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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* The Triangle Foundation’s web site currently features a news release charging that support for Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment by Glenn and Catholic Cardinal Adam Maida of the Archdiocese of Detroit was a motivating factor in the alleged beating death of a homosexual senior citizen last year in Detroit. “It is appalling hypocrisy,” the statement reads, “for (Glenn and Maida) to pretend that their venomous words and organizing have no connection to the plague of hate violence against gay people, including the murder of Mr. Anthos.” http://www.tri.org/violence/pdfs/taskforce.pdf

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thurs., May 15, 2008

CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

###

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

Dear AFA-Michigan supporter,

Thank you, and may God bless you and your family!

Gary Glenn, President
American Family Association of Michigan

“Through all of this, marriage and civil unions should remain silent issues — at least silent to the straight public. Tactics and strategies can be formed behind closed doors, while focusing our primary efforts on the passable issues. When all the various (other) issues have been resolved, think of all the money that would be freed up to focus on marriage. We can lobby the president and Congress on repealing (the federal Defense of Marriage Act), while targeting the weakest states to repeal their ‘one man, one woman’ amendments.”

WASHINGTON BLADE
(homosexual activist newsweekly)
Washington, D.C.
August 24, 2007

(Editorial)

Building a house from the roof down
Gay rights leaders are taking a backward approach to the fight.

On August 9th, the Human Rights Campaign and the Logo TV network hosted what was billed as the “first GLBT forum� for the Democratic candidates. “Forum?� What I saw that night looked more like gays and lesbians questioning the candidates on one thing and one thing only: marriage.

Yes, the Employment Non-Discrimination Act was mentioned, as was “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,� the hate crimes bill, HIV, immigration, medicinal marijuana and the bark beetle. But, all combined, the time spent on those issues wasn’t anywhere near the time the panel spent badgering the candidates about the difference between marriage and civil unions.

I quickly noticed the lack of important transgender issues asked by the panel. I figured that Melissa Etheridge wouldn’t ask any trans-related questions and Jonathan Capehart has actually written articles stating that transgender people shouldn’t be included in any legislation. I did hold out hope that Joe Solmonese would ask some tough trans-related question, but that vanished when he asked John Edwards the one and only “T� question in this “GLBT forum.�

Solmonese asked Edwards what he would say if one of his staff members came to him and stated they wanted to transition. What did he think Edwards would say? “I’d kick them out?� Even most Republicans would have answered the question the same way Edwards did. It’s wonderful to see that transgender people have finally reached the level of warranting the same amount of seriousness as the New Mexican bark beetle.

I get the impression that when it comes to working for our rights, some groups want to jump ahead in the process. If efforts and money were put to bear on passing the most acceptable of equal rights legislation first, then on up, each following effort would be easier because of the successes that preceded it.

To me, there is a logical progression to all of this. Arguably, the most acceptable of all the rights legislation to pass is the hate crimes bill, called the Local Law Enforcement Enhancement Act. We should focus all our efforts on that and nothing else until the Senate passes it. In the long time that it takes Congress to actually accomplish this, we also lobby those people on the fence and plan the next phase behind closed doors.

Next up is passing ENDA and repealing “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.� They would both be equally difficult, but not impossible if all Gay-Lesbian-Bisexual-Transgendered people focused on them and them alone. Keep in mind that when DADT is gone, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network will shut its doors and those lawyers would spread out to the rest of the gay community to help in other areas.

When those issues have been addressed and “put to bed,� then we should focus on getting Congress to repeal or amend the Real ID Act and the Permanent Partners Immigration Act. As it stands right now, the Real ID Act could devastate transgender people by forcing many to revert to their birth name and gender.

The PPIA will not allow legally married same-sex couples to reside in the United States as a couple, even if one person is a U.S. citizen. It also affects legally married transgender people the same way. Around the same time, I would also like to see the entire GLBT community work together in ending discrimination in the Veterans Administration toward our transgender veterans.

Through all of this, marriage and civil unions should remain silent issues — at least silent to the straight public. Tactics and strategies can be formed behind closed doors, while focusing our primary efforts on the passable issues.

When all the various above issues have been resolved, think of all the money that would be freed up to focus on marriage. We can lobby the president and Congress on repealing (the federal Defense of Marriage Act), while targeting the weakest states to repeal their “one man, one woman� amendments.

To further illustrate this, think about building a house. Hate crimes is the easiest bill to pass, so it’s our foundation. Passing ENDA, repealing DADT, amending the Real ID Act and PPIA are the walls. Ending discrimination against transgender veterans in the VA is the plumbing and wiring. Civil unions is the roof structure and marriage is the shingles. You don’t build a house upside down. Even butch lesbians can tell you that. Why is it so difficult for our “managers� to understand this?

http://www.washblade.com:80/2007/8-24/view/columns/11121.cfm

Dear AFA-Michigan supporter,

And thanks to you for your ongoing support!

Gary Glenn
AFA-Michigan

DETROIT FREE PRESS
Detroit, Michigan
July 12, 2007

Nothing dishonest about gay marriage ban
by Gary Glenn and Patrick Gillen

Michigan voters in 2004 overwhelmingly approved a Marriage Protection Amendment to our state Constitution: “To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose.”

No matter how often homosexual activists and Free Press editorial writers claim otherwise, supporters of the amendment clearly stated before the 2004 election that it would prohibit public employers from offering benefits to homosexual partners of government employees based on recognizing such relationships as equal or similar to marriage.

Regarding “employee benefits accorded to domestic partners by some municipalities and universities,” the Free Press reported in September 2004: “Proponents and opponents of the amendment say they would be prohibited to the extent they mimic benefits for married employees.”

The campaign committee opposing the marriage amendment issued a pre-election news release: “The Coalition for a Fair Michigan said they were happy to find common ground with the American Family Association of Michigan, a lead proponent of the proposed amendment that would ban legal recognition of any relationships other than opposite-sex marriage. …(B)oth sides agreed the amendment would … eliminate government-sanctioned domestic partnership benefits.”

The Free Press itself provided proof of voter understanding and intent, reporting in October 2004 that its own poll showed “support for (the amendment) was at 53% … (while) … even more (54%) say local governments and universities should not provide benefits, such as health and life insurance, to the partners of gay and lesbian employees.”

The central purpose of the Marriage Protection Amendment was to protect the unique social and legal standing of the institution of marriage between a man and a woman by prohibiting government recognition of any other relationship as equal or similar to marriage. As amendment supporters said before and after the election, government recognition is the issue, not benefits. And nothing about the amendment prevents government employers from offering benefits to anyone they please, so long as it’s not based on recognizing homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage.

Yet ever since Michigan voters overwhelmingly approved the amendment, the losers in that election have brazenly tried to rewrite history, misrepresenting and falsely accusing amendment supporters in the process.

For example, marriage amendment campaign leader Marlene Elwell truthfully explained before the election that the amendment has “nothing to do with taking benefits away.”

For 2 1/2 years, homosexual activists and their media allies have falsely accused Elwell of lying. Until now.

Last month, prominent amendment opponents responded to a state Appeals Court ruling by finally admitting that what we and Elwell and Attorney General Mike Cox have said on this issue has been right all along.

Jay Kaplan of the American Civil Liberties Union in Michigan, who filed the lawsuit challenging the amendment, admitted that “even under the Appeals Court ruling, benefits can be offered but have to be done in a way which does not recognize same-sex partners or relationships.” Kalamazoo Alliance for Equality, a homosexual activist group, admitted that the court “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.”

Public employers who earlier claimed otherwise dramatically announced that they plan to continue benefits simply by rewriting eligibility requirements. Other opponents now admit the truth. Free Press editorial writers should join them, by editorially apologizing for over two years of falsely accusing Marriage Protection Amendment leaders and falsely claiming Michiganians weren’t smart enough to know what they were doing when they voted to constitutionally protect marriage.

GARY GLENN of Midland is president of the American Family Association of Michigan. PATRICK GILLEN of Ann Arbor is litigation counsel for the Thomas More Law Center. They are coauthors of Michigan’s voter-approved Marriage Protection Amendment. Write to them in care of the Free Press Editorial Page, 600 W. Fort St., Detroit 48226 or oped@freepress.com.

http://www.freep.com:80/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070712/OPINION02/707120373/1068/OPINION

“People who support traditional marriage say they oppose legally recognizing domestic partners, particularly same-sex couples, through benefits because it affords them rights that should be reserved for married people. …Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan and one of the writers of the state’s amendment, says advocates wanted to ban gay marriage after neighboring Ontario, Canada, approved gay marriage in 2003. ‘We didn’t want individuals in homosexual relationships to go across the bridge, get married and then file lawsuits in Michigan demanding recognition of a marriage,’ he says.”

USA TODAY
Washington, D.C.
June 19, 2007

Michigan domestic partners face tough choices
by Marisol Bello, USA TODAY

Five years ago, JoLinda Jach and her partner, Barbara Ramber, had the same worries that every working couple with children faces: how to balance work and day care.

They decided that Ramber would stay home with their son and daughter and work part-time as a city bus driver. They could manage it, they thought, because Jach’s employer, the city of Kalamazoo, offered health benefits to partners of gay employees.

But come June 30, Ramber’s health care benefits will end.

A Michigan court ruled in February that public employers may not offer benefits to same-sex partners of employees because the state’s constitutional ban on gay marriage recognized only a marriage between a man and a woman. Michigan public employers offered domestic partnership benefits only to same-sex couples. Now Jach and Ramber have to decide whether to pay for day care so Ramber can work full-time to get benefits or pay for low-cost insurance that will cover Ramber only in emergencies so she can stay home with the children.

“This is devastating for us,” says Jach, a systems analyst with the city of Kalamazoo for 19 years. “And it’s scary for Barbara. … She changed her whole life based on the fact that we would have benefits. We were doing what we thought was best for our kids.” Jach is one of 21 public employees in Michigan with same-sex partners who have sued the state to keep their health benefits.

Their case, which they are appealing to the state Supreme Court, will set a standard for other states with similar amendments over whether public employers can offer benefits to their employees’ domestic partners, advocates on both sides of the issue say. For gay rights advocates, the pullback on benefits was an inevitable consequence after a flurry of states approved amendments banning gay marriage.

“These amendments are clearly intended to go way beyond the question of who can get married,” says Matt Coles, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s lesbian and gay rights projects. “We expect these issues to come up in more states, particularly now that the Michigan Court of Appeals has given this extremely broad interpretation.”

People who support traditional marriage say they oppose legally recognizing domestic partners, particularly same-sex couples, through benefits because it affords them rights that should be reserved for married people.

“The other side wants the same recognition as marriage, and obtaining domestic partner benefits is an important step in their overall goal,” says Michael Johnson, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, which has worked to place many of the amendments on the ballots. “That’s why it is so vigorously opposed.”

In Michigan, the ruling covers all unmarried couples, but the state’s public employers did not give partner benefits to straight couples. “They did it that way because they believe heterosexual couples have the option of getting married,” says Jay Kaplan, an ACLU attorney representing the 21 employees. Employers including Kalamazoo and Michigan State University are trying to find other criteria to offer the benefits without contradicting the amendment.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan and one of the writers of the state’s amendment, says advocates wanted to ban gay marriage after neighboring Ontario, Canada, approved gay marriage in 2003.

“We didn’t want individuals in homosexual relationships to go across the bridge, get married and then file lawsuits in Michigan demanding recognition of a marriage,” he says.

Court challenges have been filed in other states with constitutional bans on gay marriage. In Ohio, State Rep. Tom Brinkman sued Miami University in Oxford for offering same-sex partner benefits. “I just don’t want there to be a special class for homosexuals,” says Brinkman, a Republican from Cincinnati. “That runs contrary to the constitutional amendment.”

Miami University professor Yvonne Keller and her partner, Susan Gray, say they don’t want a special class for gays and lesbians, either. “We should have as much rights as any family,” Keller says.

If the suit is successful, Gray and the couple’s 1-year-old daughter, Rylie, born to Gray, will not have health coverage through the university. “My heart sinks when I think about it,” Keller says. The couple’s other daughter, Dylan, 2, is Keller’s biological child, so her benefits are not jeopardized. “We have a lot of anxiety and fear and anger over having to deal with it.”

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-06-19-ohio-domestic_N.htm

(more…)

STATE NEWS
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
June 6, 2007

MSU stops issuing same-sex domestic partnership benefits
by Colleen Maxwell

The university will no longer offer health insurance benefits to employees in same-sex domestic partnerships not covered by a health care agreement between MSU and the Coalition of Labor Organizations.

About 54 people use domestic partnership benefits at MSU, said Pam Beemer, assistant vice president for Human Resources.

The contract they operate under will expire within the next few years.

Some employees might leave the university if their partner’s health coverage permanently expires.

“I know it’s an important reason for lots of people - it’s why people consider MSU a good place to work,” said Kitty O’Neil, a research assistant in the plant and crop soil science department, who uses domestic partnership benefits.

O’Neil and her partner won’t be affected by the ruling until 2009, when her union contract with the university is renewed.

“A lot of individuals will lose health insurance and family security,” she said.

The university’s decision follows a Feb. 2 Michigan Court of Appeals ruling that stated the constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage also would ban domestic partnership benefits for partners of employees at public universities and institutions.

The city of Kalamazoo will eliminate its domestic partnership benefits because of an order from the Michigan Supreme Court. The court will rule at a later date on a Michigan Court of Appeals decision to uphold state Attorney General Mike Cox’s legal opinion, which stated public employers could no longer offer same-sex domestic partnership benefits. The opinion stems from the passage of Proposal 2.

“The law is the law,” said Rusty Hill, Cox’s spokesman. “We were asked our opinion - that’s the way we ruled.”

Proposal 2 was an amendment to the state constitution that defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Michigan voters passed it in the 2004 general election.

Five MSU employees are part of the lawsuit being bounced through Michigan’s court system - each is vying to keep same-sex domestic partnership benefits statewide. The suit was filed by the state’s chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union.

Public employers can provide same-sex domestic partnership benefits, but they have to use a different approach, such as buying insurance, said Jay Kaplan, staff attorney for the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Project of ACLU Michigan.

“They never said you can’t buy coverage,” he said, adding that places like the city of Kalamazoo chose not to do that.

Kaplan said he doesn’t believe it was the voters’ intention to take away health insurance.

“In some instances, that’s the effect of this decision,” he said.

MSU has done all it can to be responsive to court opinions as they come, Beemer said.

“We worry about all of our employees and maintaining benefits,” she said.

According to the Human Resources Web site, MSU will “continue to monitor legal developments in this area and will revise its policies where appropriate once a final ruling has been provided by the Michigan Supreme Court.”

Beemer said it’s difficult to predict what MSU will do once all rulings are final, but the university is working to determine what options are available.

O’Neil said she could potentially see herself, and other employees, leaving MSU if the potential for same-sex domestic partnership benefits ends.

“Several other states actually made marriage and civil unions legal,” she said.

“It’s going to have more of a negative image against Michigan in the future.”

http://www.statenews.com/article.phtml?pk=41263

“Last month when legislation (for the first time allowing homosexual couples to adopt children in Michigan) was voted out of the House Judiciary subcommittee, religious conservatives began fighting it. ‘We think the law should be changed to not allow homosexuals to adopt as individuals,’ said Gary Glenn, head of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan. ‘It is not in the best interest of the child.’ …An internal analysis by the Michigan Department of Human Services showed second parent adoptions, if approved, likely would not have an impact on the state’s foster children available for adoption, spokeswoman Maureen Sorbet said.”

Bill Sparks Culture War
Proposal would allow second adult
in nontraditional family to adopt

by Kim Kozlowski
SOUTHFIELD — Karen Oosterhous is due to give birth to her first child in July and wants her lesbian partner to adopt him, so he can have a second legal parent.

But Michigan law only allows married couples and single people to adopt children, prompting legislation to allow adoptions by a second adult raising a child in a nontraditional family — including unmarried couples, the partners of gay couples or two relatives.

The issue has ignited a culture war between religious conservatives and children’s advocates. Opponents say gay couples are inappropriate adoptive parents and changing the law would threaten the institution of marriage.

“The state should not be lowering their standards so they can unload kids in homes that are not healthy for them,” said Brian Rooney, spokesman for the conservative Thomas More Law Center in Ann Arbor.

Advocates counter that gay people already can adopt children in Michigan, and they provide loving homes.

“This is not a gay issue at all,” said Sean Kosofsky of the Triangle Foundation, a gay advocacy organization. “It is about children’s rights.”

‘I can’t tell you the sadness’

The effort, known as second parent adoptions, is aimed at providing more prospective parents to the 4,500 foster children available for adoption in Michigan, advocates say.

They also say changing the law would offer children who are being raised in nontraditional homes options for better health care, backup benefits in the event of the death or disability of the primary caregiver and a second person who can legally handle emergency or everyday decisions.

“As of now, my partner does not have any legal rights to our child,” said Oosterhous, 36.

“That covers so many things, even the right to pick him up from day care.”

As an attorney who previously did pro-bono work for hospice organizations, bill sponsor Rep. Paul Condino, D-Southfield, had to tell dying mothers that they would have to relinquish their rights to their children in order for their unmarried partners to adopt and raise them.

“I can’t tell you the sadness,” said Condino, adding it has bipartisan support in the House and support is growing in the Senate.

Many child welfare agencies also support it because they often work with relatives and unmarried partners caring for children.

“We can license live-together partners to foster children,” said Robert Ennis, head of the Ennis Center for Children. “They have these kids for three or four years. Then we have to tell them — ‘Only one of you can adopt.’ It’s ridiculous. How you can you be good enough to be foster parents but only one of you can adopt?”

Best interests of child cited

Second parent adoption laws have been passed in nine states, and a handful of other states are considering similar legislation. Local supporters include the State Bar of Michigan Family Law Section, the Michigan Department of Human Services and Gov. Jennifer Granholm.

“The best interests of children are always paramount,” said Liz Boyd, Granholm’s spokeswoman.

But last month when legislation was voted out of the House Judiciary subcommittee, religious conservatives began fighting it.

“We think the law should be changed to not allow homosexuals to adopt as individuals,” said Gary Glenn, head of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan. “It is not in the best interest of the child.”

Brad Snavely, executive director of the Michigan Family Forum, added: “It’s really not about whether unmarried people love children or can care adequately for children. The legislation would undermine the institution of marriage.”

If opponents of the legislation invest the same amount of energy into recruiting adoptive parents or adopting children themselves as they do fighting gays, Michigan’s foster care caseload could be dramatically reduced, said Beverly Davidson, head of the Coalition for Adoption Rights Equality, which is working to pass the law.

“We have too many kids in desperate situations to be spewing that kind of nonsense,” Davidson said. “It’s an abomination they want to spend their money and time to ban kids from getting adopted.”

Impact on foster kids

In 2006, 2,589 children were adopted from Michigan’s foster care system. Of those, 1,621 went to married couples, 907 to single females and 61 to single males.

An internal analysis by the Michigan Department of Human Services showed second parent adoptions, if approved, likely wouldn’t have an impact on the state’s foster children available for adoption, spokeswoman Maureen Sorbet said.

Even so, Debraha Watson, a former foster child who aged out of the system, supports the legislation.

The five foster homes Watson lived in were headed by married couples, but she was abused sexually in one and physically in another.

“It’s about stability for the child and having a person that can provide them with guidance and direction and love,” said Watson, a Westland resident. “You cannot blanketly say only a traditional mother and father can give that.”

Hot topic

Legislation that would allow a second adult to adopt a child has come under fire. Here’s what both sides are saying:

Advocates
* It would give adopted children numerous rights from two legal caregivers.
* It would give children more opportunities to be adopted from foster care.
* It is not a gay issue; single gays already can adopt children.

Opponents
* Gay couples are inappropriate parents.
* Institution of marriage would be threatened.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070606/METRO/706060394/1009/METRO02

“The City of Kalamazoo no longer will offer health insurance benefits to the partners of gay workers, becoming Michigan’s first public employer to take away such benefits in the wake of a 2004 ban against gay marriage. Kalamazoo City Manager Kenneth Collard confirmed Monday that the city will eliminate domestic partner benefits for four non-unionized employees effective June 30. He cited a May 23 order from the Michigan Supreme Court. …Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said public universities and state and local governments should follow Kalamazoo’s lead and ‘honor the will of the voters.’”

ASSOCIATED PRESS
Lansing, Michigan
June 4, 2007

Kalamazoo no longer will provide health benefits to gay partners
by David Eggert

LANSING, Mich. (AP) — The City of Kalamazoo no longer will offer health insurance benefits to the partners of gay workers, becoming Michigan’s first public employer to take away such benefits in the wake of a 2004 ban against gay marriage.

Kalamazoo City Manager Kenneth Collard confirmed Monday that the city will eliminate domestic partner benefits for four non-unionized employees effective June 30. He cited a May 23 order from the Michigan Supreme Court. The high court agreed to hear an appeal of a state Court of Appeals decision blocking same-sex benefits, but it also let the earlier decision take immediate effect. “We have no authority, as being a creation of the state, to ignore the (Michigan) constitution as defined,” Collard told The Associated Press. The affected employees were informed last week and their partners have about a month to get other insurance, Collard said.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said public universities and state and local governments should follow Kalamazoo’s lead and “honor the will of the voters.” Some public employers have said they will not take away domestic partner benefits until the case is decided once and for all.

The appeals court in February said Michigan’s 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment against gay marriage also bars domestic partner benefits for the same-sex partners of public employees. Twenty-one gay couples represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan appealed to the state Supreme Court, arguing the public never intended to ban same-sex benefits. A message seeking comment was left with the ACLU Monday.

Sixteen of the plaintiffs work for employers who offer same-sex benefits — Kalamazoo, various universities and a county health department covering the Lansing area. Another five plaintiffs are employed by the state, which in 2004 agreed to start providing same-sex benefits but delayed them until courts clear up their legality.

Kalamazoo has been at the center of the dispute over same-sex benefits in Michigan. In March 2005, Republican Attorney General Mike Cox interpreted the city’s domestic partner policy as violating the constitutional amendment, prompting a lawsuit by a Washington-based AFL-CIO group called National Pride at Work and others. Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm supports providing the benefits.

Up to 20 public universities, community colleges, school districts and local governments in Michigan have same-sex benefits policies. Universities, which employ most of those affected, argue that not being able to offer the benefits will hurt recruitment of faculty and staff.

At least 375 university and government employees in Michigan have partners who qualify for same-sex benefits.

http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/news-44/1180986013217020.xml&storylist=newsmichigan

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Monday, June 4, 2007

CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978
City Manager Ken Collard 269-337-8047
City Attorney A. Lee Kirk 269-337-8185

Amendment co-author welcomes city’s compliance

Family group applauds Kalamazoo cancellation of homosexual benefits,
urges Granholm, universities, local government officials to follow suit

Amendment still allows benefits offered to all employees

KALAMAZOO — A statewide family values group Monday commended Kalamazoo city officials — thirty-one months after Michigan voters approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman — for finally obeying a court order prohibiting the city from recognizing homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for purposes of providing taxpayer-financed spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of city employees.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan and one of two co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by nearly 60 percent of Michigan voters in 2004, said he is “encouraged that politicians and bureaucrats intent on forcing taxpayers to subsidize homosexual behavior among government employees are finally concluding that legally, they have no choice but to obey the law and honor the will of the people.”

“We urge Gov. Granholm and other state and local government and university officials to follow Kalamazoo’s lead, honor the will of the voters, and obey the Supreme Court’s order that the ruling prohibiting taxpayer-financed government benefits based on recognizing homosexual relationships is now in effect,” Glenn said.

Kalamazoo City Manager Kenneth P. Collard in a May 31st memorandum notified Mayor Hannah McKinney and members of the Kalamazoo City Commission that spousal-type benefits for the homosexual partners of a handful of city employees will end June 30th.

“Therefore, effective June 30, 2007, the City is terminating domestic partner benefits.”

(more…)