“Funk also attacked Brad Zaun for his vote in favor of the anti-bullying bill while in the (Iowa) State Senate. The bullying bill specifically protected gays, lesbians, and transgendered people from being bullied in school. Most Republicans didn’t support the bill because it carved out special rights for people based on behavior. The bullying bill that Zaun supported was cited by the Iowa Supreme Court when it issued its ruling in Varnum vs. Brien, which allowed gay marriages to occur in Iowa.”

http://theiowarepublican.com/home/2010/05/18/funk-gets-aggressive-in-tea-party-debate
__________________________________________________

…A bill that sought to address bullying in Michigan died in 2008 in the state Senate because senators could not agree on whether to enumerate the categories of victims. A new, non-enumerated version of the bill this year passed the state House on May 12, and now heads back to the Senate. The right-wing American Family Association (AFA) has been actively opposing language that defines bullying as ‘reasonably perceived to be motivated by animus or by an actual or perceived characteristic.’ In an action alert to supporters in early May, the AFA said the Michigan bill would make bullying a ‘thought crime’ and would still define it as ‘motivated by a student’s ’characteristics,’ including homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.’

…But one of the most high-profile national groups pushing for laws to address the problem of bullying, ‘Bully Police,’ is also one of the key opponents of enumeration. Brenda High, founder of Bully Police, told the New York Daily News in March that she believes that state’s legislature has repeatedly failed to pass an anti-bullying law because the bill includes language that gives ’special protection’ to gay children and those with special needs. On its Web site (bullypolice.org), Bully Police explains, ‘Defining victims will slow the process of lawmaking, dividing political parties who will argue over which victims get special rights over other victims. …All children who are bullied are victimized and they ALL need to be protected.’ High founded the group after she lost her son Jared to a bullying-related suicide in 1998. …(High said,) ‘We must teach our children Christian values and ask our schools to teach ’do unto others’ values so that all of our children can have a safe and bully-free environment to learn.’”

—————————————————————————

BAY WINDOWS
“New England’s largest GLBT newspaper”
(homosexual activist newsweekly)
Boston, Massachusetts
May 20, 2010

Anti-bullying measures advance against obstacles
Pressure to include LGBT students builds
by Dana Rudolph

http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=105946
__________________________________________________

In response to our statement below, AFA-Michigan received a call Thursday evening from Brenda High, founder of BullyPolice.org, the national organization which lists Michigan anti-bullying activist Kevin Epling as (along with Brenda) one if its two national co-directors. http://www.bullypolice.org/

Brenda told us that we may report that as founder of BullyPolice.org, she agrees with AFA-Michigan’s position that the language in House Bill 4580 which defines bullying as being “motivated by animus or by a (student’s) actual or perceived characteristic(s)” should be removed from the legislation, since it attempts to define victims rather than simply prohibiting all bullying against all students for all reasons, regardless of the motivation in any given instance. HB 4580 passed the Michigan House last week but is unlikely to be supported as written by the state Senate.

Gary Glenn, President
American Family Association of Michigan

AMERICAN FAMILY
ASSOCIATION OF
MICHIGAN

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thursday, May 20, 2010

Gary Glenn, Midland, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, issued the following statement in response to a Boston newspaper’s report Thursday on anti-bullying legislation, including the revelation that a major national anti-bullying organization — which lists anti-bullying activist Kevin Epling as one of two co-directors — agrees with AFA-Michigan’s longstanding opposition to wording in Michigan anti-bullying bills that attempts to “define victims” based on “characteristics.” (See Bay Windows article: http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=105946)

——

For years, Kevin Epling has endorsed homosexual activists’ Trojan Horse legislative strategy regarding state anti-bullying legislation, despite being an officer of a national anti-bullying organization that we now learn agrees with AFA-Michigan, specifically urging parents not to support legislation that attempts to define victims based on their looks or other characteristics such as engaging in homosexual behavior or cross-dressing.

Specifically, Mr. Epling has long lent his name and tragic personal experience in support of homosexual activists’ demand that anti-bullying legislation must segregate students into enumerated “protected class” categories based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” despite being listed as an officer of a national organization which a homosexual activist newspaper in Boston Thursday identified as “one of the most high-profile national groups pushing for (such) laws” but also “one of the key opponents of enumeration.” (Notably, only eight states have anti-bullying laws that include the “enumeration” endorsed by Mr. Epling here in Michigan.) http://www.baywindows.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=glbt&sc2=news&sc3=&id=105946

BullyPolice.org, which on its home page identifies Mr. Epling as one of its two national co-directors, warns:

“There should not be any major emphasis on defining victims. This addition into an anti-bullying law will cause several problems for lawmakers: …The way a bully’s target or victim acts or physically looks is not the victim’s problem… Defining victims will slow the process of lawmaking, dividing political parties who will argue over which victims get special rights over other victims. All children deserve the ’special right’ not to be bullied. All children who are bullied need to be protected.”

(See full statement by BullyPolice.org founder, co-director, and executive director Brenda High below)

Having rejected the position of his own national organization, and done exactly the opposite of what BullyPolice.org counsels, Mr. Epling’s efforts in the Michigan legislature have produced precisely the results the organization predicts.

Yet he continues to lend his name and support to legislation — recently passed by the state House of Representatives — which despite retreating on the issue of specifically enumerating “protected classes,” still insists on attempting to define victims based on a victim’s “actual or perceived characteristic(s).” We’re told by reliable sources that such language, as in past years, will not be supported by the state Senate.

When Mr. Epling decides to take a position consistent with the organization he co-directs, rather than continue to endorse language demanded by homosexual activists and their political allies, he will find a major obstacle to passage of an anti-bullying bill — the very obstacle his own organization warns against — removed. (Other obstacles may remain; for example, the Lansing State Journal and Grand Rapids Press have both editorialized against such legislation, calling it an unnecessary legislative intrusion into an issue better handled by local parents, teachers, school boards, and law enforcement.)

Nonetheless, we urge Mr. Epling to join AFA-Michigan — and, more to the point, his own organization, BullyPolice.org — in opposing legislative language that attempts to “define victims,” in the current case based on the victim’s “actual or perceived characteristic(s).”

If that single line is removed from the House-passed bill, AFA-Michigan will, as we’ve long said, no longer oppose it.

As a parent of three teenagers, I greatly sympathize with Mr. Epling’s unimaginable loss of his son. In years past, I’ve discussed with him my belief that his endorsement alone would legitimize anti-bullying legislation that might actually pass, by simply protecting all students from all bullying without regard to personal characteristics, even if homosexual activists don’t like it. He refused. And as long as Mr. Epling continues to reject his own organization’s position and counsel, he himself will remain a prominent part of the reason no such legislation has reached the governor’s desk.

———————————————————————————-

BULLYPOLICE.ORG
Co-Directors: Brenda High, Kevin Epling

MAKING THE GRADE
How states are “graded” on their anti-bullying laws

by Brenda High, Executive Director

…3. There must be definitions of bullying and harassment.

Defining the problem is the key to solving the problem.

There should not be any major emphasis on defining victims. This addition into an anti-bullying law will cause several problems for lawmakers:

* Any child can be victimized by a bully. Remember that bullies bully because they can, and because they can get away with it.

* The way a bully’s target or victim acts or physically looks is not the victim’s problem but the bully’s own psychological problem. The bully is the root of the problem.

* Defining victims will slow the process of lawmaking, dividing political parties who will argue over which victims get special rights over other victims.

All children deserve the “special right” not to be bullied. ALL children who are bullied need to be protected.

http://www.bullypolice.org/grade.html
__________________________________________________

If all bullying against all students for all reasons is prohibited, what difference does it make what a bully was thinking, feeling, or motivated by in any particular instance of bullying?

Please read today’s Associated Press story below, then please contact your state senator — http://senate.michigan.gov/SenatorInfo/find-your-senator.htm — and urge him to join AFA-Michigan and BullyPolice.org in opposing the thought-crime language in House Bill 4580.

Thanks as always for your support!

————–

“Michigan’s (anti-bullying) legislation remains unfinished, tangled in a web of competing interests — including both sides of the gay rights debate…partly because of a single line in the three-page bill that some interpret as opening the door for gay rights activists to try and carve out special protections. The bill…says that bullying includes but is not limited to conduct that is ‘reasonably perceived to be motivated by animus or by an actual or perceived characteristic.’ Even anti-bullying groups have internal disagreements over whether that line should be included in the legislation.

…Alicia Skillman of (the homosexual activist group) Equality Michigan said the legislation’s goal is to protect all Michigan students from bullying. If that’s the case, conservatives say, lawmakers should drop the line about animus and perceived characteristics. ‘We’ve said from the beginning we will not oppose a bill that simply prohibits all bullying against all students for all reasons,” said Gary Glenn, president of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan.”

——————————————

CHICAGO TRIBUNE
Chicago, Illinois
May 22, 2010

Anti-bullying plan delayed by competing interests

by Tim Martin, The Associated Press

LANSING, Mich. — Since Kevin Epling’s 14-year-old son killed himself after a hazing incident, he has been trying to get schools to take bullying more seriously.

As part of that effort, he’s pushing Michigan lawmakers to pass a law requiring schools to have anti-bullying policies. While legislation has been introduced often in the past decade, it’s still not law — frustrating Epling and others who say it’s needed to send a strong message about changing a culture that too often permits students to harass each other.

Forty-three states have adopted anti-bullying laws, many of them in the past decade. But Michigan’s legislation remains unfinished, tangled in a web of competing interests — including both sides of the gay rights debate and politicians with both liberal and conservative leanings.

“Our biggest problem with anti-bullying in our schools is not our kids. It’s our adults,” said Epling, an East Lansing resident and a co-director of BullyPolice USA. “Our biggest problem is our adults who don’t want to tackle this issue because it’s hard work.”

Michigan’s law would be named after Matt Epling, who died in 2002.

The Democrat-run state House passed a version of the anti-bullying bill earlier this month by a 76-29 vote, the broadest support yet for the legislation. A similar bill has been introduced in the Republican-led state Senate, with the backing of some GOP members.

But the measure also has opposition in the Senate and its future is uncertain — partly because of a single line in the three-page bill that some interpret as opening the door for gay rights activists to try and carve out special protections.

The bill defines bullying or harassment as abuse of one student by another in any form. It also says that bullying includes but is not limited to conduct that is “reasonably perceived to be motivated by animus or by an actual or perceived characteristic.”

Even anti-bullying groups have internal disagreements over whether that line should be included in the legislation.

Gay rights groups see the latest Michigan proposal as a compromise. Some previous Michigan anti-bullying proposals had included language to prohibit harassment of students with specific characteristics — including sexual orientation, weight, religion and race.

That language has been dropped in the current version, despite the objections of some Democrats.

Equality Michigan, a gay rights group, would prefer stronger language but supports the House-passed version with the “perceived characteristic” wording. The bill would allow local school districts to craft their own policies, and gay rights groups — along with other organizations and parents — could work at the local level to get language in those policies more specifically addressing their concerns.

Alicia Skillman of Equality Michigan said the legislation’s goal is to protect all Michigan students from bullying.

If that’s the case, conservatives say, lawmakers should drop the line about animus and perceived characteristics.

“We’ve said from the beginning we will not oppose a bill that simply prohibits all bullying against all students for all reasons,” said Gary Glenn, president of the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan.

Republican Sen. Alan Cropsey of DeWitt said he has concerns about the “perceived characteristic” language, but said that’s not his primary problem with the bill. He questions whether a state mandate, as it’s now proposed, would make any difference in the fight against bullying.

Parents in states with anti-bullying laws still have concerns that schools don’t do enough to address harassment. Critics of the legislation say most Michigan school districts already have some sort of policy related to bullying, some following a model policy established by the State Board of Education in 2006.

The House-passed bill mandates policies but lacks requirements for what they must contain. The bill “encourages” schools to include provisions for investigating reports of bullying, along with education and intervention measures.

“Passing a piece of paper and calling it a law does not do anything,” Cropsey said.

Other lawmakers have said the bills would be another unfunded mandate for cash-strapped schools, forcing them to come up with policies and investigate bullying complaints with no additional money for the work. Some say the state should not meddle in a situation best handled by local schools.

Supporters say lawmakers should stop making excuses and pass a law that would provide a renewed emphasis on anti-bullying policies in schools.

“I’d like to see a little more in it,” said Democratic Rep. Pam Byrnes of Washtenaw County’s Lyndon Township, sponsor of the House legislation. “But there are too many different competing interests here, so we have to move something forward. We are one of seven states without legislation, and it’s embarrassing.”

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mi-schoolbullying,0,2706701.story

———————————————————————–

LENGTHY EFFORT: Michigan lawmakers have introduced bills to mandate anti-bullying policies in public schools for the better part of a decade, but none of them has become law. Most states already have similar laws.

STATUS REPORT: Anti-bullying legislation passed the Democrat-run state House this month. It’s pending in the Republican-run Senate with an uncertain future.

PRO AND CON: Supporters say Michigan needs the law to force schools to do more to combat bullying of students. Some opponents say the bill won’t be effective. Others argue it’s an attempt by gay rights activists and others to carve out special protections.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-mi-schoolbullying-su,0,5420212.story
__________________________________________________

————————————-

MICHIGAN MESSENGER
Lansing, Michigan
April 19, 2010

Kuipers: Anti-bullying legislation stalled by lack of definition
Lawmaker wants local schools to define bullying instead of state

by Todd A. Heywood

LANSING — The chair of the Senate Education Committee says efforts to pass anti-bullying legislation in the state are stalled because lawmakers can’t define what bullying is — yet he expects local school districts to do a better job than state legislators can.

Activists who favor the law scoffed at this argument.

“Sen. Kuipers has no idea of a definition? Perhaps is it because the full definition was stripped from the legislation by his counterparts,” says Kevin Epling, co-director of BullyPolice USA and an anti-bullying legislation advocate. He has been an advocate for tough new bullying standards since his son, Matt, committed suicide after being bullied during the summer between his 8th grade and 9th grade years in the East Lansing Public Schools.

The legislation that been working its way through the legislature for the better part of a decade has regularly been called Matt’s Law, and if either of the two bills currently introduced in the state Senate passes, the laws they would become would be named after Matt.

Epling said that earlier versions of the bill had meticulous definitions of bullying developed by experts in both the substance and the law and he accused legislators of offering empty excuses for not getting the bill approved.

“Each time this issue has come up, we get a different answer why it shouldn’t be passed,” says Epling. “It’s not being dishonest, but it’s not being completely honest either. Instead of giving roundabout answers we need our elected officials to clearly state what will and will not work and what they will and will not vote for. But they won’t do that, because they are afraid of the backlash, the comments, the looks of their peers, the emails — you know, the bullying they will endure to change their position.”

Indeed, until the wee hours of the last day of the 2008 legislative session, the sticking point was whether or not to enumerate, or list, protected categories. Conservative lawmakers had opposed the enumeration because it included sexual orientation and gender identity and/or expression. Rallied by Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, conservatives argued the inclusion of those categories would result in forwarding the so-called “homosexual agenda.”

During that lame duck session, senators came the closest to passing anti-bullying legislation they have ever come. That was accomplished when advocates agreed to strike the enumeration from the bill. But even that legislation died when Sen. Alan Cropsey (R-DeWitt), the Majority Floor Leader in the Michigan Senate, refused to let the bill have an up or down vote.

Faced with state inaction, Kuipers said that school districts needed to stop waiting for the state to act.

“I think [school districts] have to pay attention to what is going on. You can’t turn your head and assume the problem doesn’t exist or is going to go away on its own. I think the solution to the problem though is not necessarily in a state policy but it is in a recognition in school districts that the problem exists and that they’re dealing with it,” says Kuipers. “Not just by expelling students that are getting rough, but by having classes informing kids of what bullying is, that it exists, the consequences of that — because I think, in most cases, the kids that are bullying don’t want it to end up the way it’s ending up. They just don’t know when to stop.”

“Schools have to stop it,” he continued. “That doesn’t take a policy on the state level to deal with the issue. I think the solution goes beyond a stated policy, it gets at the heart of the district, and what the sense of community is, and are people looking out for each others best interests and those kinds of things. You don’t get that from a policy. In fact you create a statewide policy you probably absolve some districts from doing the stuff that really needs to be done. That’s education, talking, working through the issue. The schools can do that without us.”

Epling says the state has already tried Kuipers’ solution. And it failed.

“Asking schools to ‘take the lead’ without a law is where we started in 2001 when the State Board of Education asked schools to draft policies on bullying. Schools did not respond, and that is why children have been hurt, respect between schools and parents has been tested and — yes — eight children have died,” Epling says. “Schools are actually looking for guidance and help. The law is not punitive, it helps set a standard for all schools to follow and leaves room for individual application. Apparently Sen. Kuipers wants to take us back to 2001 rather than being a bold leader and moving our state forward.”

Most recently the suicide of a 12-year-old upper peninsula girl has lead Gov. Jennifer Granholm to renew her calls for swift action on anti-bullying legislation.

“This issue has been around for a long time and the unfortunate thing is that kids are committing suicide as a result — or at least we think it is a result of the bullying,” says Kuipers. “And that is very unfortunate. and my heart goes out to the families who find themselves in that position. But we have to make sure we come up with a workable solution that doesn’t overexpose districts and school boards — that’s what were working for.”

Overexposure, for Kuipers, means not opening the door to litigation for anyone “seeking a payday” from schools. When asked specifically about the bullying case out of Hudson which resulted in an $800,000 verdict from a jury, and has lawyers seeking an additional $400,000 in fees, Kuipers says there will always be “some exposure.”

Experts say that Kuipers’ solution of local control, however, will result in even more exposure to lawsuits because of the wide variety of definitions that would inevitably be created by those local school districts. If the state can’t come up with what Kuipers considers a “clear and meaningful” definition that would solve the problem without inviting lawsuits, they say, having hundreds of school districts struggle to come up with their own definitions is far more likely to put those districts at risk of lawsuits than if they were merely complying with state law.

“By telling schools to work on their own Sen. Kuipers and others are ‘off the hook’ when he and others have been holding the hook for years,” Epling says.

And Epling is not alone in his criticism of Kuipers. Alicia Skillman, executive director of Triangle Foundation/Michigan Equality, a political organization which represents the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community, issued the following statement in relation to Kuipers’ statements:

“When legislators of a state take action and create a law, it shapes the conversation and gives guidance to communities on how to treat people. It appears that some of our legislators are shirking their responsibilities to school districts and to the children of our state. I bet the children of this state can easily define bullying and the legislators could do the same if they were really interested in protecting our kids. Triangle Foundation/Michigan Equality believes the Senate should act now and pass an anti-bullying law.”

Epling bluntly asks, “So how many children will it take to actually make this a reality? Bullying has contributed to deaths in Michigan, there is no speculating. Speculating is thinking that our Senate will finally act for our children.”

http://michiganmessenger.com/36885/kuipers-state-cant-define-bullying

__________________________________________________

Please urge your state legislators to oppose House Bill 4192, which — by prohibiting “discrimination” based on so-called “gender identity” — would impose on our entire state this same bizarre attack on reality.

Contact your state representative: http://house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp
Contact your state senator: http://senate.michigan.gov/SenatorInfo/find-your-senator.htm

————————————————————————————————-

“‘When we separate biology it gets very confusing for everyone,’ Mike Heath, president of the American Family Association of New England, told FoxNews.com. ‘Now we’re talking about bathrooms where ladies will entertain the possibility of men being in the restroom with them, and every woman I’ve talked to has indicated that they wouldn’t be comfortable with that.’ With the law affecting schools ranging from nursery level to post-doctorate studies, Heath says he’s concerned with the ramifications of opening up ‘this can of worms,’ especially when it comes to younger students. ‘I get a little more upset with the topic when it touches on young children and what they’re going to have to think about and process,’ he said.

Critics seem especially concerned about the mixing of genders in bathrooms and locker rooms. The commission’s proposal reads: ‘Transgender students must be allowed access to the bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity or expression or, if they prefer, to existing single-stall bathrooms.’”

——————————————————————-
FOX NEWS
New York, New York
April 9, 2010

Maine commission moves to ban gender
specific bathrooms, sports teams in schools

The Maine Human Rights Commissions is taking heat over a proposal to ban schools from enforcing gender divisions in sports teams, school organizations, bathrooms and locker rooms, saying forcing a student into a particular room or group because of their biological gender amounts to discrimination.

by Diane Macedo, FOXNews.com

AUGUSTA, Maine — The little girls’ room won’t be just for little girls anymore, if the Maine Human Rights Commission has its way.

The commission is taking heat over a controversial proposal to ban schools from enforcing gender divisions in sports teams, school organizations, bathrooms and locker rooms. It says forcing a student into a particular room or group because of his or her biological gender amounts to discrimination.

The issue came to light last year when the commission ruled that, under the Maine Human Rights Act, a school had discriminated against a 12-year-old transgender boy by denying him access to the girls’ bathroom.

Now the commission aims to issue guidelines on how schools should deal with similar situations in the future. It would make Maine the first state to implement such guidelines for schools as young as preschool and nursery — and even some private schools.

But not everyone in the state is on board with the current proposal.
Some school districts and organizations have criticized the commission for making its initial ruling without getting enough input from conservative groups, and then for coming up with proposed guidelines in what some described as closed-door sessions.

“The conservative side was never brought in on the discussion in the first place, if you look at who gave testimony, written testimony, etc., in the beginning,” Rev. Bob Celeste of Harrison told FoxNews.com. “When you only bring one side in, you’re not looking for an honest debate. You’re looking for an agenda.”

Once it came time to vote on the guidelines, the commission again came under fire for not doing enough to inform Mainers of the vote, and for not allowing the public to speak at the hearing where it was held.

“We found out about this hearing by accident. We were never informed of it,” said Celeste, who was the first person to speak out at the March hearing.

“When I went to the hearing I expected to ask, ‘Why are they doing this?’ And they said that they weren’t going to have public hearings,” he said. “I said ‘Mr. Chairman, it’s getting late, when are we going to be able to ask questions?’ and he said, ‘You can’t.’”

Celeste says he then walked out of the meeting, but other outraged citizens got very vocal after his departure and apparently persuaded the commission to postpone the vote.

Now those critics are looking to get their voices heard again at a public hearing on the issue next month.

“When we separate biology it gets very confusing for everyone,” Mike Heath, president of the American Family Association of New England, told FoxNews.com. “Now we’re talking about bathrooms where ladies will entertain the possibility of men being in the restroom with them, and every woman I’ve talked to has indicated that they wouldn’t be comfortable with that.”

With the law affecting schools ranging from nursery level to post-doctorate studies, Heath says he’s concerned with the ramifications of opening up “this can of worms,” especially when it comes to younger students.

“I get a little more upset with the topic when it touches on young children and what they’re going to have to think about and process,” he said.

Critics seem especially concerned about the mixing of genders in bathrooms and locker rooms. The commission’s proposal reads: “Transgender students must be allowed access to the bathrooms that correspond to their gender identity or expression or, if they prefer, to existing single-stall bathrooms.”

“There’s not a whole lot of places a girl can expect privacy, but the bathroom should be one of them,” said Celeste. “And there’s not a whole lot of places a boy expects privacy, but the bathroom should be one of them. Married couples close the door when they go to the bathroom.”

Ken Trump, President of National School Safety and Security Services, says the guidelines set out in the commission’s draft brochure pose some serious safety issues as well.

“If my kid walks into a girls’ bathroom and sees a man in there, the child is going to instinctively feel that something’s wrong. If you create an entirely new climate where anything goes, you’re going to create increased confusion, and those with ill intentions could take advantage of that confusion and decreased ability to make a distinction,” Trump told FoxNews.com.

“The reality is, every day we’re seeing more and more cases of exploitation of children and others, and this would be creating an environment where the risk is increased for that exploitation.”

Because the commission suggests that people won’t be obligated to supply medical documentation that proves they are transgender, Trump says the policy also paves the way for increased sexual activity on school grounds – both consensual and non-consensual.

“Educators at the middle school level struggle every day in trying to keep student hormonal issues under control so that the focus can be on education,” he said. “We certainly don’t need to create an environment to accelerate and exacerbate the issue and further the experimentation, the inappropriate comments, inappropriate touching, groping, grabbing, sexual assaults and in some cases, rapes in schools.”

Karen Kemble, the Director of Equal Opportunity for the University of Maine, says the university has not taken a position for or against the proposed guidelines, but she shared concerns over some of them, including schools’ inability to ask for “proof” of sexual orientation.

“This would leave the institution without any way to determine the bona fide nature of the gender identity or expression,” Kemble said in a letter to the commission.

“It is routine practice to seek documentation of non-obvious disabilities in the event of an accommodation request. Even in the case of religious accommodations, an employer may sometimes seek additional information regarding either the religious nature of the request or the sincerity of a particular belief,” she added.

As an NCAA institution, Kemble says the University of Maine system could also face many hurdles when it comes to incorporating the guidelines into its athletic program.

“Some of the issues that we face are that the NCAA has rules that if we, for example, allowed a transgender student to participate in gender-segregated sport, then that may raise concerns about fairness and also may spark action by the NCAA, she said.

“We certainly want to have a welcoming environment and are doing everything we can to support the right to gender identity and gender expression,” she added.

John Gause, counsel for the Maine Human Rights Commission, told FoxNews.com that the commission is still in the process of developing guidelines on how the Maine Human Rights Act “applies in the context of sexual orientation in schools and colleges.”

“A date and location for the public comment session will be finalized in the near future,” he wrote in an e-mail.

The commission said more information on the public hearing will be posted on its web site once those details are finalized.

Neither Gause nor the commission’s executive director, Pat Ryan, returned follow-up e-mails and phone calls seeking a response to concerns raised over the guidelines.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2010/04/08/maine-commission-moves-ban-gender-specific-school-bathrooms-teams/
__________________________________________________

…Gary Glenn, president of the AFA-Michigan, also did not delay in attacking the renewed call for action by the governor. ‘Aside from once again using a Christian holiday to promote her homosexual activist allies’ political agenda, the fact is that Jennifer Granholm could have signed a comprehensive all-inclusive anti-bullying bill into law years ago that would have prohibited all bullying against all students for all reasons, period,’ Glenn said in a press release. ‘All she’s had to do — all she has to do now — is exert a little leadership and influence with her own party and political allies, and it would likely pass both houses unanimously.’”

——————————————————————————————–

MICHIGAN MESSENGER
Lansing, Michigan
April 8, 2010

Granholm renews call for passage of anti-bullying legislation
Governor is open on question of enumeration vs. non-enumeration

by Todd A. Heywood

LANSING — Gov. Jennifer Granholm renewed her call for the passage of legislation which would mandate school districts create, implement and enforce policies on student bullying. The move comes on the heels of reports of the suicide of a 12-year-old girl from Michigan’s upper peninsula.

“Here in Michigan and across the nation, suicides among young people who have been subjected to bullying demonstrate the need for anti-bullying legislation,” Granholm said in a Good Friday press release. “Just last month in the Upper Peninsula, a young girl committed suicide. A contributing factor may have been alleged bullying by a classmate. Protecting young people should be and must be our number one concern.”

Granholm has long supported the legislation. She has specifically lobbied for an inclusive law which would enumerate, or list, protected groups. But, while the governor is renewing her calls for the legislation, her office backed off the stand for the comprehensive enumerated legislation.

“The legislation the governor proposed in 2006 enumerated specific reasons for which students may be bullied, but we stand ready to work with the legislature on crafting meaningful legislation that addresses this problem,” said Granholm spokeswoman Tiffany Brown.

That move is important. The legislation has been hamstrung by groups like the American Family Association of Michigan because of the enumerated, or listed, protected classes. That list includes sexual orientation and gender identity. The AFA claims passage of the legislation would be the first time Michigan law recognized either category as a protected class. That, they say, is part of a broader “homosexual agenda.”

In the lame duck session of 2008, in the wee hours of the morning, the Republican controlled Senate almost passed anti-bullying legislation. That compromise legislation stripped the enumerations out of the bill. And while this was done to appease Sen. Alan Cropsey (R-DeWitt), it was not enough; Cropsey refused to allow the bill to go to the floor for a vote and the bill died.

An attempt by Sen. Glenn Anderson (D-Westland) to attach the legislation as amendment to a bill in 2009 also failed in the Senate.

That compromise bill was approved by the Safe Schools Coalition, of which the Triangle Foundation was a part. When news of the late night backroom compromise broke, Michigan Equality a Lansing-based lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights political organization, and the Michigan Democratic LGBTA Caucus criticized the deal.

The in-fighting led to a schism. Since then, Triangle Foundation and Michigan Equality have begun a merger, and the new organization, as yet unnamed, supports the compromise legislation, though it would prefer to see the enumerated legislation adopted into law.

There are two bills pending in the state Senate. The first, introduced by Anderson, the Democratic Senator from Westland, includes enumerated protected classes. The second, introduced by Sen. Ron Jelinek (R-Three Oaks Twp.) does not include enumeration. Both lawmakers say they expect anti-bullying legislation to pass the legislature by the end of the year.

The renewed focus on the legislation by the governor was applauded by advocates.

“Triangle Foundation extends our gratitude to Gov. Granholm and we are encouraged by her renewed call for the adoption of safe schools legislation in Michigan,” said Alicia Skillman, executive director of the Detroit based lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights group. “We have lost too many children to bullying. It is our hope that the legislators will take notice and acknowledge that Michigan needs to take this crucial step to protect all students in Michigan. We would welcome the opportunity to work with school districts to assist with this much needed change.”

“I personally thank Gov. Granholm for bringing this to our legislators and communities attention,” said Kevin Epling, co-director of BullyPolice USA. The legislation, if passed, will be named after his son, Matt Epling, who committed suicide at 14 after being bullied.

“She is absolutely right that our legislators should act when they return, but will they? We’ve seen nothing but stall tactics of revisions that never materialize (or are so flimsy in content and structure that they wouldn’t pass for a High School government class assignment), demand upon demand for changes (disregarding the co-operative work that has been put into the bill, and bordering on bullying behavior itself) and false promises of support which fall short of what our children need.”

Epling’s cynicism may be on point. While Jelinek’s office has assured Michigan Messenger that meetings have been scheduled — but canceled — to arrange the timing on the anti-bullying legislation, no solid target date for passage has been set. And Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop’s office is not sounding a note of reconciliation on the issue.

In an interview Monday, Bishop Spokesperson Matt Marsden told the Michigan Information Research Service (MIRS) a subscription only news letter at the capitol, that the renewed focus was “political.”

“This is politically useful for the Governor right now,” said Marsden.

He said the Senate was focused “on other areas.”

And Gary Glenn, president of the AFA Michigan, also did not delay in attacking the renewed call for action by the governor.

“Aside from once again using a Christian holiday to promote her homosexual activist allies’ political agenda, the fact is that Jennifer Granholm could have signed a comprehensive all-inclusive anti-bullying bill into law years ago that would have prohibited all bullying against all students for all reasons, period,” Glenn said in a press release. “All she’s had to do — all she has to do now — is exert a little leadership and influence with her own party and political allies, and it would likely pass both houses unanimously.”

Glenn failed to mention the failure of the unenumerated legislation in the 2008 lame duck session.
http://michiganmessenger.com/36501/granholm-renews-call-for-passage-of-anti-bullying-legislation
__________________________________________________

Family group: Granholm’s Good Friday call for homosexual bullying bill “insensitive…hypocritical”

LANSING, Mich. — Gov. Jennifer Granholm, D-Michigan, drew fire Saturday from a statewide family values group for once again using the occasion of a major Christian holiday to issue a public statement promoting a political agenda pushed by homosexual activists in the state.

Gary Glenn, Midland, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said “the third time around, we no longer believe the governor’s timing is an accident or coincidence, or even just trying to bury her promotion of the homosexual agenda in the news when people aren’t paying attention. The ongoing pattern makes it obvious that the governor believes it’s appropriate, apparently maybe even funny, to intentionally issue statements promoting homosexual activists’ political agenda in conjunction with major Christian holidays, in the face of people whose sincere religious values are offended by that agenda.”

Friday — observed worldwide as Good Friday by Christians marking the day of Jesus Christ’s crucifixion and then celebrating his resurrection two days later on Easter Sunday — Granholm issued a news release criticizing the Michigan Senate for failing to pass so-called “anti-bullying” legislation demanded by homosexual activist groups.

The legislation — rather than simply prohibit all bullying against all students for all reasons, no exceptions — would instead require public schools to first segregate students into special “protected class” categories including so-called “sexual orientation” and “gender identity,” then dole out protection against bullying to students who are members of one of those special protected classes.

The Michigan Information and Research Service, a Lansing state capitol news service, Friday reported Granholm’s statement and noted that “a major sticking point to anti-bullying bills in the past has been language that mandates that any local school district policy include a specific prohibition on bullying based on a child’s sexual orientation. The inclusion of this language ruffles the feathers of the social right, which fears such provisions would force all school districts to embrace gay and lesbian lifestyles.”

Glenn accused Granholm of hypocrisy and “an ongoing pattern of timing that reflects a lack of respect and sensitivity to the values of millions of Christians in Michigan.”

“Aside from once again using a Christian holiday to promote her homosexual activist allies’ political agenda, the fact is that Jennifer Granholm could have signed a comprehensive all-inclusive anti-bullying bill into law years ago that would have prohibited all bullying against all students for all reasons, period,” Glenn said. “All she’s had to do — all she has to do now — is exert a little leadership and influence with her own party and political allies, and it would likely pass both houses unanimously.”

“Instead, she has stood silently, invisibly by, apparently waiting for another Christian holiday,” Glenn said, “while Democratic lawmakers blocked that simply-stated legislation year after year, refusing to consider anything other than the demands of homosexual activists whose ulterior motive is to use legitimate concern over bullying as a Trojan Horse to create special legal rights based specifically on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.”

Glenn noted that in 2008, both state Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Midland, and Senate Majority Floor Leader Alan Cropsey, R-Dewitt, proposed amending Democrats’ anti-bullying legislation to simply and directly prohibit all bullying against all students for all reasons, without segregating students into protected classes first as the basis of gaining such protections. Homosexual activists condemned their proposals, and Democrats in both houses refused to support them.

“That’s why it hasn’t passed, and won’t,” Glenn said. “It’s simple, governor. Drop homosexual activists’ political agenda out of the bill, directly or indirectly, and you could likely have an anti-bullying bill on your desk by the end of the month. If you don’t, it won’t be the state Senate’s fault, it’ll be because your political allies’ hidden agenda is more important to you than actually passing a bill to protect young people from bullying.”

Glenn noted the two prior occasions on which Granholm also timed the announcement of her support for policies promoted by homosexual activists with a major Christian holiday:

* In 2003, Granholm announced on Christmas Eve that she had issued an executive directive granting special “protected class” status to state employees involved in homosexual relationships. http://www.michigan.gov/gov/0,1607,7-168-36898_36901-83560–,00.html

Glenn, in a guest opinion published by several state newspapers at the time, criticized the governor’s action and timing, saying she was attempting to “morally and legally equate homosexual behavior to race, ethnicity and religion. To Michigan families whose Christian faith teaches such behavior is wrong, her timing was a slap in the face.” He concluded by facetiously anticipating the timing of Granholm’s next statement promoting the homosexual agenda, saying, “No doubt she’ll announce that on Good Friday.” Glenn’s prediction finally came true seven years later.

* In 2007, the day before Thanksgiving, Granholm issued a news release announcing another new executive order by which she had established the same “protected class” status for male state employees who claim to suffer the delusion that they’re really women and demand to wear dresses to work and use the women’s restrooms, showers, and other public facilities. The Triangle Foundation, a leading homosexual activist group in the state, praised the announcement, as reported by the Associated Press on Thanksgiving Day. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312550,00.html

Glenn noted that on all three occasions on which Granholm, a professed Catholic, used a major Christian holiday as the backdrop for announcing her support for so-called “gay rights” measures, her actions were at odds with her own church’s teaching on the subject.

The Vatican in 1992, in a formal directive to bishops authored by then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, stated:

“Recently, legislation has been proposed in various places which would make discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation illegal. …Such initiatives, even where they seem more directed toward support of basic civil rights than condonement of homosexual activity or a homosexual lifestyle, may in fact have a negative impact on the family and society. …’Sexual orientation’ does not constitute a quality comparable to race, ethnic background, etc. in respect to non-discrimination. Unlike these, homosexual orientation is an objective disorder and evokes moral concern. …Including ‘homosexual orientation’ among the considerations on the basis of which it is illegal to discriminate can easily bad to regarding homosexuality as a positive source of human rights… The passage from the recognition of homosexuality as a factor on which basis it is illegal to discriminate can easily lead, if not automatically, to the legislative protection and promotion of homosexuality.” http://www.ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFHOMOL.HTM
__________________________________________________

School to Ann Coulter: Watch your mouth!
Official warns columnist of limits on free speech

A Canadian college official is warning popular columnist and speaker Ann Coulter to take heed of the country’s hate-speech laws and watch her mouth during her three appearances on Canadian campuses this week.

According to the National Post — http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2710026 — University of Ottawa Vice President Francois Houle warned Coulter about possible criminal charges that could result from her speech at the school tomorrow.

“Our domestic laws, both provincial and federal, delineate freedom of expression (or ‘free speech’) in a matter that is somewhat different than the approach taken in the United States. I therefore encourage you to educate yourself, if need be, as to what is acceptable in Canada and to do so before your planned visit here,” Houle wrote to Coulter.

The Post said it obtained a copy of the e-mail from Houle to Coulter, who has on her calendar appearances at the University of Western Ontario in London tonight, Ottawa tomorrow and the University of Calgary Wednesday.

“Promoting hatred against any identifiable group would not only be considered inappropriate, but could in fact lead to criminal charges,” Houle warned. “I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind.”

He continued, “Hopefully, you will understand and agree that what may, at first glance, seem like unnecessary restrictions to freedom of expression do, in fact, lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.”

Author Mark Steyn, a Canadian citizen, called it a “sad and embarrassing letter, even by the standards of the Canadian academy.”

“Does … Houle write to all University of Ottawa speakers like this? Or does he reserve his telekinetic powers to detect ‘pre-crime’ only for the ideologically suspect?” he wrote.

“I’ve no idea what Ann Coulter’s reaction to this letter is, but I suspect it’s ‘Go ahead, Princess Fairy Pants, make my day,’” said Steyn.

Conservative Canadian activist Ezra Levant told MSN’s Canadian division that objections, including a student group’s attempt to muzzle Coulter, are “fascist.”

“To have a public institution turned into a private club where the only [people] allowed to speak are allowed to meet the very narrow approval of some student politician … that’s gross,” Levant, who is introducing Coulter at her three visits, told the agency.

Coulter, who holds a law degree, was given support by online forum participants, including one who said, “I wonder if … Houle can provide some of the other letters sent to other speakers in this same spirit of civil and [courteous] discourse for which Canadian universities are so well known.”

WND previously reported when officials at Focus on the Family confirmed their family-oriented radio show had to be edited before being broadcast in Canada because of the country’s limits on free speech.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=130877
__________________________________________________