MICHIGAN MESSENGER — Michigan activists trying to push anti-bullying legislation

‎”Michigan advocates are continuing their drive to get the state legislature to pass an anti-bullying bill…to specifically list, or enumerate, protected classes (such as ‘sexual orientation’ and ‘gender identity’). In Michigan, the legislature’s conservatives, fueled by activism by Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, have long opposed legislation including enumeration.”

At our April 7th banquet in Troy, we honored former Senate Majority Floor Leader Alan Cropsey, a long-time champion of traditional family values, including for singlehandedly blocking homosexual activists’ Trojan Horse bullying bill in 2008.

What the Messenger article fails to report:

Kevin Epling’s position has for years been at odds with the very anti-bullying organization he purportedly represents.

Bully Police USA agrees with AFA-Michigan’s opposition to segregating students into special “protected class” categories or otherwise trying to define bullying based on the bully’s thoughts (“animus”) or a bullying victim’s personal characteristics.

Bay Windows, a homosexual advocacy newspaper in Boston, reports that Bully Police USA is “one of the key opponents of enumeration.” The same Bay Windows article reports that “only eight of the 44 states that have laws to address bullying enumerate — or specifically identify — bullying based on sexual orientation and gender identity as prohibited conduct.” (N.J.’s new law, and Arkansas’ revision, would make it only ten out of 44.)

Bully Police USA founder and executive director Brenda High, who founded the group after she lost her son Jared to a bullying-related suicide in 1998, writes on the group’s website:

“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 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.”


Brenda High nails it. The reason Michigan does not have a bullying law is precisely because of what she predicts: the demands by Mr. Epling and homosexual activist groups to define bullying based on the personal characteristics of the victim have “slow(ed) the process of lawmaking, dividing political parties who will argue over which victims get special rights over other victims.”

Now that the Legislature and governor’s office are held by elected officials who are not beholden to homosexual activists, the chances of finally enacting an anti-bullying bill that simply protects all students from all bullying for all reasons have significantly increased, without segregating students or defining bullying based on what the bully might have been thinking or the victim’s personal or behavioral characteristics. As we’ve said throughout discussion of this issue, AFA-Michigan will not oppose such an all-inclusive anti-bullying law.

Question is, will Epling and homosexual activist groups celebrate such a law as a victory for student safety, or bemoan it as a defeat for the Trojan Horse “sexual orientation” agenda that has blocked adoption of an anti-bullying law for the last seven years?



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.