Please keep AFA-Michigan’s work in your prayers…
Today, the American Freedom Law Center (AFLC) filed a reply brief in the U.S. Supreme Court…which asks the high court to review an appellate court decision which held that several Michigan pastors and a family values advocate lacked standing to challenge the constitutionality of the controversial federal â€œMatthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act.â€ …The Supreme Court Justices are scheduled to hold a conference on March 15, 2013, to determine whether to grant the petition.Â
The â€œHate Crimes Act,â€ which was signed into law by President Obama in October 2009, criminalizes so-called â€œbiasâ€ crimes motivated by a personâ€™s â€œactual or perceivedâ€ â€œsexual orientationâ€ or â€œgender identity.â€Â Violators of the Act are subject to ten years in prison.
In February 2010, Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, and Michigan-based pastors Levon Yuille, Rene Ouellette, and James Combs filed a federal lawsuit against U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, challenging the Actâ€™s constitutionality.
Read remainder of story:Â http://www.americanfreedomlawcenter.org/home/77/aflc-files-brief-in-support-of-its-petition-for-supreme-court-review-of-federal-hate-crimes-law.html.Â
CITIZEN-PATRIOT— “On behalf of our supporters in Jackson, we urge you to not adopt such a discriminatory ordinance, which has proven in other jurisdictions to be used to violate the civil and religious free speech rights of both individuals and cherished community organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Catholic Charities, and the Salvation Army…,” Glenn wrote in the letter.
Read more here
AMERICAN INDEPENDENT — â€œRep. McMillin and I discussed this legislation in a meeting of pro-family lawmakers at the state Capitol in June and in private conversations before and after,â€ Gary Glenn, head of the American Family Association of Michigan, told (the Independent).
“Itâ€™s simple and straightforward, providing that local governments cannot create special â€˜protected classâ€™ status on the basis of homosexual behavior or cross-dressing, which is in conflict with existing federal and state anti-discrimination laws.â€
He said it protects religious groups from the â€œdiscrimination and persecution theyâ€™ve regularly suffered under so-called â€˜gay rightsâ€™ laws such as passed in a handful of Michigan cities.â€
Read more here
MORNING SUN –“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, wrote in an email to every city commissioner. ‘On behalf of our supporters in Mt. Pleasant, we urge you not to adopt such a discriminatory ordinance, which has proven in other jurisdictions to be used to violate the civil and religious free speech rights of both individuals and cherished community organizations such as the Boy Scouts, Catholic Charities, and the Salvation Army, and which also poses a threat to the privacy rights of women and children in public restrooms and other public facilities.'”
Read more here
Tell your state legislators in Lansing: this should be illegal in every library in Michigan. Families and children should not be forced to share public libraries (including public restrooms) with adult males who come to the library solely to watch hardcore pornography in a building full of children. All at taxpayers’ expense. AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn
PCWORLD â€“ â€œA Seattle librarian refused to force a man watching hardcore porn on a computer to move to a more discreet location, even after a woman with two children complained, according to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
The Lake City librarian reportedly could see the screen, and sympathized with the woman’s position, but maintained that the library “doesn’t censor content” and could not “be in the business of monitoring what their patrons are doing at any given computer.”â€™
Read more here
CONTACT: Gary Glenn, AFA-Michigan 989-835-7978
MIDLAND, Mich. — Gary Glenn, president for twelve years of the American Family Association of Michigan, and Ave Maria Law School Professor Patrick Gillen co-authored the Marriage Protection Amendment to Michigan’s state constitution that was approved by 59 percent of voters on a statewide ballot in 2004.Â Glenn commented Tuesday on the 9th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruling that California’s comparable amendment is unconstitutional:
The ruling by the most overturned, left-wing appeals court in America was boringly predictable. Arrogant as it is, it no longer carries any shock value that two activist elitist federal judges presumed themselves more intelligent and enlightened than the millions of California voters who voted to constitutionally protect one-man, one-woman marriage from being radically redefined.
Still, it’s just a pit stop on the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Once there, not only California’s but Michigan’s and twenty-eight other states’ Marriage Protection Amendments will be on the line, all approved by voters with an average 68 percent voting in favor.
Hopefully, Justice Scalia will be proven wrong when he predicted in Lawrence v. Texas a decade ago that the Supreme Court was laying the groundwork to declare a Constitutional “right” to so-called homosexual “marriage” in all 50 states, followed by polygamy and whatever follows that once the definition of marriage is opened up to the demands of the latest special interest group’s public pressure tactics.Â Hopefully, at least five members of the U.S. Supreme Court will show more judicial restraint and more respect for the overwhelming will of the people evidenced in statewide ballot votes in Michigan and California and 28 other states.
The only certain way to protect and preserve one-man, one-woman marriage anywhere in America will be for Congress to use its Constitutional authority to declare that federal judges no longer have jurisdiction to rule on issues involving the definition of marriage, or for Congress and 37 state legislatures to approve a Marriage Protection Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
# # #
DAILY NEWS — “‘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 â€˜accessoriesâ€™ any time a violent crime is committed against an individual who engages in homosexual behavior or cross-dressing,’ Glenn wrote on the AFA-Michigan site at the time of the initial suit.
‘The concern is that simply making a statement on your radio program or from a pulpit could be interpreted at some point in the future as having induced or encouraged someone to commit an act of violence,’ Glenn said, Michigan Radio reports. Glenn…in 2004 was behind a successful push to pass a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.”
CINCINNATI, Ohio â€“ â€œA three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals Wednesday heard oral arguments in the case of Glenn et al v. Holder, a federal civil rights lawsuit filed by the Thomas More Law Center on behalf of American Family Association of Michigan President Gary Glenn and three pas…tors in Bridgeport, Waterford, and Ypsilanti.
The lawsuit asks the court to declare the recently enacted federal “hate crimes” law unconstitutional on the basis of its threat to religious free speech rights. Identical laws in other countries and at the state level in the U.S. have been used to persecute, threaten, and even criminally prosecute individuals merely for publicly expressing opposition to homosexual behavior and/or so-called homosexual “marriage” and other elements of homosexual activists’ political agenda.â€
ASSOCIATED PRESS–“Supporters of the bill say it’s designed to save governments money on health benefits and to reflect the will of Michigan voters who decided in 2004 to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman. The American Family Association of Michigan commended (Gov. Rick) Snyder for signing the legislation, but said the ban also should apply to public universities. The conservative group urged lawmakers to seek an attorney general’s opinion on whether the ban applies to universities, and said the issue likely will wind up before the Michigan Supreme Court.”
WASHINGTON TIMES — “The governorâ€™s approval of the ban was praised by the conservative American Family Association (of Michigan), which called on the state attorney general to review the newly passed measure to determine its constitutionality. The group said the bill would likely end up before the stateâ€™s Supreme Court.”