law prohibiting individuals who openly engage in homosexual behavior from enlisting in the U.S. military. Click here to identify and contact your Congressman online — https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml — or call 202-225-3121. Thanks for standing up for those willing to risk life and limb to protect our families’ safety and freedom. 
Gary Glenn, President
American Family Association of Michigan
U.S. Army Reserves and Army National Guard 1990-1998
Michigan Chairman, Sons and Daughters of Pearl Harbor Survivors
_____________________________________________________________
“Current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (aka ‘gays’) from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if (‘gays’) were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk. According to the FDA: ‘['Gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.’ The FDA further warns: ‘(‘Gay’ men) also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ['gay' men] than in the general population.’ A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although ‘gay’ men comprise only one to two percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases. Do the math: If ‘gays’ are allowed to serve openly – to appease leftists’ euphemistic demands for ‘tolerance’ and ‘diversity’ – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril?” —————————— WORLD NET DAILY
Cave Junction, Oregon
March 4, 2010 Don’t Ask, Don’t Bleed
by J. Matt Barber  The U.S. military has always discriminated. There are a host of malignant behaviors such as illicit drug use or habitual criminality that can render a person ineligible to serve. As my father-in-law learned, there are also benign maladies such as vision impairment or flat feet that can bar an otherwise eligible applicant. Any number of behaviors or conditions with varying degrees of severity can dash one’s hope of donning the uniform.
This is discrimination only insofar as “discriminating minds” with expertise in these matters have found that such restrictions are necessary to maintain excellence in our historically unparalleled fighting force. In formal recognition of the long-established finding that “homosexuality is incompatible with military service,” federal law – Section 654, Title 10 – objectively prescribes the following: The primary purpose of the armed forces is to prepare for and to prevail in combat should the need arise; Success in combat requires military units that are characterized by high morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion; The prohibition against homosexual conduct is a long-standing element of military law that continues to be necessary in the unique circumstances of military service; The presence in the armed forces of persons who demonstrate a propensity or intent to engage in homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability; and There is no constitutional right to serve in the armed forces. Indeed, federal courts have ruled over and again that a prohibition against homosexual conduct within the ranks of the military is both constitutional and justified. So now that Barack Obama is president, what has changed? Is there something about “out and proud” homosexuality, hitherto absent or unseen, that suddenly makes it compatible with military service? Is there something about our military that has, for the first time in history, made it compatible with this particular lifestyle? The answer to both is no. The fact that “homosexual acts would create an unacceptable risk to the high standards of morale, good order and discipline” has not changed. Proponents of military homosexualization offer scant evidence to the contrary. In truth, the only thing that has changed is politics. Reasons for incompatibility are manifold. They are firmly rooted in both common sense and in the “settled” anthropological, sociopolitical and medical sciences, as well as the theological arena. Taken alone, each provides ample justification for maintaining the status quo. Combined, they prove the case. For now – in the interest of brevity – we’ll focus on but one: medical science. Consider that current U.S. health regulations prohibit men who have sex with men (MSM – aka “gays”) from donating blood. Studies conducted by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration categorically confirm that if MSM were permitted to give blood, the general population would be placed at risk. According to the FDA: “['Gay' men] have an HIV prevalence 60 times higher than the general population, 800 times higher than first-time blood donors and 8,000 times higher than repeat blood donors.” The FDA further warns: “['Gay' men] also have an increased risk of having other infections that can be transmitted to others by blood transfusion. For example, infection with the Hepatitis B virus is about 5-6 times more common, and Hepatitis C virus infections are about 2 times more common in ['gay' men] than in the general population.” A 2007 CDC study further rocked the homosexual activist community, finding that, although “gay” men comprise only 1-to-2 percent of the population, they account for an epidemic 64 percent of all syphilis cases. Do the math: If “gays” are allowed to serve openly – as to appease leftists’ euphemistic demands for “tolerance” and “diversity” – how much more would soldiers in the field – where battlefield blood transfusions and frequent exposure to biohazards are commonplace – face pointless peril? All things considered (and we’ve only scratched the surface), is it any wonder that, according to a 2008 Military Times survey, almost 10 percent of currently enlisted personnel say that should “gays” be allowed to serve openly: “I would not re-enlist or extend my service.” Furthermore, 14 percent warn: “I would consider not re-enlisting or extending my service.” The potential exodus of up to 14 percent of military personnel from our all-volunteer services would be devastating. When we apply these uncompromising medical and administrative realities to the “gays in the military” debate, we find that, objectively, and based solely upon medical science and the imperative to maintain good order and unit cohesion, homosexual behavior and military service remain today as oil and water. Yet, inexplicably we see reckless movement from this administration, liberals in Congress and even a handful of high-ranking military commanders toward military homosexualization. This type of San Francisco-style social experimentation within the ranks of the armed services would demonstrably weaken, not strengthen, our military, jeopardizing national security. In a purely civilian world perhaps we can afford to grant liberal social engineers a manageable level of latitude to play fast and loose with wistful “gay rights” rhetoric. However, it’s an entirely different proposition when bad behaviors place others – particularly those who’ve already waged life and limb for country – at both an unnecessary and avoidable level of risk. For these reasons (and many more) allowing practitioners of the homosexual lifestyle to serve openly in our armed services should not and must not be “tolerated.” Mr. President, it’s your sworn duty to place national security above misguided ideology and extreme special interests. It’s high time you begin to take your job seriously. ——————- Matt Barber is an attorney concentrating in constitutional law. He is author of the book “The Right Hook – From the Ring to the Culture War” and serves as Director of Cultural Affairs with Liberty Counsel. Send comments to Matt at jmattbarber@comcast.net. http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126871
__________________________________________________ |
March 6, 2010 | “A lawyer for the Maine Human Rights Commission told members of the (commission’s) state board today that requiring all students to use ‘biology-based’ restrooms and locker rooms in the state’s schools is illegal and cannot be allowed to continue. ‘Schools cannot discriminate against sexual identity or gender identification. Schools therefore cannot segregate students based on sexual orientation and identity,’ commission legal counsel John Gause said at today’s commission meeting… ‘Students who are transgendered should be allowed access that is consistent with their identity or expression, not with their biological identity,’ Gause said. ‘Also, we should not exclude students with questions of gender identity from playing on the sports teams of their choice.’” —————————— WORLD NET DAILY
Cave Junction, Oregon
March 1, 2010 ‘Biology-based’ restrooms called ‘discrimination’
‘Schools therefore cannot segregate students based on sexual orientation’ AUGUSTA, Maine — A lawyer for the Maine Human Rights Commission ( A Gay Rights Lobby Group) told members of the state board today that requiring all students to use “biology-based” (aka what we call Traditional Normal Boys Bathrooms for Boys & Girl Bathrooms for Girls…Only) restrooms and locker rooms in the state’s schools is illegal and cannot be allowed to continue. “Schools cannot discriminate against sexual identity or gender identification. Schools therefore cannot segregate students based on sexual orientation and identity,” commission legal counsel John Gause said at today’s commission meeting, where he was unsuccessful in convincing the board to adopt immediately a set of recommendations. The commission’s vote was 4-1 to hold a public hearing on the adoption of guidelines that would allow biological males to play on girls’ athletic teams and use girls’ restrooms and locker rooms if they proclaim their gender identity is female. Today’s public meeting was held before a capacity crowd in the main meeting room of the Senator Hotel in Augusta, Maine. The crowd was divided evenly between opponents and supporters of the proposed guidelines for students who have gender identity issues. Speaking in favor of the guidelines, Gause said they should be adopted because they are how the 2005 Human Rights Law should be interpreted. “It’s the commission’s job to interpret the Human Rights Law, and in many cases the courts defer to the commission on the interpretation,” he said. “The guidelines are how the state will deal with education issues concerning students feeling an affinity for a gender that is not the biological one,” Gause told commission members. “The 2005 statute is worded broadly and is interpreted on a case-by-case basis. The guidance deals with sports teams, bathrooms use and accommodation of the student’s needs.” Gause further believes deference should be shown to students who have identity issues. “Students who are transgendered should be allowed access that is consistent with their identity or expression, not with their biological identity,” Gause said. “Also, we should not exclude students with questions of gender identity from playing on the sports teams of their choice.” He suggested, “We should adopt the guidelines sooner than later.” However, the guidelines were developed in large part at a Dec. 15 meeting to which homosexual activists were invited but not opponents of the plan. The meeting was attended by representatives of the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders; Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network; and other “gay,” lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender rights groups as well as the Maine Principals Association and the Maine School Administrators Association. Representatives of the Maine Family Policy Council and other conservative groups say they were not invited to attend the December meeting. Commission Chairman Paul Vestal questioned the wisdom of adopting the guidelines while a case is still under litigation. “There is a case that is still in the courts now. I don’t think it’s wise to adopt these guidelines while the courts are still hearing the case from the Orono schools,” Vestal cautioned. Vestal was referring to last summer’s commission hearing about the 11-year-old Asa Adams Elementary School student who was a biological male calling himself a female. The commission ruled in favor of the student and the case is still being heard in Penobscot County Superior Court. Gause warned the court case could take months to resolve, and the commission shouldn’t wait for the court’s answer. Commissioner Kenneth Fredette read a prepared statement on the dispute. “I’m speaking here today as neither a Republican nor Democrat, neither a conservative or a liberal and neither gay or straight. I’m looking to the Constitution for my feelings on this issue,” Fredette read. “As I look at the Constitution, all power is inherently held by the people. I have to ask if the commission met the burden of transparency in this process. The answer is ‘No, we did not.’” He continued, “Each of us must understand that our public schools and colleges are at the heart of our state. Education is of such great importance that our forefathers made reference to it in the Constitution. So when this commission seeks to authorize guidance for our schools, this commission acts beyond its authority,” Fredette said. “I base my decision on the fundamental principles. Has the commission met its obligation to seek citizen input? Has the commission designed a system of due process that protects civil liberties? Has the commission acted in its delegated authority given to it by the authority?” Fredette read. “Now I condemn those who would threaten or bully those who identify themselves as transgendered. Their liberties are important too. We should protect those citizens too. “I urge the commission to face this issue in a public and open manner and to not issue the proposed guidelines because we have not acted in an open and public manner. We don’t have to issue guidance. That’s the legislature’s authority,” Fredette said. Two other commissioners also wanted public input. The meeting, at which public comment was not allowed, irritated several members of the audience. “Some of us drove four or five hours to get to this meeting, and it’s nice to know that a bunch of bureaucrats don’t care what the people have to say,” said one man before leaving. Vestal said the man had a point. “I think we need to have a public hearing. That’s the only way to make sure we issue guidance that applies to everyone. If you’re eliminating one group in favor of another group, you’re giving up part of your freedom,” he said. Fredette said the whole concept was a little disconcerting. “The way I understand it, a student who believes he or she is of a different sex has the right to use the bathroom of the sex with which he identifies. What effect will it have on a student who is of one biological sex and is in the bathroom and a biological person of the opposite sex who identifies with the opposite sex comes in?” Fredette asked. The proposed guideline: Transgender students must be allowed access to bathrooms that correspond with their gender identity or expression or, if they prefer, to existing single stall bathrooms. With respect to locker rooms and shower facilities that involve undressing in front of others, transgender students must be provided with accommodations that meet their needs and that take into account the legitimate privacy concerns of all student involved. The public hearing is expected to be set up sometime in April or May. A lobbyist for a homosexual organization earlier argued “an anatomy or biology-based rule for bathroom usage cannot be used to bar transgender students from using a facility consistent with their gender identity.” The current push apparently started over the commission decision last year that found a school in Orono, Asa Adams School, discriminated against a boy by denying him access to the girls’ restroom. The ripples from the ruling now are being felt. According to documents obtained in the state, the University of Maine already is expressing alarm. A letter from the university office of equal opportunity noted, “There will likely be cases in which allowing a transgender student to participate in gender-segregated sports in accordance with the gender identity or expression will raise legitimate concerns about fairness in competitive interscholastic sports. …” The letter pointed out “unintended consequences,” such as “a transgendered individual’s participation on a gender-segregated team could result in the NCAA’s treating that team as a mixed team. This would have a number of serious consequences including potentially impacting the institution’s compliance with Title IX.” Currently, Colorado, Iowa, Washington state, Washington, D.C., and San Francisco have rules, policies or laws dealing with transgender restroom accommodations. The Maine rules would make Maine the first state in the U.S. to adopt the policies for elementary and secondary school students and the first to extend the rules to private and sectarian schools. WND has reported on the Christian Civic League of Maine’s call for the public to contact state legislators and oppose imposition of the regulations. This is not the first time the argument has arisen. WND previously reported when the city council of Tampa, Fla., voted unanimously to include “gender identity and expression” as a protected class under the city’s human rights ordinance, leading some to fear the council has opened the city’s public bathroom doors to sexual predators masquerading as protected transsexuals. A statement from the American Family Association explained, “Tampa Police arrested Robert Johnson in February 2008 for hanging out in the locker room–restroom area at Lifestyle Fitness and watching women in an undressed state. The City of Tampa’s ‘gender identity’ ordinance could provide a legal defense to future cases like this if the accused claims that his gender is female.” WND also reported on a similar plan adopted by fiat in Montgomery County, Md., which opponents said would open up women’s locker rooms to men who say they are women. The issue also has come up in Colorado, where Democrat Gov. Bill Ritter signed into law a plan that effectively strikes gender-specific restrooms in the state. (SB200 passed in 2008 allowing opposite sex genders to use the bathrooms of their choice). http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=126662 —————————————————— Other news sources on this story: BANGOR DAILY NEWS: “New guidelines under consideration by the Maine Human Rights Commission designed to clarify the rights of transgender students in Maine has sparked a passionate debate over what some feel are impractical or abhorrent new requirements for public schools. The commission’s proposed guidelines, which are scheduled for further consideration on March 1, state that transgender students are guaranteed access to public school bathrooms, locker rooms and sports teams based on whatever gender they consider themselves to be. That means a boy who identifies himself as a girl is by law allowed to use girls bathrooms, locker rooms and participate on girls sports teams, or vice versa.”
http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/137047.html
__________________________________________________ |
March 6, 2010 
 American Family Radio’s public affairs talk show Today’s
Issues Wednesday featured AFA-Michigan President Gary
Glenn (left) and host AFA President Tim Wildmon discussing
the federal civil rights lawsuit — filed by the Thomas More
Law Center on behalf of Glenn and three Michigan pastors
– asking the Supreme Court to rule that the new federal
“hate crime” law poses an unconstitutional threat to the
religious free speech rights of those who publicly oppose
homosexual behavior and homosexual activists’ political agenda.
To listen to the 40-minute discussion, click here — http://www.afa.net/Radio/show.aspx?id=2147491263&tab=audio — then under Archives, click on the Feb. 24th broadcast. For more information and news coverage of the lawsuit, please visit:
www.AFAMichigan.org and www.ThomasMore.org. The American Family Association of Michigan deeply appreciates your support.
__________________________________________________ March 6, 2010 “Two Michigan State University College of Law professors say it’s time to change marriage laws in a way that would allow couples to use online technologies in tying the knot. …Their work originally was focused on studying how e-marriage might help same-sex couples living in states where gay marriage was illegal get married in states where it is allowed without having to travel there. …The concept is opposed by conservative groups who believe it would open the floodgates to same-sex marriage. ‘It seems a not very cleverly or well-disguised scheme to establish the legal and emotional fiction of so-called homosexual ‘marriage’ in states which truthfully define and legally recognize marriage as only between one man and one woman,’ said American Family Association of Michigan President Gary Glenn in a prepared statement. Glenn was the co-author of the 2004 Marriage Protection Amendment that defined marriage as between one man and one woman in Michigan and was adopted by voters. (The professors admit) it’s unlikely that Michigan will soon legalize e-marriage, in part because of the Marriage Protection Amendment and a generally conservative view of marriage in the state.” —————————————
DETROIT LEGAL NEWS
Troy, Michigan
February 17, 2010 Will you e-marry me? Law professors propose sweeping
changes in state marital statutes by Rick Haglund, Legal News Couples who marry today do so in ceremonies much like those held a century ago. They say their “I do’s” while standing before a minister or other person empowered by the state to officiate at weddings. But two Michigan State University College of Law professors say it’s time to change marriage laws in a way that would allow couples to use online technologies in tying the knot. “Marriage statutes have been largely unchanged for a century,” said Michigan State law professor Mae Kuykendall. “They don’t recognize how mobile people are now.” Kuykendall and fellow law professor Adam Candeub are co-creators of The Legal E-Marriage Project, which would assist couples in one state to use the Internet to marry under another state’s law. Their work originally was focused on studying how e-marriage might help same-sex couples living in states where gay marriage was illegal get married in states where it is allowed without having to travel there. Same-sex marriage is legal only in Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont. But the law professors soon discovered the issue they were dealing with was larger than making same-sex marriages more convenient. “We decided that marriage procedure deserved a lot more attention than it was getting,” Kuykendall said. “The culture wars have focused on who should be able to marry. We began to conclude that just simple old-fashioned legal reform was overdue.” Companies conduct business in one state using contracts signed under another state’s laws. Why not extent the same concept to marriage, Kuykendall and Candeub wondered? Several states, including California, Colorado and Texas, already allow marriage by proxy when one person is serving in the military and stationed outside the country. “The military looks favorably on this kind of access to marriage,” Kuykendall said. The Legal E-Marriage Project is designed to be a clearinghouse of legislative proposals to institute “e-marriage.” Kuykendall and Candeub are planning a national symposium, tentatively scheduled for November, that will bring together state legislators and marriage-law experts from around country to discuss issues surrounding e-marriage. Those issues include getting all states to recognize e-marriage, whether or not e-marriage creates a genuine legal bond and whether it could lead to an increase in same-sex marriages. Kuykendall admits that getting state legislatures to enact e-marriage laws will be difficult. The concept is opposed by conservative groups who believe it would open the floodgates to same-sex marriage. “It seems a not very cleverly or well-disguised scheme to establish the legal and emotional fiction of so-called homosexual ‘marriage’ in states which truthfully define and legally recognize marriage as only between one man and one woman,” said American Family Association of Michigan President Gary Glenn in a prepared statement. Glenn was the co-author of the 2004 Marriage Protection Amendment that defined marriage as between one man and one woman in Michigan and was adopted by voters. But Kuykendall said e-marriage also could help maintain marriage traditions in a variety of new ways using online technologies. For example, a couple living in one state could be married in an online video ceremony by the couple’s childhood priest officiating from another state, she said. “It doesn’t make for less tradition,” she said. “It allows for people to preserve their traditions.” States that enact comprehensive e-marriage laws might also be able to reap a financial windfall at a time when many are facing huge budget deficits. Kuykendall said a state could charge several thousand dollars for an e-marriage. Some services, such as marriage videoconferencing, could be farmed out to private companies while the state maintains tight control over the procedures. She said it’s unlikely that Michigan will soon legalize e-marriage, in part because of the Marriage Protection Amendment and a generally conservative view of marriage in the state. “If Michigan wanted to get with it, it wouldn’t be a bad thing to be a first mover,” Kuykendall said. “It could capture a big market and establish a reputation that says this is a good thing.” http://www.legalnews.com/detroit/651400/
__________________________________________________ February 19, 2010 “Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, is concerned that the ‘Hate Crimes Act’ signed into law last year will be used to prosecute those who speak in favor of traditional Biblical morality. …He encourages boldness. ‘Don’t be intimidated,’ he counsels. ‘Continue to speak Biblical truth; continue to tell people that marriage is and always has been between one man and one woman — that’s what’s best for society, best for children. And stand up against these continuing restrictions on the exercise of free speech.’” ——————————————————————- ONE NEWS NOW
Tupelo, Mississippi
February 15, 2010 Speak the truth, defend your rights
by Bill Bumpas A pro-family advocate in Michigan says he’s honored to be on the front lines in fighting for First Amendment rights to speak out against homosexuality. Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, is concerned that the “Hate Crimes Act” signed into law last year will be used to prosecute those who speak in favor of traditional biblical morality. He cites a personal example. “Several years ago Cardinal Adam Maida of Detroit and I were personally accused by the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force in a news release of being responsible for inciting the alleged beating death of a 72-year-old homosexual man in Detroit, merely because we had actively supported Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment reaffirming marriage as only between a man and a woman,” he remarks. Glenn says aside from the fact that officials found that there was no assault and the man died of natural causes, it illustrates the point that preachers of biblical truth are being targeted. He encourages boldness. “Don’t be intimidated,” he counsels. “Continue to speak biblical truth; continue to tell people that marriage is and always has been between one man and one woman — that’s what’s best for society, best for children. And stand up against these continuing restrictions on the exercise of free speech.” Glenn and three Michigan pastors recently challenged the constitutionality of the Hate Crimes Act by filing a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. Their attorney argues the law violates his clients’ rights to freedom of speech, expressive association, and free exercise of religion as protected under the First Amendment. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=895582
__________________________________________________ February 19, 2010 HOLY BULLIES AND HEADLESS MONSTERS
(homosexual activist website)
Columbia, South Carolina
February 15, 2010 Hypocrisy of the day — Gary Glenn (again) Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan got a little press from the right-wing One News Now today: …Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, is concerned that the “Hate Crimes Act” signed into law last year will be used to prosecute those who speak in favor of traditional biblical morality. He cites a personal example. “Several years ago Cardinal Adam Maida of Detroit and I were personally accused by the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force in a news release of being responsible for inciting the alleged beating death of a 72-year-old homosexual man in Detroit, merely because we had actively supported Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment reaffirming marriage as only between a man and a woman,” he remarks. Glenn says aside from the fact that officials found that there was no assault and the man died of natural causes, it illustrates the point that preachers of biblical truth are being targeted…
Glenn is speaking of the case of 72-year-old Andrew Anthos, who died mysteriously in 2007. Anthos, shortly before his death, had told family members that he was attacked because of his sexual orientation. However, the police and medical examiners concluded that his death was the result of a fall and there was no evidence that he was attacked. But Glenn plays a little loose with the facts regarding the Gay and Lesbian Task Force letter. This is what it said: “For years, Michigan has been subjected to the homophobic rants of Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, while so many otherwise good and decent people have been silent. Just two years ago, the state endured an ugly campaign, led by Cardinal Adam Maida, to ‘protect marriage’ by writing anti-gay discrimination into its constitution. Based on that amendment, a three-judge panel of Michigan’s court of appeals voted last month to terminate medical insurance coverage for families of LGBT government workers throughout the state.
So while the letter did somewhat link him to Anthos’s death (which was probably unfair), Glenn really has no right to plead total innocence here. He wasn’t “merely standing up for marriage.” The letter speaks to his long history of vilifying the lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender community. Like in 2006 when he spoke against gay/straight alliances in public schools because according to him, they “promote risky behavior,” Or when he opposed anti-discrimination policies on the assumption that they would make bathrooms co-ed, Or when he opposed anti-bullying legislation because according to him, it “promoted the homosexual agenda.” Or that ridiculous lawsuit he has help to launch against hate crimes legislation, legislation which does nothing to punish anyone for speech unless that speech is advocating violence, Or last week when he declared that there should criminal sanctions against “homosexual behavior.” The discussion that he had with me afterwards in which he tried to justify his words only spoke to his desire to further stigmatize the lgbt community even to the point of using information designed to help us as a weapon against us. And that’s the huge hypocrisy of folks like Glenn. They claim that they are being attacked for merely standing up for “Christian values,” and it’s a good lie they tell as long as no one is made aware of how low they stoop to defend their idea of morality. http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2010/02/hypocrisy-of-day-gary-glenn-again.html
__________________________________________________ February 19, 2010 “Gary Glenn, president of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan, wants the issue to be front and center in the race. ‘There are … serious implications for women’s privacy rights and comfort, since women and girls would legally be forced to share public restrooms, showers, locker rooms and changing areas with men who, if challenged, can present an official government ID “proving” their claim to be women,’ he says.” ——————————— ASSOCIATED PRESS
Detroit, Michigan
February 13, 2010 Michigan Secretary of State candidates make gender an issue?
Gender designation on driver’s license discussed by Mike Householder DETROIT (AP) — People in Michigan make changes to their driver’s licenses all the time. They get a new picture, switch addresses or become an organ donor. What’s much less common is changing their gender designation from an “M” to an “F” or vice versa. Republican Paul Scott is trying to make gender designation an issue in the race to replace term-limited Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land. The state representative from Grand Blanc says people who have undergone gender change operations shouldn’t be able to change their licenses to reflect their new identities. He brought up the issue in a letter announcing he was jumping into the race for the GOP secretary of state nomination. Scott, state senators Michelle McManus and Cameron Brown and Calhoun County Clerk Anne Norlander are running for the GOP nomination, while Detroit City Clerk Janice Winfrey and Wayne State University law professor Jocelyn Benson are seeking the Democratic one. Party activists will formally nominate their candidates in late August. Scott’s letter has drawn a variety of responses, from ire on the part of transgender advocacy groups to praise by conservative activists. Some are wondering why it’s an issue at all. Gender change requests for driver’s licenses are rare, and the secretary of state’s office doesn’t track them, says spokeswoman Kelly Chesney. Arlene Kish and Tina Seitz say the issue is personal, not political. Both were born men and have undergone sex change surgery. Kish, a 59-year-old business owner from Southgate, had the procedure done last month and soon after had her driver’s license changed to reflect that she now is a woman. She took a signed document from her surgeon to a secretary of state branch to back up her request. When she heard Scott was making an issue out of what’s already a standard practice, she was outraged. “It’s very disturbing, because we’re such a small segment of the population,” she says. Seitz, who also lives in the Detroit area, had sex-change surgery 2 1/2 years ago and also had her driver’s license updated. “I think that it should not be one of the major issues of a campaign,” says Seitz, a 52-year-old engineer. “I think that it’s ridiculous to single out any group of people where it affects so few people and call that a major campaign issue.” State policy says a person’s gender designation on a driver’s license can be changed only when the person provides a court order or doctor’s statement certifying that the applicant has completed the medical treatments necessary to switch their gender. The long-standing policy was briefly modified five years ago before Land ordered that it be changed back to be consistent with the approach taken by other state government departments. Scott says he “didn’t raise (the issue). Secretary Land raised it when she temporarily changed the policy in 2005. “In his announcement letter, though, Scott writes: “I will make it a priority to ensure transgender individuals will not be allowed to change the sex on their driver’s license in any circumstance.” Scott, a first-term lawmaker, doesn’t consider raising the issue a political ploy. “My personal belief is you are who your DNA says you are, regardless of what surgical procedures you may have thereafter,” he says. William Rustem of Public Sector Consultants, a Lansing think tank, says Scott may have found a way to distinguish himself from his three GOP rivals. “It’s an issue that divides, and it certainly could help him get a nomination,” Rustem says. “It’s a political strategy to grab a hold of the most conservative voters and say, `They’re mine.”‘ Some of Scott’s competitors see the issue as being too narrow to be of much consequence. “It happens very, very infrequently” and “is not at the top of my agenda,” Republican Norlander says. Benson, a Democrat, doesn’t believe the issue has a place in the campaign. “I don’t think it’s the government’s role to get in between an individual and their choice of gender expression,” she says. It’s “being used solely to throw divisiveness into a campaign that should be about how to make government work better for all our citizens.” But Gary Glenn, president of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan, wants the issue to be front and center in the race. “There are … serious implications for women’s privacy rights and comfort, since women and girls would legally be forced to share public restrooms, showers, locker rooms and changing areas with men who, if challenged, can present an official government ID `proving’ their claim to be women,” he says. Kish just wants to see the issue go away. “I’m not sure exactly why it’s an issue for them, except that they’re just ignorant of our situation,” she says. http://www.woodtv.com/dpp/news/local/capitol_region/MI_SOS_candidates_make_gender_an_issue
__________________________________________________ February 19, 2010 NEW YORK TIMES
New York, New York
January 28, 2010 Many successful (homosexual) marriages share an open secret
by Scott James “As the trial phase of the constitutional battle to overturn (California’s) ban on same-sex marriage concludes in federal court, (homosexual) nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many (homosexual) couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research. A study to be released next month…reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some (homosexual) men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging (homosexual) relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution. New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among (homosexual) men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners. …’With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,’ said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, ‘but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.’ …None of this is news in the (homosexual) community, but few will speak publicly about it. …They (worry) that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage. ‘The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight,’ (Joe Quirk, author of the best-selling relationship book ‘It’s Not You, It’s Biology’) said, citing the fresh perspective (homosexual) couples bring to matrimony. ‘If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.’” Read the full New York Times story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html
__________________________________________________ February 17, 2010 “The filing is being hailed by Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association of Michigan and a co-author of the (Marriage Protection) amendment. ‘After breaking the law for five years, (Coalition for a Fair Michigan treasurer Rick) Wallace has finally relented and allowed Michigan voters a right they’re supposed to be guaranteed by law on a timely basis: the ability to see for themselves which of their local politicians, public school teachers, university professors, businesses and individuals financially contributed to the campaign that opposed constitutionally protecting marriage between one man and one woman,’ Glenn said.” ———————————————————–
BETWEEN THE LINES
(homosexual activist newsmagazine)
Detroit, Michigan
February 11, 2010 Coalition for a Fair Michigan finally files
Anti-Prop. 2 campaign faced charges after 2004 disclosure reports were withheld by Between the Lines staff The Coalition for a Fair Michigan has filed the campaign disclosure reports from the 2004 battle over Proposal 2, which amended the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The files were supposed to have been submitted following the November 2004 campaign, but records from the Secretary of State’s office show the reports were filed Jan. 25 (last month). The report shows the group raised nearly $800,000 in an ultimately unsuccessful battle to urge state voters to reject an amendment that would define marriage as between one man and one woman. That measure passed in 2004. Secretary of State documents also show that Coalition treasurer Richard Wallace of Royal Oak was sent multiple warnings by election officials, and finally was threatened with criminal prosecution by the Office of Attorney General Mike Cox. The number for Wallace listed on campaign disclosure documents has been disconnected. The filing is being hailed by Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association of Michigan and a co-author of the amendment. “After breaking the law for five years, Mr. Wallace has finally relented and allowed Michigan voters a right they’re supposed to be guaranteed by law on a timely basis: the ability to see for themselves which of their local politicians, public school teachers, university professors, businesses and individuals financially contributed to the campaign that opposed constitutionally protecting marriage between one man and one woman,” Glenn said. Who has donated to either side of the same-sex marriage debate has become a heated issue. In California, supporters of the controversial Proposal 8, which banned same-sex marriage after that state’s supreme court approved it, have gone to court seeking to keep the names of donors private. They claim doing so is to protect the safety of those donors. “As a rule, I’ve supported and even championed the spirit of public disclosure and the people’s right to know, though a court may find that the widespread hate and intimidation tactics by homosexual activists against individuals who supported California’s Marriage Protection Amendment warrants an exception,” Glenn said of the issue as it applied to the Prop. 8 proceedings. “In any case, the same rules should apply to both sides of any issue. If disclosure is required, it should apply to both sides. If an exception is made to protect public safety, that should apply to both sides.” Glenn was, however, quick to point out that this was not the case here in Michigan. The Coalition, he said, “thumbed their nose at the letter and the spirit of the law.” http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=40012
__________________________________________________ February 17, 2010 
ACLU-Michigan threatened to sue when a Lansing health club refused
to allow the man on the left to use the women’s shower and locker room.
Former Spring Arbor University dean and Baptist pastor John (now Julie)
Nemecek, right, is executive director of Michigan Equality, a homosexual
activist group headquartered in Lansing.
“The ACLU has for years tried to pressure the Secretary of State to officially certify a ‘transgender’ male who has not had so-called ’sex change’ surgery as ‘female.’ The ACLU succeeded, temporarily, when the Secretary of State’s office announced in 2005 that it would adopt such a policy change. Three weeks later, Secretary Land reversed the change, reverting back to the previous and still standing policy that the sex designation would be changed only after such surgery. Even that policy begs the question of whether a surgically-mutilated man whose DNA proves he’s male should be officially certified ‘female.’ There are also serious implications for women’s privacy rights and comfort, since women and girls would legally be forced to share public restrooms, showers, locker rooms and changing areas with men who — if challenged — can present an official government I.D. ‘proving’ their claim to be women. …Citizens should be able to trust that the Secretary of State will tell the truth and will not — by falsifying identifying characteristics on an official government I.D. — facilitate and enable identity theft, use of false I.D.s, or violation of the privacy rights of women and children.” ————————————————————————- FLINT JOURNAL
Flint, Michigan
February 11, 2010 Another View Rep. Scott didn’t pull transgender statement out
of thin air; ACLU has campaigned for official IDs by Gary Glenn Critics have rushed to condemn Republican Secretary of State candidate Rep. Paul Scott’s pledge to ensure that our state government fulfills its public trust to always tell the truth — including when a man who claims to believe he’s a woman wants the government to enable that disorder by changing the sex on his driver’s license. Having the state officially certify delusions associated with a “gender identity disorder” as if they’re documentable fact is a high enough priority for some, apparently, that they feel compelled to attack anyone who says the government should simply tell the truth instead. In an era of heightened sensitivity about identity theft and terrorists using fake I.D.s, the issue is not how often the state might be asked by individuals suffering such disorders to falsify a government record, but whether our government under any circumstance should certify identifying characteristics on an official I.D. as anything other than what they truthfully are. Perhaps critics who pretend Rep. Scott pulled this issue out of thin air don’t want you to know that the ACLU has for years tried to pressure the Secretary of State to officially certify a “transgender” male who has not had so-called “sex change” surgery as “female.” The ACLU succeeded, temporarily, when the Secretary of State’s office announced in 2005 that it would adopt such a policy change. Three weeks later, Secretary Land reversed the change, reverting back to the previous and still standing policy that the sex designation would be changed only after such surgery. Even that policy begs the question of whether a surgically-mutilated man whose DNA proves he’s male should be officially certified “female.” There are also serious implications for women’s privacy rights and comfort, since women and girls would legally be forced to share public restrooms, showers, locker rooms and changing areas with men who — if challenged — can present an official government I.D. “proving” their claim to be women. The next Secretary of State will be pressured by the ACLU and homosexual and “transgender” activists to again adopt such a policy, this time permanently. AFA-Michigan’s position is simple: While we as individuals should compassionately sympathize with the difficulties experienced by others in some cases, government certifying agencies must dispassionately deal in reality and truth in all cases. Citizens should be able to trust that the Secretary of State will tell the truth and will not — by falsifying identifying characteristics on an official government I.D. — facilitate and enable identity theft, use of false I.D.s, or violation of the privacy rights of women and children. ——————————- Gary Glenn, Midland, is president of the American Family Association of Michigan, online at www.AFAMichigan.org. http://www.mlive.com/opinion/flint/index.ssf/2010/02/rep_scott_didnt_pull_transgend.html
__________________________________________________ February 11, 2010 
CLICK TO WATCH VIDEO: http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/video.aspx?id=414337
“Gary Glenn, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan, along with the pastor of First Baptist Church in Bridgeport Township, and two metro Detroit pastors, say under the Federal Hate Crimes Act, people who speak out against homosexuality could be prosecuted as accessories to crimes against them. …Glenn says, ‘We would join anyone else in condemning acts of violence against anyone, including people involved in the homosexual lifestyle, but a pastor should remain free in this country to express his sincerely held religious views without having to fear prosecution as a criminal accessory if someone involved in the homosexual lifestyle is a victim of violence.’” ————————————————— WEYI-TV (NBC) Channel 25
Flint, Michigan
February 10, 2010 Homosexual activists weigh in on Hate Crimes lawsuit
by Dan Armstrong The hate crimes lawsuit story NBC did Monday has lit up connectmidmichigan.com. More than 8,000 people have clicked on the story, hundreds have voted on the online poll, and dozens have left comments.
It’s about a local group of religious leaders that are challenging the federal hate crimes act. Now, supporters of the hate crimes act are weighing in. Gary Glenn, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan, along with the pastor of First Baptist Church in Bridgeport Township, and two metro Detroit pastors, say under the Federal Hate Crimes Act, people who speak out against homosexuality could be prosecuted as accessories to crimes against them. However, homosexual activists and supporters of the hate crimes act disagree. Alicia Skillman, Executive Director of the Triangle Foundation in Detroit, says “I think the complaint is a smokescreen, and it takes people away from the real issue. I believe the government did the right thing by protecting gay people from those physical acts of violence and those physical acts of hate.” Gary Glenn says, “We would join anyone else in condemning acts of violence against anyone, including people involved in the homosexual lifestyle, but a pastor should remain free in this country to express his sincerely held religious views without having to fear prosecution as a criminal accessory if someone involved in the homosexual lifestyle is a victim of violence.” PFLAG (Parents, Family, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays) of the Tri-CIties says “Hate crimes legislation is about actions, not words. The hate crimes legislation that has passed on the federal level includes clear and concise protections for free speech.” Homosexual advocates NBC25 spoke with say pastors will not be prosecuted based on their views of homosexuality.
Skillman says, “There have been no instances reported of this happening. I believe they’re just trying to incite hate, but the real issue is that people are now protected from physical acts of violence and hate.” Plaintiffs in the case say they’re not acting out of hate. They say they condemn the beliefs and actions of those who claim God hates homosexuals. Homosexual advocates say additional laws need to be establish to protect gays in Michigan from discrimination. They say there are no state laws that protect homosexuals from being fired from their jobs and being denied housing. http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=414337
__________________________________________________ February 8, 2010 
AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn, right, during an interview Monday
with WEYI-TV Channel 25 (Flint) reporter Dan Armstrong.
Click to watch video: http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/video.aspx?id=413343
“A 2005 Saginaw News article quotes Jeffrey Montgomery, the executive director of the Triangle Foundation, a homosexual activist group in Detroit, as saying crimes against homosexuals are on the rise. He says: ‘The vocal anti-gay activists should be held accountable as accessories to these crimes because, many times, it is their rhetoric that led the perpetrators to believe that their crimes are O.K.’ Gary Glenn is the president of the American Family Association of Michigan. He says, ‘We filed a lawsuit to protect religious free speech rights of individuals who want to continue to speak out for their religious values.’ …Glenn says, ‘Everybody should be protected from violence, but everybody should also be free to express their religious or political views without fear of prosecution by people who want to silence those who disagree with the homosexual political agenda.’ He says, ‘Under this so called hate crimes law, a criminal that attacks a pregnant woman, or a child, or a senior citizen would be punished less severely than someone who attacks a grown man, if that grown man is involved in the homosexual lifestyle. That’s not equality under the law.’” ————————————– WEYI-TV (NBC Channel 25)
Flint, Michigan
February 8, 2010 Mid-Michigan religious leaders challenge hate crimes law
by Dan Armstrong Some MidMichigan religious leaders say a new law limits their liberty.
The president of the American Family Association of Michigan in Midland, along with a Bridgeport Township pastor, say the hate crimes act is unconstitutional and prohibits their right of free speech. They say, the law could be used against them for saying homosexuality is a sin. Gary Glenn is the president of the American Family Association of Michigan. He says, “We filed a lawsuit to protect religious free speech rights of individuals who want to continue to speak out for their religious values.” The lawsuit was filed through the Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor. It lists Gary Glenn, the pastor of First Baptist Church of Bridgeport Township Rene B. Ouellette, the pastor of Faith Baptist Church in Waterford Township Jim Combs, and the pastor of Bible Church in Ypsilanti Levon R. Yuille as plaintiffs and Eric Holder, U.S. Attorney General, as the defendant. The plaintiffs say the hate crimes act is unconstitutional. A 2005 Saginaw News article quotes Jeffrey Montgomery, the executive director of the Triangle Foundation, a homosexual activist group in Detroit, as saying crimes against homosexuals are on the rise. He says “The vocal anti-gay activists should be held accountable as accessories to these crimes because, many times, it is their rhetoric that led the perpetrators to believe that their crimes are O.K.” Glenn says, “Everybody should be protected from violence, but everybody should also be free to express their religious or political views without fear of prosecution by people who want to silence those who disagree with the homosexual political agenda.” The Triangle Foundation says, the reaction is out of anger and fear. It says positive images of gays on television shows, along with the issues of gay marriage and civil rights are getting fundamentalists worked up. Glenn disagrees, he says the law prefers one group over another. He says, “Under this so called hate crimes law, a criminal that attacks a pregnant woman, or a child, or a senior citizen would be punished less severely than someone who attacks a grown man, if that grown man is involved in the homosexual lifestyle. That’s not equality under the law.” It’s a debate of liberty and law to be decided in court. The lawsuit was filed last Tuesday. The U.S. attorney general has 60-days to respond. Click below to read the lawsuit. Related Links
Hate Crimes Lawsuit
American Family Association of Michigan
Triangle Foundation
Thomas More Law Center http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=413343
__________________________________________________ February 8, 2010 
AFA-Michigan president Gary Glenn, left, and Pastor Levon Yuille at the Secretary of State’s office in 2004 to help turn in the half-million signatures that placed the Marriage Protection Amendment on Michigan’s 2004 ballot.
“Pastor Levon Yuille of The Bible Church, outside Detroit, Michigan, joined three other ministry leaders in filing a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. They are concerned, among other things, that under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, those who speak out against homosexuality could be prosecuted. …The lawsuit against Holder was filed last week by the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center. Joining Yuille in the suit are Pastors Rene Ouellette and James Combs, and American Family Association of Michigan president Gary Glenn.” ——————————————————————— ONE NEWS NOW
Tupelo, Mississippi
February 8, 2010 Pastor comments on his ‘hate crimes’ lawsuit
by Bill Bumpas A black pastor who is challenging the constitutionality of the recently enacted federal “Hate Crimes Act” says he’s offended by comparisons to the civil rights struggles of African-Americans with those who engage in homosexual behavior. Pastor Levon Yuille of The Bible Church, outside Detroit, Michigan, joined three other ministry leaders in filing a lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder. They are concerned, among other things, that under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, those who speak out against homosexuality could be prosecuted. Yuille tells OneNewsNow that he also finds it insulting to equate the supposed “civil rights” struggle of homosexuals with the real civil rights struggle of African-Americans. “I feel like individuals [are] demeaning the black community in trying to equate us to what someone chooses to do sexually,” Yuille remarks. “The totality of black people is far greater than what one would prefer to do in expressing themselves in the manner I’ve already stated.” The Michigan pastor says the spotlight should be on how the HIV virus is devastating his community — women in particular. “I’m most certainly disheartened to see that there’s so little focus being placed on this issue relative to so many black men participating in heterosexual and homosexual behavior — and ultimately and regrettably a lot of black women contract AIDS through this type of behavior,” he shares. Pastor Yuille says he is taking a stand for truth, and believes he is doing what is right from a biblical, social, and health perspective. The lawsuit against Holder was filed last week by the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center. Joining Yuille in the suit are Pastors Rene Ouellette and James Combs, and American Family Association of Michigan president Gary Glenn. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=888646
__________________________________________________ |
| |
