AFA Michigan.org. American Family Association of Michigan  
Home
About AFA Michigan
Media Center
Links
Contact AFA Michigan
Support AFA Michigan
AFAMI News

Search


Marriage amendment coauthor warns children will be harmed and taxpayers hit with increased social costs if federal judge overturns vote of the people

March 7, 2013

Contact:  Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

DETROIT, Mich. — A coauthor of Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment Thursday warned that future generations of children will be harmed and taxpayers hit with the costs of increased law enforcement, social services, and welfare programs if a single federal judge redefines marriage and overturns the state constitutional provision supported by 2.7 million voters in 2004.

The amendment, added to Michigan’s constitution with the backing of nearly 60 percent of the vote on the November 2004 ballot, reads:

“To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for 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.”

U.S. District Judge Bernard Friedman is scheduled to hear arguments Thursday at Wayne State University in a lawsuit in which a homosexual couple is asking the court to declare the amendment in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Gary Glenn, Midland, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said “our society and future generations of children will suffer significant harm if this federal judge, this one man, is arrogant enough to believe the authors of our Constitution intended him to have the raw power to overturn the will and common sense of 2.7 million voters.”

Glenn, who first proposed the amendment in 2003 and was one of its two co-authors, last week debated the homosexual couple’s attorney, Dana Nessel, live on Fox 2 Detroit’s public affairs television talk show “Let It Rip.” (Click to watch nine-minute video: http://goo.gl/lHCMw )

Glenn Thursday said the lesbian couple bringing the lawsuit “may each be able to play the role of a mother, but neither one is capable of being a father. The role model relationship we should continue to uphold and protect and encourage as the social ideal, as what’s best for every child, is to have both a mother and a father who committed to each other and to their children in marriage.”

“They’re not asking for access to the institution of marriage,” he said, “they’re asking a single judge to overrule the people of Michigan and redefine what marriage is for all of society.” 

He said legally redefining marriage to include homosexual couples would result in legal recognition and thus social encouragement of homosexual relationships in which children would be “intentionally, on purpose, by design, denied having one or the other, either a mother or a father.”

“That radical new social model tells women that the uniquely feminine qualities they bring to parenting are insignificant and unimportant to a child’s emotional and social needs, something a second father could do just as well, and that young girls are just as well off not having a mother,” Glenn said.  “People with common sense instinctively know that’s not true, nor is it true of the unique qualities men bring to parenting. Decades of experience and social ills prove that not having a father in the home has caused serious harm to children and to society.”

“Social science has always found that traditional marriage produces children who are healthier, safer, more financially secure, less likely to be on welfare, unemployment, or drugs, and less likely to get arrested,” Glenn said. “If we as a society return to promoting and incentivizing the moral and social virtues of one-man, one-woman marriage, we’ll need fewer police, fewer social services, and less welfare for future generations. It’s not just the right thing to do.  For taxpayers, it’s the smart thing to do.”

“But as society now promotes homosexual relationships, new studies have found that children raised by homosexual couples are far more likely to live in poverty, be on welfare and unemployed, and be involved in criminal activity,” he said.  “If that’s the future we choose for coming generations of children, taxpayers will be forced to pay for more law enforcement, more social services, and more welfare programs.”

Glenn said social science has consistently found that the best, safest, healthiest, most secure environment for a child is with its married biological mother and father, in which children do better in school, are mentally, emotionally, and physically healthier, and are less likely to use drugs, become juvenile delinquents, or be involved in teen pregnancy.

He also cited peer-reviewed university and other studies which found that children raised in households headed by adults in a homosexual relationship fare poorer on a wide range of factors, which he said inevitably lead to increased costs to taxpayers and society at large.

University of Texas-Austin

University of Texas-Austin sociologist Mark Regnerus last summer reported the results of a study that specifically compared adults who were raised by homosexual couples with adults raised by their biological mother and father. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0049089X12000610

Fox News reported regarding the study: “Adult children of gay couples were two to four times as likely to be on public assistance, more than twice as likely to be unemployed and more than twice as likely to have contemplated suicide.” http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/09/03/u-texas-backs-professor-in-battle-with-gay-blogger/

Family Research Council’s analysis of the UT-A study also reported that the adult children of homosexual couples were found to be “much more likely to have received welfare.” (The study found that while only 17 percent of adults raised by their mother and father had been on welfare, 69 percent of adults raised by lesbian couples and 57 percent of adults raised by homosexual men had received public assistance.)

According to FRC, the study also found that adults raised by homosexual couples had lower educational attainment, less safety and security and more ongoing “negative impact” in the family in which they were raised, and were arrested more often, while daughters of homosexual couples reported more sexual partners, both male and female.

In comparison to adults raised by their biological mother and father, adults raised by lesbian couples in particular – who made up 71 percent of the sample of adults raised by a homosexual couple – were found:

- almost four times more likely to be currently on public assistance.

- more than three times more likely to be unemployed.

– ten times more likely to have been ‘touched sexually by a parent or other adult caregiver.”

- nearly four times more likely to have been ‘physically forced’ by someone to have sex against their will.

- more likely to use marijuana and to have pled guilty to a non-minor criminal offense.

– nearly four times more likely to identify as something other than heterosexual.

 – more likely to be cohabiting rather than married, and three times more likely to have had an affair    while married or cohabiting.

 Kansas State University

Family studies professor Walter Schumm found that children raised by homosexual couples are “far more likely” to engage in homosexual behavior themselves.

As AOL News reported Oct. 17, 2010: “The study on sexual orientation…says that gay and lesbian parents are far more likely to have children who become gay. …(W)hen the study restricted the results so that they included only children in their 20s — presumably after they’d been able to work out any adolescent confusion or experimentation — 58 percent of the children of lesbians called themselves gay, and 33 percent of the children of gay men called themselves gay. About 5 to 10 percent of the children of straight parents call themselves gay, Schumm says. …He found that when communities welcome gays and lesbians, ’89 percent feature higher rates of homosexual behavior.’ … And across all his data…he noticed how lesbians begat more lesbians. …Schumm also finds evidence of gay mothers pushing their daughters, upset over a relationship with a man, to ‘try out women.'”

University of Southern California

USC researchers Judith Stacey and Timothy J. Biblarz found that children raised by homosexual parents are more likely to engage in homosexual behavior themselves and that females raised by homosexual parents are more promiscuous. 

“(A) greater number of young adult children raised by lesbians had participated in or considered a same-sex relationship or had an attraction to the same sex. …Adolescent and young adult girls raised by lesbian mothers appear to be more sexually adventurous and less chaste,” the study found, according to USC News. http://www.usc.edu/uscnews/stories/6908.html

The Boston Phoenix, a homosexual activist newspaper, reported that “as Paula Ettlebrick of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force puts it, Stacy and Biblarz have ‘burst the bubble of one of the best-kept community secrets.'”

Associated Press national correspondent David Crary reported June 16, 2001: “The new study by two University of Southern California sociologists says children with lesbian or gay parents…are probably more likely to explore homosexual activity themselves. …Kate Kendall, head of the San Francisco-based National Center for Lesbian Rights…urged lesbians and gays to overcome any uneasiness they might have about the report. ‘If in fact our kids are somewhat more likely to identify as lesbian and gay — if we’re ashamed of that outcome, it means we’re ashamed of ourselves,’ Kendall said.”

Glenn said children being raised to be more likely to engage in homosexual behavior — as USC and Kansas State researchers found — would subject them to greater risk of the severe health consequences experienced by individuals involved in such behavior, including higher incidence of domestic violence, mental illness (Journal of the American Medical Association), substance abuse, serious life-threatening diseases such as HIV/AIDS (which former National Gay and Lesbian Task Force executive director Matt Foreman called a “gay disease”), anal cancer, and hepatitis, and according to Oxford University’s Journal of Epidemiology, premature death by up to 20 years. http://goo.gl/vIOqq

Glenn also said that if federal courts redefine marriage as anything other than between one man and one woman, “there will thereafter be no rational, reasonable, logical, or legally consistent basis for refusing the next special interest group’s demand to redefine marriage again, this time to include polygamy and group marriage.”

“Polygamists and bisexuals will claim the same thing these homosexual plaintiffs are asserting now, that they too have a ‘right’ to redefine marriage to let them marry as many people as they claim to love, no matter the impact and harm to society and future generations of children.”

 # # #

 

 

NEWS — Family group applauds Schuette lawsuit to block taxpayer subsidy of state workers' homosexual relationships

May 6, 2011
Please take a minute right now to e-mail Attorney General Bill Schuette and simply THANK him for taking this strong decisive action to stop a rogue state agency from forcing Michigan taxpayers to subsidize homosexual activity among state employees!

miag@michigan.gov

Family group applauds Schuette lawsuit to block taxpayer subsidy of state employees’ homosexual relationships

Calls on lawmakers to limit spousal-type benefits only to married employees, as Schuette bill attempted in 1998

LANSING, Mich. — In the face of an impending $1.8 billion deficit in the state budget, a statewide family values Friday applauded Attorney General Bill Schuette’s announced lawsuit to “protect taxpayers from being forced by the Michigan Civil Service Commission to fund yet another multi-million dollar expansion of employment benefits for government employees, the most recent driven by an obviously ideological fixation, no matter how much it costs, on forcing taxpayers to subsidize homosexual relationships that many taxpayers consider immoral and characterized by behavior that threatens both personal and public health.”

Gary Glenn, Midland, president of the American Family Association of Michigan and one of two co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by voters in 2004, said:

“On behalf of the overwhelming majority of voters who approved Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment, we salute Attorney General Schuette for taking strong, decisive action to prevent a rogue state agency from recognizing and treating homosexual activity among government employees as something equal or similar to marriage. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize government employees’ homosexual relationships under any circumstance, but at a time when the state is facing a nearly two-billion dollar deficit, forcing taxpayers to spend an additional $11 million dollars to do so is particularly unconscionable.”

“When our state is already drowning in red ink, forcing taxpayers to fund new benefits for any new group of beneficiaries — but especially a group medically proven to be at severely elevated risk of substance abuse and expensive life-threatening diseases such as AIDS, cancer, and hepatitis — is all the more unthinkable and will further increase both the state budget deficit and the cost of health care.”

He pointed to a national homosexual activist group’s embarrassing experience with the cost of its own same-sex benefits plan. According to the Washington Blade, a “gay” advocacy newspaper in the nation’s capital, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force — which is critical of employers who cite cost in refusing to offer same-sex benefits — was forced in 2003 to cut back its own same-sex benefits plan, calling it “prohibitively expensive” and unsustainable. http://www.cnsnews.com/node/5503

“When the NGLTF’s unionized staff threatened to go public with a dispute over domestic partner benefits,” the Blade reported, “(executive director Lorri) Jean called for dropping a longstanding NGLTF policy of paying 100 percent of the health insurance premium for staff members’ domestic partners, saying the benefit was prohibitively expensive…(and)…a 100 percent benefit plan for domestic partners could not be sustained, Jean said, at a time when the group had a $500,000 debt.” (Washington Blade, March 7, 2003)

Glenn, one of two co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2004, said that because of the scientifically proven social, financial, and health benefits of marriage between a man and a woman, the state should statutorily restrict spousal-type state employment benefits exclusively to married employees as an incentive to marry.

“Every study ever done proves that traditional marriage results in increased health and financial security for both men and women, and that their children are healthier, do better in school, and are less likely as teens to use drugs, get pregnant, or commit juvenile crime, all of which reduces the cost to taxpayers for law enforcement, social welfare, and other government programs,” Glenn said.

“Getting married is also the single biggest factor in avoiding or escaping poverty,” Glenn said, citing a study published five months ago by the Heritage Foundation which found that in Michigan, children of single mothers are more than six times more likely to live in poverty than children of married parents. http://www.heritage.org/Multimedia/InfoGraphic/2010/Marriage-Poverty-Charts/Marriage-and-Poverty-in-Michigan

“Rather than force taxpayers to subsidize unmarried relationships, Michigan should as a matter of fiscal policy alone reduce the size and expense of government by doing everything possible to encourage and incentivize traditional marriage,” he said. “That includes saving money by restricting tax-funded employment benefits exclusively to state employees who are married, specifically to reward and encourage employees to get married and stay married.”

“More marriage means less government, less government spending, and less of a burden on taxpayers,” he said.

Glenn noted that a pre-election poll by the Detroit Free Press in 2004 found that a larger percentage of the state’s population opposed tax-financed same-sex benefits for government employees than supported the amendment itself, which ended up passing with nearly 60 percent of the vote. (“Gay marriage ban headed for passage,” Detroit Free Press, Oct. 2, 2004)

Glenn said that the Civil Service Commission’s approved benefits plan, by drawing the eligibility requirements for such benefits so narrowly — with the express purpose being to cover the homosexual partners of state employees, advocates of the policy said, while excluding family members such as parents and siblings — the commission’s plan may have granted legal recognition of unmarried homosexual and heterosexual relationships as being “similar to” marriage, a step the state Supreme Court ruled in 2008 is prohibited by the amendment. Attesting to its agreement with Glenn’s views as a co-author as to the amendment’s intent, the court quoted or cited AFA-Michigan’s legal brief on the issue three times in its decision in Pride at Work (AFL-CIO) v. Granholm.

“As we made clear in public statements as far back as the ballot campaign for the amendment in 2004, we believe an unrestricted benefits policy that allows a state employee to cover anyone he chooses, including family members such as parents, siblings, or grandparents, probably would be constitutional since it obviously would not be based on treating the employee’s relationship as similar to a marriage,” he said. “But that’s not what the Civil Service Commission did.”

But there’s a big distinction between the question of constitutionality and whether such a plan is good public policy, Glenn said. AFA-Michigan would oppose such an unrestricted plan, even if constitutional, because it would increase the tax burden on Michigan families even more than the Civil Service Commission’s plan. Attorneys for the University of Michigan agreed in the Pride at Work case, arguing in court that because of the cost, the university should not be compelled to broadly offer benefits to any individual an employee chooses in order to be allowed to continue covering employees’ homosexual partners.

* Even if a court finds that the Civil Service Commission plan is allowed under the Marriage Protection Amendment, that doesn’t mean the state constitution requires such benefits be offered, Glenn said. Ideally, the state should instead enact legislation such as that Schuette himself introduced over a decade ago as a member of the state Senate, restricting taxpayer-financed state employment benefits only to the spouses of married employees, with the obvious effect of statutorily prohibiting the commission’s unmarried partner benefits plan in future collective bargaining agreements with state employees. Schuette’s legislation passed the Senate in 1998 but was not brought up for consideration by the House.
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ugn1xznd4dfojr451snwnoik))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=1997-SB-0757&query=on

Metro Times, a Detroit newsweekly, reported in 1999: “State Sen. Bill Schuette, R-Midland, is pushing legislation prohibiting employees of state-funded entities from receiving domestic partner benefits. That legislation evolved from an earlier Schuette effort to target the extension of such benefits at Wayne State University, the University of Michigan and other institutions. The attorney general ruled that public colleges and universities could be barred from extending the benefits only if there was a law against it for all employees of entities receiving state funds. …Ginotti says the senator wants to stop the use of taxes to support benefits for unmarried partners because their bond isn’t legally recognized.” http://www2.metrotimes.com/news/story.asp?id=10989

The Post newspaper at Ohio University reported in 1997: “When Michigan State University became the third Michigan university in September — preceded by Wayne State University and the University of Michigan — to grant such benefits, backlash arose from a state senator. Although the decision was supported by the MSU Board of Trustees after more than two years of research and debate, state Sen. Bill Schuette, R-Midland, created a plan to penalize universities for funding benefits to partners of gay and lesbian faculty and staff by not permitting them to use state money to pay for the benefits, according to the MSU State News. Phil Ginotte, Schuette’s spokesman, said the trustees made an unwise decision — ‘a mistake’ that will ‘resonate through the state,’ according to the Sept. 15 issue of the MSU State News.” (Oct. 27, 1997) http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/archives/102797/partners.html

Glenn also dismissed arguments by homosexual activist groups and their political allies that the state must subsidize the homosexual and other unmarried partners of state employees in order to be competitive in hiring.

“Homosexual behavior is not a requirement or indicator of being among the best and brightest. The severe public health consequences alone prove that engaging in such behavior is neither the best or brightest decision, and taxpayers certainly shouldn’t be forced to pay for the medical consequences of such behavior.”

__________________________________________________

 

AG – Schuette Defends Constitutionally-Protected Religious Freedoms on Campus

April 22, 2011
Over Sen. Roger Kahn’s objection, Senate Appropriations Committee acts to stop religious discrimination at Michigan state universities

AFA-Michigan honored Julea Ward at our 2009 banquet for refusing to capitulate to Eastern Michigan University’s demand that she retract her statement of faith.

Read the infuriating transcript of EMU’s kangaroo court proceedings in which academic elites belittled Julea’s faith, mocked her, lectured her on what (they thought) she should believe, and finally expelled her for standing her ground: http://blog.mlive.com/annarbornews_impact/2009/04/EMUhearing_transcript.pdf

The state Senate Appropriations Committee in Lansing Thursday inserted into the higher education budget a provision supported by the American Family Association of Michigan requiring state colleges and universities that offer counseling degrees to report to lawmakers what steps they are taking to ensure the religious conscience rights of students of faith. The House higher ed subcommittee has already approved the same language.

The motion was made by Senator Mark Jansen, R-Grand Rapids, and according to a legislator who watched the proceedings, it passed on a 10 to 6 party line vote with one exception. All Republicans but one voted in favor of the language.

Sen. Roger Kahn, R-Saginaw, was the lone Republican to join all committee Democrats in voting against protecting Michigan college and university students from religious discrimination.

The language is lawmakers’ response to the case of Eastern Michigan University graduate student Julea Ward, an African-American Christian with a 4.3 GPA in the school’s counseling degree program, who was expelled two years ago when she refused to counsel a student who asked for advice on how to improve his homosexual relationship. Ward said being forced to encourage such a relationship would violate her sincerely held religious convictions.

She filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against EMU alleging religious discrimination, which is currently before the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Attorney General Bill Schuette has filed an amicus brief with the court supporting Ward’s lawsuit.

AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn, Midland, commented: “Before the full Senate votes next week, we hope families in Gratiot and Saginaw County will join us in urging Sen. Kahn to stand with Attorney General Schuette and other Republicans in acting to eliminate religious discrimination on campus against students who refuse to compromise their faith and right of conscience.”

Contact Sen. Roger Kahn at senrkahn@senate.michigan.gov or by phone at 517-373-1760.
__________________________________________________

 

Family group calls for AG's opinion, bill to limit benefits only to married state employees

February 4, 2011
Family group calls for AG’s opinion, bill to
limit benefits only to married state employees

Schuette’s legislation from 1998 cited as model
in message to governor, legislative leadership

LANSING, Mich. — In the face of an impending $1.8 billion deficit in the state budget, a statewide family values urged Gov. Rick Snyder and legislative leaders to act to protect taxpayers from being forced to fund yet another multi-million dollar expansion of employment benefits for government employees, the most recent driven by what the group called “an ideological fixation, no matter how much it costs, on forcing taxpayers to subsidize homosexual relationships that many taxpayers consider immoral characterized by behavior that threatens personal and public health.”

Gary Glenn, Midland, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said in a statement sent to Snyder, Senate Majority Leader Randy Richardville, and Speaker of the House Jase Bolger that “when our state is already drowning in red ink, forcing taxpayers to fund new benefits for any new group of beneficiaries — especially one at severely elevated risk of substance abuse and expensive life-threatening diseases such as AIDS, cancer, and hepatitis — is all the more unthinkable and will further increase both the state budget deficit and the cost of health care for everyone.”

He pointed to a national homosexual activist group’s embarrassing experience with the cost of its own same-sex benefits plan. According to the Washington Blade, a “gay” advocacy newspaper in the nation’s capital, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force — which is critical of employers who cite cost in refusing to offer same-sex benefits — was forced in 2003 to cut back its own same-sex benefits plan, calling it “prohibitively expensive” and unsustainable. http://www.cnsnews.com/node/5503

“When the NGLTF’s unionized staff threatened to go public with a dispute over domestic partner benefits,” the Blade reported, “(executive director Lorri) Jean called for dropping a longstanding NGLTF policy of paying 100 percent of the health insurance premium for staff members’ domestic partners, saying the benefit was prohibitively expensive…(and)…a 100 percent benefit plan for domestic partners could not be sustained, Jean said, at a time when the group had a $500,000 debt.” (Washington Blade, March 7, 2003)

Glenn, one of two co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2004, said in the statement to Snyder and legislative leaders that because of the scientifically proven social, financial, and health benefits of marriage between a man and a woman, the state should statutorily restrict state employment benefits exclusively to married employees as an incentive.

“Every study ever done proves that traditional marriage results in increased health and financial security for both men and women, and that their children are healthier, do better in school, and are less likely as teens to use drugs, get pregnant, or commit juvenile crime, all of which reduces the cost to taxpayers for law enforcement, social welfare, and other government programs,” Glenn said.

“Getting married is also the single biggest factor in avoiding or escaping poverty,” Glenn said, citing a study published five months ago by the Heritage Foundation which found that in Michigan, children of single mothers are more than six times more likely to live in poverty than children of married parents. http://www.heritage.org/Multimedia/InfoGraphic/2010/Marriage-Poverty-Charts/Marriage-and-Poverty-in-Michigan)

“Rather than force taxpayers to subsidize unmarried relationships, Michigan should as a matter of fiscal policy alone reduce the size and expense of government by doing everything possible to encourage and incentivize traditional marriage,” he said. “That includes saving money by restricting tax-funded employment benefits exclusively to state employees who are married, specifically to reward and encourage employees to get married and stay married.”

“More marriage means less government, less government spending, and less of a burden on taxpayers,” he said.Glenn in his message to Snyder and legislative leaders specifically urged the following steps:

* Formally request that Attorney General Bill Schuette issue an official opinion — which has the force of law unless overturned in court — on whether the state Civil Service Commission’s approval this month of tax-funded spousal-type benefits for the unmarried cohabitants of state employees violates the Marriage Protection Amendment. A pre-election poll by the Detroit Free Press in 2004 found that a larger percentage of the state’s population opposed tax-financed same-sex benefits for government employees than supported the amendment itself, which ended up passing with nearly 60 percent of the vote. (“Gay marriage ban headed for passage,” Detroit Free Press, Oct. 2, 2004)

Glenn said that by drawing the eligibility requirements for such benefits so narrowly — their express purpose being to cover the homosexual partners of state employees, advocates of the policy said, while excluding family members such as parents and siblings — the commission’s plan may have granted legal recognition of unmarried homosexual and heterosexual relationships as being “similar to” marriage, a step the state Supreme Court ruled in 2008 is prohibited by the amendment. Attesting to its agreement with Glenn’s views as a co-author as to the amendment’s intent, the court quoted or cited AFA-Michigan’s legal brief on the issue three times in its decision in Pride at Work (AFL-CIO) v. Granholm.

“As we made clear in public statements as far back as the ballot campaign for the amendment in 2004, we believe an unrestricted benefits policy that allows a state employee to cover anyone he chooses, including family members such as parents, siblings, or grandparents, probably would be constitutional since it obviously would not be based on treating the employee’s relationship as similar to a marriage,” he said. “But that’s not what the Civil Service Commission did.”

But there’s a big distinction between the question of constitutionality and whether such a plan is good public policy, Glenn said. AFA-Michigan would oppose such an unrestricted plan, even if constitutional, because it would increase the tax burden on Michigan families even more than the Civil Service Commission’s plan. Attorneys for the University of Michigan agreed in the Pride at Work case, arguing in court that because of the cost, the university should not be compelled to broadly offer benefits to any individual an employee chooses in order to be allowed to continue covering employees’ homosexual partners.

* Even if Schuette rules the Civil Service Commission plan is allowed under the Marriage Protection Amendment, that doesn’t mean the state constitution requires such benefits be offered, Glenn said. Ideally, the state should instead enact legislation such as that Schuette himself introduced over a decade ago as a member of the state Senate, restricting taxpayer-financed state employment benefits only to the spouses of married employees, with the obvious effect of statutorily prohibiting the commission’s unmarried partner benefits plan in future collective bargaining agreements with state employees. Schuette’s legislation passed the Senate in 1998 but was not brought up for consideration by the House.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ugn1xznd4dfojr451snwnoik))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=1997-SB-0757&query=on

Metro Times, a Detroit newsweekly, reported in 1999: “State Sen. Bill Schuette, R-Midland, is pushing legislation prohibiting employees of state-funded entities from receiving domestic partner benefits. That legislation evolved from an earlier Schuette effort to target the extension of such benefits at Wayne State University, the University of Michigan and other institutions. The attorney general ruled that public colleges and universities could be barred from extending the benefits only if there was a law against it for all employees of entities receiving state funds. …Ginotti says the senator wants to stop the use of taxes to support benefits for unmarried partners because their bond isn’t legally recognized.” http://www2.metrotimes.com/news/story.asp?id=10989

The Post newspaper at Ohio University reported in 1997: “When Michigan State University became the third Michigan university in September — preceded by Wayne State University and the University of Michigan — to grant such benefits, backlash arose from a state senator. Although the decision was supported by the MSU Board of Trustees after more than two years of research and debate, state Sen. Bill Schuette, R-Midland, created a plan to penalize universities for funding benefits to partners of gay and lesbian faculty and staff by not permitting them to use state money to pay for the benefits, according to the MSU State News. Phil Ginotte, Schuette’s spokesman, said the trustees made an unwise decision — ‘a mistake’ that will ‘resonate through the state,’ according to the Sept. 15 issue of the MSU State News.” (Oct. 27, 1997) http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/archives/102797/partners.html

Glenn also dismissed arguments by homosexual activist groups and their political allies that the state must subsidize the homosexual and other unmarried partners of state employees in order to be competitive in hiring.

“Homosexual behavior is not a requirement or indicator of being among the best and brightest. The severe public health consequences alone prove that engaging in such behavior is neither the best or brightest decision, and taxpayers certainly shouldn’t be forced to pay for the medical consequences of such behavior.”

NEWS — Family PAC targets Drolet, Wenke, VanderKamp, and all are defeated Tuesday

August 3, 2010
Family values PAC wins all its targeted primary races

Three GOP state Senate candidates who opposed Marriage
Protection Amendment were rejected by voters Tuesday

LANSING, Mich. — A statewide family values PAC chaired by a co-author of Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment won all three of the Republican state Senate contests it targeted in Tuesday’s primary election.

Gary Glenn, Midland, chairman of the Campaign for Michigan Families, recorded robocalls criticizing former state Rep. Leon Drolet in Macomb, former state Rep. Lorence Wenke in Kalamazoo, and newcomer Brett VanderKamp in Holland for their opposition to the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by Michigan voters in 2004. The amendment constitutionally defines marriage as only between one man and one woman. Drolet and Wenke were among only three GOP legislators who voted against the amendment that year.

The PAC also placed radio ads criticizing Wenke’s record on other homosexual issues, including his support for legalizing homosexual adoption. Its robocalls in the Kalamazoo district also criticized another candidate in that race, Rep. Larry DeShazor, for being one of only two incumbent Republicans to vote in favor of homosexual activists’ so-called “hate crimes” legislation. Rep. Tonya Schuitmaker, who led the Judiciary Committee debate against the “hate crimes” bill defeated Wenke nearly 2-to-1, with DeShazor bringing up the rear.

Drolet came in third in a four-way primary in Macomb County won by former Rep. Jack Brandenburg, who in 2007 joined Glenn in criticizing Saginaw Valley State University for staging a homosexual-themed play that featured full frontal male nudity, a violation of the state’s indecent exposure statutes. After Glenn raised the issue, Brandenburg threatened to introduce legislation to cut state funding of the university. Glenn’s robocalls and news releases also criticized Drolet for sponsoring legislation to legalize homosexual adoption and to repeal Michigan’s sodomy and “gross indecency” laws, both used by law enforcement to deter homosexual activity in public parks, restrooms, and rest areas, which police say threatens public health.

VanderKamp lost to incumbent Rep. Arlan Meekhoff, a strong proponent of traditional family values endorsed by Campaign for Michigan Families in its robocalls. VanderKamp told a Holland radio station last month that he would vote to put a repeal of the Marriage Protection Amendment on the ballot, that he had “a moral problem” with the state regulating the definition of marriage, and that he couldn’t remember how he personally voted on the amendment on the ballot in 2004.

Both Drolet and Wenke were endorsed in previous races by Triangle Pride PAC, a homosexual activist group based in Detroit which called Drolet its “single strongest supporter” among Republicans in Lansing. Both had been honored as “heroes” at the homosexual Log Cabin Republicans national convention in New Orleans in 2005. The same group presented Wenke an award at its 2007 convention in Denver.
__________________________________________________

MICHIGAN MESSENGER — McManus pushes to end ‘no fault’ divorce

March 6, 2010

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

“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.’”

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

NEWS — Marriage amendment co-author asks court to declare 'hate crime' law unconstitutional

February 3, 2010

Portrait

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Tues., Feb. 2, 2010
CONTACT: Kathleen L. Lynch, Thomas More Law Center
734-827-2001

Suit seeks to block homosexual activists from seeking
prosecution of pastors who oppose homosexual agenda

Marriage amendment co-author asks court to declare “hate crime” law unconstitutional

Group fears Obama judges may agree with homosexual activists’
legal strategy to prosecute religious speech as “inducing” violence

LANSING, Mich. — The new federal “hate crime” law enacted last fall unconstitutionally violates religious free speech rights by threatening to criminalize public opposition to homosexual activists’ political agenda, including so-called homosexual “marriage,” a federal civil rights lawsuit filed Tuesday on behalf of a co-author of Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment and three Christian pastors argues.

(See copy of lawsuit [27 pages] — http://j.mp/bP6AsK — filed by the Thomas More Law Center, a national public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor: www.ThomasMore.org)

Gary Glenn, Midland, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, who co-authored the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by Michigan voters in 2004, is lead plaintiff in the case, which argues that the new federal law unconstitutionally poses a serious threat to religious free speech rights. Glenn in public comments has regularly cited the use of such “hate crime” laws in Europe, Canada, and at the state level in the U.S. to prosecute Christians merely for speaking out against homosexual activists’ political agenda.

Glenn is joined by three plaintiffs: African-American Pastor Levon Yuille of The Bible Church in Ypsilanti and host of Joshua’s Trail, a Detroit radio talk show, Pastor R.B. Ouellette of the 7,000-member First Baptist Church of Bridgeport, and Pastor James Combs of Waterford, who pastors four Christian congregations in Michigan totaling approximately 10,000 members.

Glenn has said that in Michigan, “homosexual activists have clearly and openly admitted that they want to see pastors and others who speak out against the homosexual political agenda criminally prosecuted as ‘accessories’ any time a violent crime is committed against an individual who engages in homosexual behavior or cross-dressing.”

The lawsuit cites a Saginaw News interview in 2005 with prominent homosexual activist Jeffrey Montgomery, former executive director of the Triangle Foundation, a Detroit-based homosexual lobby: The News reported:

“Jeffrey Montgomery is calling out the political extremists and religious fundamentalists whose rhetoric, he says, has fueled a steady rise in hate crimes against gays and lesbians. ‘We’ve seen an increase in vitriolic, vociferous, vehement, demonizing rhetoric against gays and lesbians,’ said Montgomery… ‘The vocal anti-gay activists should be held accountable as accessories to these crimes because, many times, it is their rhetoric that led the perpetrators to believe that their crimes are OK.’ …If a criminal borrows a gun and then uses it to kill someone, the law considers the gun owner an accessory to the crime. So, too, are the people who own the words that incite violence, Montgomery said.” (“Triangle exec decries violence” by Lania Coleman, p. 4A, The Saginaw News, April 27, 2005)

The suit also cites a report by State News, the Michigan State University student newspaper, which quoted another prominent homosexual activist — former Triangle Foundation director of policy Sean Kosofsky — as saying: “We personally believe that the AFA may support the murder of gay, lesbian, and bisexual people.” http://www.statenews.com/article.phtml?pk=6737

The suit also cites a news release issued by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in 2007 which accused Glenn and Cardinal Maida of the Archdiocese of Detroit — merely by having publicly disagreed with homosexual activists’ political agenda on marriage and other issues — of being responsible for inciting the falsely-alleged beating death of a homosexual senior citizen in Detroit. http://thetaskforce.org/press/releases/prMF_022307

“It is appalling hypocrisy 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,” the NGLTF statement said.

Glenn said homosexual activists and their political allies — including Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., who condemned the purported “hate crime” against Anthos on the U.S. Senate floor — were later embarrassed when Detroit police announced they had found no evidence of any assault and the Wayne County Medical Examiner ruled Anthos suffered a blow to the head after falling due to arthritic paralysis of his neck. (Associated Press, March 28, 2007: http://www.randythomas.org/blog/2007/03/hate-crime-or-arthritis.html)

The statements by Montgomery, Kosofsky, and NGLTF “make clear that homosexual activists hope to sell society and the courts on their repressive view that anyone who dares publicly disagree with their political agenda should face the threat of being criminally prosecuted, and they’re not beyond fabricating false ‘hate crime’ claims to do it,” Glenn said.

The lawsuit argues that a pre-existing provision of federal law could be used by homosexual activists and their judicial allies — in conjunction with the new “hate crime” law — to justify such prosecutions.
U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 1, Section 2(a) states: “Whoever commits an offense against the United States or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures its commission, is punishable as a principal.” http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2.html

Dictionary.com defines the word “counsel” to mean “advice, opinion or instruction given in directing the judgment or conduct of another.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/counsel

Dictionary.com defines the word “induce” to mean “to lead or move by persuasion or influence, as to some action or state of mind.” http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/induce

Glenn said under the federal “hate crime” law, “there will no doubt be openly homosexual or sympathetic federal judges appointed by President Obama who agree with homosexual activists’ legal strategy of accusing anyone who non-violently speaks out against homosexual activists’ political agenda of ‘inducing’ criminal activity any time a crime is committed or falsely alleged to be committed against an individual who engages in homosexual behavior or cross-dressing.”

Glenn cited as examples of that concern a group of state-level judges in Michigan whose campaigns were endorsed by homosexual activist groups and who he believes are likely to share the Triangle Foundation’s legal reasoning about criminally prosecuting speech:

* Openly homosexual 36th District Judge Rudy Serra, Wayne County, a former member of the Triangle Foundation’s board of trustees, and 57th District Judge William Baillargeon, Allegan County, a former member of the Triangle Foundation board of advisors.

– Serra: http://www.vendio.com/mesg/read.html?num=28&thread=223286

– Baillargeon: http://web.archive.org/web/20021029115642/www.tri.org/advisors.html

* Triangle Pride PAC, the Triangle Foundations’ affiliated political action committee, also endorsed the following sitting judges in the 2008 election: 15th District Judge Chris Easthope, Washtenaw County; 46th District Judge William Richards, Oakland County; 91st District Judge Elizabeth Church, Chippewa County; Ingham County Circuit Judge Rosemarie Aquilina, Oakland County Circuit Judge Mary Ellen Brennan, Wayne County Circuit Judges Connie Kelley and Lynne Pierce, and Oakland County Prosecutor Jessica Cooper. http://www.pride-pac.org/guide/showall.php

* Michigan Supreme Court Justice Diane Hathaway “supports (homosexual and cross-dressing) rights and issues and was strongly endorsed by” Between the Lines, a homosexual activist newsmagazine in Detroit. Circuit Court Judges Christopher Yates and Donald Shelton were also endorsed by Between the Lines in 2008, as were District Court Judges Bill Richards and Elizabeth Church. http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=32861

* Ingham County Circuit Judge Joyce Dragunchuk — whose 2005 ruling in support of homosexual activists’ lawsuit against the state Marriage Protection Amendment was overturned by the Michigan Court of Appeals — was endorsed by both Triangle Pride PAC and another homosexual activist group, the Lansing Association for Human Rights.
__________________________________________________

NEWS — LANSING — Family group concerned Kuipers, Van Woerkom may support "gay rights" language Thursday

December 17, 2009

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., Dec. 16, 2009
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978
Sen. Wayne Kuipers 517-373-6920
Sen. Jerry Van Woerkom 517-373-1635

Family group concerned Kuipers, Van Woerkom may support “gay rights” language in school funding bill

Action expected Thursday as homosexual activists use concerns over student safety as Trojan Horse for “sexual orientation” agenda

LANSING — A statewide family values organization Wednesday expressed concern that two Republicans representing the GOP-controlled state Senate on a legislative conference committee may support adding “gay rights” language to a public school funding bill under the guise of protecting students from bullying, the first time ever such language would appear anywhere in state law.

The American Family Association of Michigan is asking its supporters to contact their own senators Thursday as well as Senate Education Committee Chairman Wayne Kuipers, R-Holland, and Sen. Jerry Van Woerkom, R-Norton Shores, the two Republican members of a conference committee who Thursday will negotiate with representatives of the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives on the final version of “Race to the Top” legislation that would qualify Michigan for hundreds of millions of dollars in federal education funding.

AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn, Midland, said his group is “hopeful that Republican state senators won’t allow themselves to be bullied by homosexual activist groups and House Democrats into caving in on this matter of principle in hopes of a payoff from federal tax dollars being dangled by the Obama Administration.”

“If lawmakers think parents, teachers, school boards, and law enforcement agencies in their districts can’t be trusted to protect student safety without a state mandate,” Glenn said, “they should simply pass a law prohibiting all bullying against all students for all reasons, not use the issue as a Trojan Horse to insert radical and precedent-setting language into state law for the first time establishing homosexual behavior or cross-dressing as a legal basis for special rights and protections.”

Glenn said the group trusted Kuipers in years past to oppose legislation that would establish special “protected classes” based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” in state law in any context, but not after Kuipers was praised last December by the Triangle Foundation, a prominent homosexual activist group in Detroit, for throwing his support to so-called “anti-bullying” legislation during the closing days of last year’s lame-duck legislative session.

After the Senate Education Committee considered House Bill 4162 a year ago, both Kuipers and Van Woerkom voted to send it to the full Senate for a vote, with Van Woerkom telling the Michigan Information and Research Service (MIRS) newsletter: “I guess I’ve been one of the problems in getting this bill going, but as a former principal, I found it difficult to find that line between what is teasing and what is bullying.” http://www.bridges4kids.org:80/articles/12-08/MIRS12-4-08.html

The bill segregated students into special “protected classes” — including on the basis of so-called “sexual orientation” (homosexual behavior) and “gender identity” (cross-dressing) — then handed out special state-mandated protection against bullying expressly based on a student’s membership in one of those protected classes.

It failed when Senate GOP leadership refused to bring it up for a vote, but its supporters are now maneuvering to include it in a broader public schools funding and reform bill scheduled for immediate action. (See Michigan Messenger, “Michigan anti-bullying bill could find renewed life with ‘Race to the Top’,” http://michiganmessenger.com/31563/mich-anti-bullying-bill-could-find-renewed-life-with-race-to-the-top)

Glenn said to unmask the real agenda behind the so-called “bullying” legislation, Senate Majority Floor Leader Alan Cropsey, R-DeWitt, has proposed alternative language that would simply prohibit all bullying against all students for all reasons, but some homosexual activist groups and their legislative allies have refused to support a bill that would protect students from bullying without first segregating them into special “protected class” categories based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.

Former Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Midland, in 2007 attempted to amend the House version of the legislation to strike the language segregating students into “protected class” categories and replace it with language simply and expressly prohibiting all bullying against all students for all reasons. House Democratic leaders refused to even allow a vote on Moolenaar’s amendment, and the legislation passed the House on a largely party-line vote.

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

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

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

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

Lansing State Journal editorial: “Bully bills: Again, leave bullying issue to local school boards,” April 17, 2007.

Grand Rapids Press editorial: “Anti-bullying law isn’t necessary: state schools already have policies to deal with issue,” April 4, 2007.

——————————————————————————

From: Triangle Foundation, info@tri.org
Date: Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 12:39 PM
Subject: Anti-bullying Bills Killed by Michigan Senate

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Bernadette Brown, Director of Policy
Triangle Foundation
(517) 643-3549
bernadette@tri.org
www.tri.org
Anti-Bullying Bills Killed by Michigan Senate

Detroit, MI — December 20, 2008 — Negotiations spanning two years and involving parents, educators, law enforcement officials and many others came to a halt late Thursday when Sen. Alan Cropsey (R-Dewitt) said he would not allow anti-bullying legislation to pass the Michigan Senate. The Republican Senate was ready to move on this bill; however, Senator Cropsey was even out of the conservative mainstream.

“Sen. Cropsey has long been an opponent of anti-bullying legislation in Michigan,” said Bernadette Brown, Director of Policy for the Triangle Foundation. “Last night he single-handedly ended an effort to protect young people in Michigan from harassment and assault.”

House Bills 4162 and 4091 would have required all school districts in Michigan to establish policies regarding school bullying, based on a definition of bullying that is in the State Board of Education model policy on this issue. The legislation would also have required all districts to provide a copy of their policies to the Michigan Department of Education, which would then report to the legislature on the status and quality of these policies throughout the state.

The legislative package – titled Matt’s Safe Schools Law in honor of Matt Epling, an East Lansing eight-grader who took his own life in 2002 after a hazing incident – passed the Michigan House in 2007. The package was voted out of the Senate Education Committee Dec. 11. After extensive negotiations, Senate Education Committee Chair Senator Wayne Kuipers (R-Holland) joined a team of legislators who had championed the bill including Senators Glen Anderson (D-Westland), Samuel “Buzz” Thomas (D-Detroit), Mark Schauer (D-Battle Creek) and Randy Richardville (R-Monroe) in working toward passage of the bill.

The trouble began late Thursday evening and spanned into early Friday morning. After a Republican caucus on the issue, Majority Leader Mike Bishop (R-Rochester) and the caucus were unwilling to challenge Sen. Cropsey.

“It is a sad day for all of us,” said bill sponsor Rep. Pam Byrnes (D-Chelsea), “but especially for the young people of our state and their parents, who were counting on this forward-looking policy to make Michigan schools safe for learning.” Michigan is one of only 11 states that do not have a law requiring some type of anti-bullying policy in schools. Triangle Foundation will continue to fight for all young people in Michigan by pursuing anti-bullying policies in all schools.

It is the mission of Triangle Foundation to promote equality and to secure freedom from violence, intimidation and discrimination for LGBT persons throughout Michigan.

Triangle Foundation, 19641 West Seven Mile Road, Detroit, Michigan 48219-2721

——————————————————————————

MIRS
Michigan Information and Research Service
Lansing, Michigan
December 4, 2008

Anti-bullying bills move

After much delay, the Senate Education Committee also kicked out anti-bullying bills that passed the House a year and a half ago. The Michigan Safe Schools Coalition held another event at the Capitol last month pushing for passage (See “Bits and Tidbits,” 11/13/08).

HB 4091 and HB 4162, which are tie-barred together, would require schools to adopt a policy that prohibits harassment or bullying at school. The bills both moved with unanimous support. HB 4091 would be known as “Matt’s Safe School Law” in honor of Matt EPLING, a 14-year-old from East Lansing who committed suicide after being hazed at school.

The issue became mired in controversy when the American Family Association of Michigan (AFAM) headed by Gary GLENN took aim at legislation (See “Senators: AFAM Not Bullying On Bills,” 3/31/08).

The bills’ definition of harassment and bullying include what is “reasonably perceived to be motivated by an actual or perceived characteristic, such as height, weight, religion, race, color, ancestry, national origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or by socioeconomic status or a mental, physical, or sensory disability or impairment, or is reasonably perceived to be based on association with another person who has or is perceived to have any of these characteristics or any other distinguishing characteristic.”

AFAM takes issue with sexual orientation and gender identity being included in the legislation, with Glenn complaining that “promotes the homosexual agenda.”

That issue did not come up in committee today.

Under the bills, the Department of Education would develop a model policy within 30 days after the effective date of the legislation. Schools would then have six months to adopt a policy. Within the following year, the department would submit a report to the Senate and House standing committees on Education on the policies.

“I guess I’ve been one of the problems in getting this bill going,” said Sen. Jerry VAN WOERKOM (R-Norton Shores). “But as a former principal, I found it difficult to find that line between what is teasing and what is bullying.”

Van Woerkom said he was satisfied with language that would allow local schools to make that determination.

http://www.bridges4kids.org:80/articles/12-08/MIRS12-4-08.html
__________________________________________________

NEWS — LANSING — Family group condemns homosexual activists' disruption of local church

November 11, 2008

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…)

NEWS — Ferndale police urged to enforce public nudity laws at homosexual festival

May 29, 2008

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

# # #

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

(more…)

Click here to visit Clean Hotels.com

Categories
Abortion
Eminent Domain
General
Homosexual Agenda
AFL-CIO
Boy Scouts
Public Health
In The News
Marriage
News Releases
Pornography
Public Schools and Universities
Religious Freedom
Religious Heritage

Click here to complain to the FCC