“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said that his group is strongly supportive of the type of legislation proposed by Sen. (Michelle) McManus. Glenn also supported a recent proposal by Rep. Paul Scott, R-Blanc, another Republican candidate for Secretary of State, to prohibit transgendered people from changing their gender on their drivers licenses. ‘If candidates for public (office) are trying to prove that one is more pro-family than the other, then that’s good,’ Glenn said. ‘We certainly appreciate the actions of both Rep. Scott and Sen. McManus.’”

————————————–
MICHIGAN MESSENGER
Lansing, Michigan
February 22, 2010

McManus pushes to end “no fault” divorce
Experts say divorce would become uglier, not less common

By Eartha Jane Melzer

State Senator Michelle McManus (R-Lake Leelanau), a candidate for Michigan Secretary of State, has introduced legislation that would make it harder for people to get divorced.

McManus is the sole sponsor of SB 1127 which would eliminate ‘no fault divorce’ for couples with children or where one member does not consent to the divorce.

Since 1972 Michigan’s “no fault” divorce law has required only that one spouse say “there has been a breakdown of the marriage relationship to the extent that the objects of matrimony have been destroyed and there remains no reasonable likelihood that the marriage can be preserved.”

Under the McManus bill those seeking divorce would be required to allege specific problems such as adultery, physical abuse, imprisonment, physical incompetence at time of marriage, or that a spouse had sex with an animal or dead human body.

The person accused of wrongdoing in the marriage would then have a chance to agree to the charges or deny them and a court would make a determination as to their validity.

Veronica LaDuke, spokeswoman for McManus, said that the Senator decided to introduce the bill because she was asked to do so by Mike McManus (no relation), president of the DC-area based Christian ministry called group Marriage Savers.

In a telephone interview Mike McManus said that simple incompatibility is not a good enough reason for divorce, and that it’s wrong for the state to grant divorce when no evidence of abuse has been presented. Making divorces more difficult will reduce the divorce rate, he said, and he emphasized that Michigan should see divorce as a key cause of the state’s economic woes.

McManus said that he believes the legislation could cut the divorce rate in half, and that this would have wide ranging positive effects.

McManus is nationally prominent in the field of marriage promotion, and has stirred some controversy.

In 2005 Salon reported that McManus had promoted the Bush Administration’s Healthy Marriage Initiative in his syndicated column Ethics & Religion without disclosing that he had been paid by the administration to advance the program.

There are benefits to requiring that a court establish fault in divorce proceedings, he said.

“Forty years ago when this was the law,” McManus said, “a man who was having an affair with his secretary would have to ask himself, ‘Am I going to pay her alimony or am I going to give up this bimbo?’“

“Now the law prompts people to be irresponsible.”

Under the current system, he said, courts are too quick to remove fathers rights in cases where women claim they fear physical violence.

People took their marriage vows in front of God, he said, and the state should support them in keeping the vows.

This is important, he said, because children whose parents are divorced are more likely to be expelled from school, get pregnant, be poor or kill themselves.

Though most people blame the sad state of Michigan’s economy on the decline of the auto industry, McManus claims that the prevalence of divorce in Michigan is a major factor.

“Only married people can create new businesses. It takes one couple living under one roof to generate enough income to set off in business on your own.”

Plus, he said, because divorced women and their children are more likely to be poor, divorce results in increased need for Medicaid and housing subsidies.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan said that his group is strongly supportive of the type of legislation proposed by Sen. McManus.

Glenn also supported a recent proposal by Rep. Paul Scott (R-Blanc), another Republican candidate for Secretary of State, to prohibit transgendered people from changing their gender on their drivers licenses.

“If candidates for public are trying to prove that one is more pro-family than the other then that’s good,“ Glenn said. “We certainly appreciate the actions of both Rep. Scott and Sen. McManus.”

Family law experts, however, say the legislation will only make divorces harder on families and children because parents will be forced to invent allegations of abuse and mistreatment in order to justify the divorce.

Michael A. Robbins is current President of the Michigan Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

Robbins said that Michigan repealed fault divorces in 1972 because the process created needless hostility, collusion and perjury — people would make up stories of abuse to get out of their marriages.

A return to the old system would result in separation or abandonment in cases where a judge did not find fault and did not grant a divorce, and this would make it much more difficult to divide property, establish child support or arrange for alimony.

“If they don’t grant divorce people are just going to live apart while married,” he said, “and they are going to have children with other people while they are living apart, and they are going to have new problems that the system is not going to be able to help them with.”

Robbins also said that the reinstitution of ‘‘fault’’ divorces will not give any more bargaining power to the innocent spouse than they already have because under the current law the court can still consider ‘‘fault’’ when it comes to division of property, an award of alimony, and a determination of custody.

Robbins disagrees that divorce is a cause of the bad economy; he says it’s the other way around, financial problems and unemployment are putting a strain on marriages.

The bottom line, he said, is that people who want to get a divorce are going to get a divorce.

“You cant legislate morality and you can’t force people to stay together if they don’t want to stay together.”

Henry Gornbein, a family law attorney since 1968, and former chairperson of the Family Law Council of the State Bar of Michigan, agrees.

Gornbein says the McManus legislation “would be an unmitigated disaster.”

“If one party wants out there is a breakdown,“ he said.

“My understanding of the legislation is that unless there is some egregious situation you can’t get a divorce and if one person wants a divorce and the other does not there is no divorce,” Gornbein said. “I guess the sponsors believe that that is going to slow down the divorce rate but I think that people are going to get divorced whether there is fault or no fault.”

“I don’t think it is going to accomplish anything and I don’t think it is going to pass,” he said. “Politicians are pandering during an election year.”

http://michiganmessenger.com/35028/mcmanus-pushes-to-end-no-fault-divorce
__________________________________________________

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
__________________________________________________

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
__________________________________________________

AFA-Michigan 2009

Annual Banquet

LEONARD, Michigan — Over 200 supporters and guests attended the American Family Association’s 2009 annual banquet in Oakland County May 21st, which featured a video greeting by former Gov. Mike Huckabee, keynote speaker and Fireproof star Erin Bethea, special recognition of citizens who have stood firmly for traditional values, and an annual report by AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn. See our highlights below…

Gov. Mike Huckabee praises AFA-Michigan stand for truth

Former presidential candidate, pastor, and Gov. Mike Huckabee offered a video greeting to the American Family Association of Michigan’s 2009 annual banquet, praising the organization for its leadership in defense of prenatal children’s unalienable Right to Life and the God-ordained institution of marriage and the family.

“In a time when so many organizations, even Christian ones, are running from truth, and running from controversy,” Huckabee said, “Gary and American Family Association of Michigan have been absolutely, totally committed to maintaining a steady, solid course for truth.”

Click to watch video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNI00Skt2rk

www.FireproofTheMovie.com

AFA-Michigan’s activities under Gary’s direction have been reported by the BBC, New York Times, CNN, Paula Zahn Now, MSNBC, USA Today, Fox News, Associated Press, Washington Post, Washington Times, Boston Globe, Chronicle of Higher Education, Tech Law Journal, Arizona Star, Focus on the Family’s Citizen magazine, and countless TV, radio, and newspaper stories in Michigan.

American Political Science Association in San Francisco — later published by Harvard University — two Calvin College political science professors stated: “In recent years, AFA of Michigan has played an increasingly visible role in state politics as it has turned much of its attention to opposing gay rights initiatives across the state. In addition, AFA of Michigan is engaged in opposing pornography… Much of the publicity received by AFA of Michigan is attributable to the energetic leadership of its current president, Gary Glenn, particularly with respect to the controversial area of gay rights.
…Glenn has shown no fear in dealing with what his group labels the ‘homosexual agenda’ and has vigorously opposed proposals to permit gays to head Boy Scout troops as well as sexual non-discrimination ordinances proposed by various cities across Michigan.”

Campaign co-chairs Rev. Andrew Wesley and Akm Rahman and campaign manager Jay McNally first conducted a successful petition drive to force the ordinance onto the November ballot, then waged an aggressive public education campaign in four languages exposing the threat the discrimina-tory measure posed to religious liberty and the privacy rights of women and children in public restrooms and other facilities.

In a city that voted a whopping 85 percent for Democratic presidential candidate Barak Obama, voters nonetheless rejected the so-called “gay rights” ordinance by a ten-point margin, 55 to 45 percent. The city’s local newspaper, the Hamtramck Citizen, in December named the ordinance’s defeat the city’s top news story of 2008. AFA-Michigan thanks and salutes Rev. Wesley, Akm, and Jay for their faithful, tireless, and effective leadership.

…and a faithful Christian expelled by Eastern Michigan University.

We were also privileged to welcome and honor Daryl and Julea Ward from Ypsilanti. Julea is an African-American public school teacher who, until March, was also a 3.9 GPA student in the graduate counseling program at Eastern Michigan University before being expelled for refusing academic administrators’ demand that she abandon her Christian convictions.

Four credits short of completing her Masters degree, Julea was referred a patient who wanted counseling to help improve his relationship with his homosexual “partner.” Because she could not in good conscience affirm the patient’s homosexual relationship, Julea followed her supervisor’s instructions and asked that the patient be referred to another counselor, which he was. However, she was thereafter rebuked by her supervisor and instructed to submit to a remedial reeducation course to change her religious views, which she refused.

Administrators then conducted a formal inquisition during which they mocked and belittled her faith and pressured Julea to recant her convictions. She politely but firmly refused, calmly telling the academic elites that she would not “sell out God.” In response, the panel voted to expel her from the counseling program, and after an EMU dean rejected Julea’s appeal, she was expelled. The Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal foundation, has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against EMU, which university officials will spend our tax dollars to contest.

Click here to read the transcript of Julea Ward’s inquisition by EMU officials and her unshakeable witness: http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews_impact/2009/04/EMUhearing_transcript.pdf

AFA-Michigan thanks and honors Julea for the bold resolution of her faith, and we pray the Lord will grant her success in her lawsuit, reinstatement at EMU, and many opportunities in the future to positively influence the patients who seek her counsel once she has completed her degree.

Michigan’s Julea Ward joins Miss California Carrie Prejean as young Christian women who set an example for us all of principled conviction in the face of cultural hostility and persecu-tion. Julea, we salute you!

Rep. McMillin and AFA-Michigan’s Gary Glenn in May were the only two individuals who appeared before the state House Judiciary Committee to testify against discriminatory so-called “hate crime” legislation that threatens free speech rights in Michigan.

Tom then led the opposition to the bill on the floor of the House of Representatives, where all Democrats but two voted for it, while all of his fellow Republicans but two voted against it. AFA-Michigan thanks and salutes Tom for his long history of steadfast leadership for traditional family values in the public policy arena.

__________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tues., Nov. 11, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

Family group condemns intimidation
tactic by self-described “pack of wolves”

Homosexual activists disrupt Lansing church

AFA-Michigan joins Catholic League in call for investigation

LANSING, Mich. — A statewide family values organization Tuesday condemned a homosexual anarchist group which Sunday disrupted the worship services of an evangelical Christian church in Michigan’s capital city. The anarchist group, Bash Back, claimed credit for the disruption, referring to Mount Hope Church of Lansing as “a deplorable, anti-queer mega-church…complicit in the repression of queers in Michigan and beyond.”
http://bashbacknews.wordpress.com

“So long as bigots kill us in the streets, this pack of wolves will continue to Bash Back!” the group threatened in an online posting.

Mount Hope Church, a 5,000-member racially diverse church, issued a statement which described the disruption: “On Sunday, November 9, 2008 at the 11:30 AM services the people of Mount Hope Church were shocked by an unwelcome violent demonstration by a homosexual/transgender anarchist group based in Chicago, IL. The group threw fliers at churchgoers and shouted sentiments such as, ‘It’s okay to be gay’ and ‘Jesus was a homo’ during a Sunday morning service. The Eaton County Sheriff’s office was called and the illegal demonstration ceased.”

Gary Glenn, Midland, president of the American Family Association and co-author of the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by Michigan voters in 2004, condemned the homosexual activist group’s intimidation tactics.

“We will alert churches statewide of this now close-to-home threat of disruption of their members’ freedom to worship in peace and safety,” Glenn said, “but this is not the first time in history Christians have faced persecution or threats of reprisal for standing for their faith and values.”

“Politically, it is immensely helpful when homosexual activists let the ‘tolerance’ mask slip
from their faces and reveal the true nature of their repressive and obviously intolerant agenda,” Glenn said. “The truth is, they will tolerate no dissent from their political demands, and what they demand are new laws that empower them to redefine marriage, impose their political will on our families and schools and churches, and silence anyone who dares disagree.”

“When that fails, homosexual activists — including this particular group calling itself a ‘pack of wolves’ — are making clear across the country that they’re willing to resort to property violence or perhaps even worse to try to frighten and intimidate people into submission,” he said, referring to angry and sometimes violent street protests since voters Nov. 4th approved Marriage Protection Amendments in Arizona, California, and Florida. In Michigan, Hamtramck voters rejected a so-called “gay rights” ordinance by 55 to 45 percent. http://www.onenewsnow.com/Election2008/Default.aspx?id=312782

“Here’s my prediction,” Glenn said. “Americans, particularly people of strong religious faith, are not cowards. The overwhelming majority who believe marriage is and always should be only between one man and one woman, who have said so at the ballot box in 30 states, will not be bullied by emotional adolescents who disrespect private property, the rule of law, and anyone who dares hold opinions diverse from their own.”

“We will pray for and offer help to those who have gender identity and same-sex attraction disorders, but Americans will continue to reject their attempts to overturn the will of the people and impose their disorders on our children and society at large,” he said.

Glenn said AFA-Michigan will join the Catholic League — a leading Catholic civil rights organization based in Washington, D.C. — in urging Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox to investigate the organized violation of the church’s private property rights and the group’s threat of future disruptions of worship services.

Catholic League president Bill Donohue Tuesday issued a statement condemning the group’s actions and accusing the news media of failing to report it with the same intensity they routinely do complaints by homosexual activist groups.

To keep reading, click here: (more…)

AFA-Michigan has joined the call for a nation-wide boycott against America’s largest greeting card company, for aligning itself with liberal activists who want to redefine morality and the institution of marriage. Pro-family groups began the boycott against Hallmark Cards, Inc. after the company introduced new greeting cards aimed at “congratulating” homosexuals who enter into so-called “gay marriage” contracts and “civil unions.”

According to an 8/21/08 news story from the Associated Press, Hallmark spokeswoman Sarah Kolell said the company introduced the pro-homosexual cards in an attempt to be “relevant” to as many consumers as possible.

Yet the Bible states in Isaiah 5:20:

“Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (NKJV)

It is likewise clear that God is the Author of marriage, and His design is expressed very clearly in the New Testament by Jesus Christ, who declared in Mark 10:6-8:

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.” (NKJV)

Despite these warnings in Scripture, Hallmark now offers cards that celebrate homosexual “marriage.” The cards use various forms of clear homosexual symbolism, including rainbow-colored hearts and an image of two tuxedos, side-by-side.

This is not the only way that Hallmark endorses homosexual immorality. According to the Associated Press, the company also distributes cards designed to “show support” for homosexuals upon their “coming out,” which is a slang term referring to one’s initial declaration of their homosexual perversion.

Despite claiming they want to appeal to as many people as possible, the decision-makers at Hallmark clearly have no problem offending millions of pro-family Americans who know the Bible declares in Proverbs 14:34:

“Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people.” (NKJV)

This is a defining moment in the war over marriage and the family as an enduring institution. Rather than broadening its customer base, Hallmark is choosing sides in the culture war – - against Biblical morality. After all, endorsing homosexuality is an offense to God, and it is an offense to Bible-believing Christians everywhere.

Hallmark says their move was a result of “public demand,” rather than political pressure. But what if a significant portion of its customers demanded Hallmark discontinue their promotion of homosexuality? Would they reverse course?

“Hallmark’s corporate position helps culturally legitimize and promote so-called homosexual ‘marriage,’ using its customers’ money to do so,” said AFA-Michigan’s Gary Glenn. He added, “Each of us should ensure as a matter of conscience that Hallmark isn’t able to use any of our families’ money.”

“Several years ago, homosexual activists criticized a private school for observing Mother’s Day, since they said it ‘discriminated’ against children ‘who have two (homosexual) fathers’,” Glenn said. “That biological impossibility aside, what will Hallmark do next, remove its Mother’s Day and Father’s Day cards to avoid offending homosexual activists? It’s obvious they have no concern about offending Christians and others who believe homosexual behavior is sinful and wrong.”

By signing AFA-Michigan’s SECURE petition, your name and contact data will be compiled with many others from all over the United States who are opposed Hallmark’s pro-homosexual cards. The list will be forwarded to Hallmark Chairman Donald J. Hall along with the verses above and an admonition to stop endorsing homosexual immorality.

Thank you for your support. Let’s pray together for Hallmark to do the right thing and pull these cards from their shelves.

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.’ ”

Benkof continued: “Seattle’s Michael Taylor-Judd, president of the statewide Legal Marriage Alliance, said if a newspaper writes that a given same-sex marriage wasn’t really a marriage, ‘it is certainly in the realm of possibility for someone to bring a (libel) suit, and quite possibly to be successful.’ Kosofsky agreed: ‘I would be sympathetic to some damages. They need to be slapped publicly.’ ”

(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.”

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., May 14, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

Study: Divorce, unwed births cost
Mich. taxpayers $1.5 billion a year

Family group backs bill to change state divorce law

LANSING, Mich. — High rates of divorce and children born out of wedlock cost Michigan taxpayers over $1.5 billion in public expenditures for government services each year, a new nationwide study found, making the need for public policies that promote getting and staying married not just a social or moral issue but a matter of dollars and cents, a statewide family values group said Wednesday.

The American Family Association of Michigan Wednesday forwarded to Gov. Jennifer Granholm and legislative leaders the results of first-ever research that calculated a minimum $112 billion annual cost to taxpayers nationwide resulting from high rates of divorce and unmarried childbearing. The landmark study — “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All 50 States” — was released last month at the National Press Club by two national family policy and research groups, the Institute for American Values and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.

Full study and background information: http://www.americanvalues.org/html/coff_mediaadvisory.htm
Executive summary: http://www.americanvalues.org/coff/executive_summary.pdf

“This study documents that divorce and unwed childbearing, which everyone knows are bad for children, are also costing Michigan taxpayers billions of dollars,” wrote AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn. “Even a small improvement in the health of marriages in Michigan would result in an enormous savings to taxpayers. Stronger families and fewer family breakups mean less crime, less poverty, and less reliance on costly government programs and social services.”

Glenn said an example of a public policy change that would reduce taxpayer costs due to marriage dissolution is bipartisan legislation introduced by Rep. Fulton Sheen, R-Allegan, Rep. Joel Sheltrown, D-West Branch, and twelve other lawmakers that would only allow divorce in Michigan if a couple is childless or if adultery, abandonment, or spousal or child abuse is involved. (House Bill 5761: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billintroduced/House/htm/2008-HIB-5761.htm)

Such legislation would help save taxpayers money by making it more difficult to break up a marriage when children are involved, Glenn said, pointing to the new study’s finding that of the 1.3 million households in Michigan living in poverty, 57 percent are comprised of households headed by a single or divorced female.

To calculate the fiscal impact of divorce and unwed child-bearing, the study projected that if all of those currently single or divorced females were to marry, a conservative estimate of at least 60 percent of them would see their family’s standard of living rise above the poverty level, reducing the total number of Michigan households living in poverty by 34 percent and saving Michigan taxpayers over $1.5 billion annually. (See state-by-state tables on pages 36 and 38 of the study.)

Dr. Ben Scafidi, Ph.D., economics professor at Georgia College & State University and the study’s principal investigator, said the costs were calculated on the basis of “increased taxpayer expenditures for anti-poverty, criminal justice and education programs, and through lower levels of taxes paid by individuals whose adult productivity has been negatively affected by increased childhood poverty caused by family fragmentation.”

“Prior research shows that marriage lifts single mothers out of poverty and therefore reduces the need for costly social benefits,” Scafidi said. “This new report shows that public concern about the decline of marriage need not be based only on ‘moral’ concerns, but that reducing high taxpayer costs of family fragmentation is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers and legislators, as well as community reformers and faith communities.”

The study’s findings were vetted by scholars and economists including faculty from the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University, Morehouse College, Kennesaw State University, Mercer University, the University of Virginia, the Brookings Institution, the Urban Institute, and the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee. http://www.americanvalues.org/coff/advisors.pdf

Glenn said Michigan avoided even higher costs to taxpayers associated with the potential decline of marriage when voters in 2004 approved a Marriage Protection Amendment to the state constitution reaffirming the state’s legal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

He noted a commentary by Harvard constitutional law professor Mary Ann Glendon, writing in the Wall Street Journal, who wrote that “the Canadian government, which is considering same-sex marriage legislation, has just realized that retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost its taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.” http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004735

He also pointed to researchers who believe that public policy decisions in Europe redefining marriage to include homosexual couples and group marriage, thus diluting society’s commitment to marriage as the social ideal for raising children and breaking the traditional connection between marriage and child-bearing has contributed to a dramatic decline in the marriage rate and a dramatic increase in the percentage of children born out of wedlock. Both are major factors, the new study found, in increasing the tax burden for government services.

“Dutch Debate”: http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp

“The End of Marriage in Scandinavia”: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

“No Nordic Bliss”: http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602280810.asp

“Zombie Killers”: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTU4NDEzNTY5ODNmOWU4M2Y1MGIwMTcyODdjZGQxOTk=

###

“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

Michigan Republicans Joe Knollenberg, Thad McCotter, and Candice Miller voted in favor of Barney Frank’s federal homosexual “rights” legislation, which House Republican Leader John Boehner says will weaken state and federal laws protecting marriage. (See statement below)

Joe Knollenberg 248-851-1366
Thad McCotter 734-632-0314 or 248-685-9495
Candice Miller 586-997-5010

House Republican leader: ENDA bill will be boon to
trial lawyers, weaken state and federal marriage laws

Washington, Nov. 7, 2007 – House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today issued the following statement opposing the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA):
“There is no doubt that this legislation will lead to endless, excessive litigation that will further bog down our courts at a high cost to employers, workers, and taxpayers. For example, the bill purports to protect workers based on their ‘perceived’ sexual orientation – a highly subjective concept that is bound to tie the legal system in knots. Congress would be well-served to focus on ways to reduce the amount of frivolous lawsuits, not compound the problem by adding new, obscure ways for trial lawyers to game the system.

“This legislation also drastically weakens religious freedom in the workplace and 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’Â’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