ILLINOIS FAMILY INSTITUTE — Homosexuals sue Christians for refusing 'civil union' ceremony

“I have said many times that there is no greater threat to First Amendment speech and religious rights and parental rights than that posed by the movement to normalize homosexuality.”

——————————————————————–

ILLINOIS FAMILY INSTITUTE
Carol Stream, Illinois
February 24, 2011

Homosexuals sue Christian bed & breakfast
owner for refusing “civil union” ceremony

by Laurie Higgins, Director of IFI’s Division of School Advocacy

Attacks on religious liberty and freedom of conscience have started — mere weeks after Governor Pat Quinn (D) signed the ‘civil unions’ bill into law — just as we warned.

While many conservatives think wisdom and political pragmatism dictate a “truce” on the social issues, liberals, including homosexuals, see this time as ripe for an all-out frontal assault on virtually every issue pertaining to homosexual practice.

Click to read rest of article: http://www.illinoisfamily.org/news/contentview.asp?c=35169
__________________________________________________

MICHIGAN MESSENGER — State considers health benefits for unmarried partners

MICHIGAN MESSENGER
Lansing, Michigan
December 9, 2010

State considers health benefits for unmarried partners
Proposal would cover non-related live-in partners

by Todd A. Heywood

“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, says the proposal, so long as it was not just for same-sex partners was legal. But he questioned if it was good public policy. ‘Even in the best of times, taxpayers should not be compelled to subsidize homosexual relationships that many people consider immoral,’ Glenn said in an email to Michigan Messenger.

‘At a time when Michigan is facing a $1.6 billion deficit, forcing taxpayers to subsidize new groups of beneficiaries — and especially a group whose choice of sexual behavior is fraught with a dramatically higher incidence of health hazards including serious life-threatening disease — is unthinkable and will only further increase the cost of healthcare for all of us.’ He says the state should, instead, be actively promoting marriage — specifically and solely, marriage between one man and one woman.”

http://michiganmessenger.com/44495/state-considers-health-benefits-for-unmarriedpartners
__________________________________________________

STATE NEWS — Michigan still navigating same-sex marriage law

Homosexual activist: Michigan will have no
choice but to accept homosexual “marriage”

“California’s recent court case will not affect the legality of same-sex unions in Michigan, said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. The association has publicly stated its opinion numerous times that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry. ‘The fact that an openly homosexual judge would vote to overturn the vote of 7 million Californians in favor of constitutionally defining marriage as between one man and one woman is anything but surprising,’ Glenn said. ‘It will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which will be the only decision that counts.’

Changing Michigan’s same-sex marriage laws might come to a nationwide decision, said communication senior Justin Ford, a program assistant at the MSU Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgender Resource Center. …’As the country as a whole continues to become more comfortable (with same-sex marriages), and the Legislature starts to reflect that comfort, then Michigan will have no choice (but) to come around.’”
——————————————–

THE STATE NEWS
Michigan State University
East Lansing, Michigan
August 9, 2010

Michigan still navigating same-sex marriage law
By Karen Confer

Although gay rights advocates across the nation might be claiming victory after a federal judge overturned a same-sex marriage ban in California, the fight more than 2,000 miles away is to some Michiganians a reminder of the state’s own unresolved legislation on the matter.

As Californians argue over the constitutionality of Proposition 8, a measure passed by voters in 2008 that banned same-sex marriages there, some Michigan legislators are working to update and clarify a similar state measure.

In 2004, Michigan voters approved a state constitutional amendment banning both same-sex marriages and civil unions in the state. Now, a bill, which was introduced to the state House of Representatives in November 2009, would seek to make Michigan recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.

The bill falls short of allowing same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license, which would run contrary to the measure passed in 2004. Instead, it seeks to change wording contained in the state’s Foreign Marriages Act of 1939 from “a man and a woman” to “individuals.”

California is having similar struggles defining marriage. In 2008, a ruling by the state Supreme Court allowed same-sex marriages. Five months later, a voter-approved constitutional amendment disallowed them. Last week, a U.S. District Court in northern California found the amendment unconstitutional.
The ruling in California could be a sign opinions toward same-sex marriage are changing throughout the country, said state Rep. Pam Byrnes, D-Lyndon Township, the primary sponsor of the bill to amend Michigan’s law.

“Attitudes are changing, and obviously we are seeing more court opinions (as) more and more people realize that same-sex couples should not be discriminated against,” Byrnes said. “The more states that are realizing these bans are illegal, maybe it’s time to get some movement.”

After the bill was introduced to the House, it was referred to the Judiciary Committee, but has not been taken up. Although the committee chair, state Rep. Mark Meadows, D-East Lansing, is a co-sponsor on the bill, Byrnes said it likely has not been addressed in case it might jeopardize representatives’ reelection efforts.

“It’s a very controversial issue,” Byrnes said. “This is a political year. It might put many legislators in an awkward situation, having to vote for that coming up before election.”

Regardless of the election cycle, the constitutional amendment was approved by the people and legislators should not infringe on the will of the people, said state Rep. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge, a member of the House Judiciary Committee.
“The people of Michigan overwhelmingly voted they did not think gay marriage was a marriage,” Jones said. “I’m a representative of the people and I will not vote for something the people do not want.”

California’s recent court case will not affect the legality of same-sex unions in Michigan, said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan. The association has publicly stated its opinion numerous times that same-sex couples should not be allowed to marry.

“The fact that an openly homosexual judge would vote to overturn the vote of 7 million Californians in favor of constitutionally defining marriage as between one man and one woman is anything but surprising,” Glenn said. “It will be appealed to the United States Supreme Court, which will be the only decision that counts.”

Changing Michigan’s same-sex marriage laws might come to a nationwide decision, said communication senior Justin Ford, a program assistant at the MSU Lesbian, Bisexual, Gay, Transgender Resource Center.

“Michigan legislators and our legislative stances on same-sex marriages (are) the strictest in the states,” Ford said.

“As the country as a whole continues to become more comfortable (with same-sex marriages), and the Legislature starts to reflect that comfort, then Michigan will have no choice (but) to come around.”

http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2010/08/mich_still_navigating_samesex_marriage_law
__________________________________________________

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

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.
__________________________________________________

WHTC Radio — Baillargeon back on campaign trail

“(Allegan County District Judge William) Baillargeon…lost by 255 votes to Kevin Cronin, in part due to negative campaigning by Campaign for Michigan Families, an arm of the Midland-based American Family Association (of Michigan), who claimed that Baillargeon was sympathetic to gay rights because of past affiliations with the Triangle Foundation and a group opposing the Michigan Marriage Protection Amendment. …It wasn’t immediately known if the AFA, headed by noted activist Gary Glenn, will again campaign against Baillargeon.”

——————————————————
WHTC Radio
Holland, Michigan
April 6, 2010

Baillargeon back on campaign trail

Bill Baillargeon

ALLEGAN, Mich. — If at first you don’t succeed, try, try again.

Bill Baillargeon is apparently taking that old cliché to heart. For the second time in three years, he will attempt to win in an election a court seat that he had been appointed to by Governor Granholm.

In 2007, the Saugatuck jurist was selected to the Allegan County Circuit Court bench to replace the retiring Harry Beach. Baillargeon then ran for the seat the following year, but lost by 255 votes to Kevin Cronin, in part due to negative campaigning by Campaign for Michigan Families, an arm of the Midland-based American Family Association (of Michigan), who claimed that Baillargeon was sympathetic to gay rights because of past affiliations with the Triangle Foundation and a group opposing the Michigan Marriage Protection Amendment.

Last year, Granholm tabbed Baillargeon again, this time to take over for Stephen Sheridan on the Allegan District Court bench. Yesterday, Baillargeon announced his candidacy for a full term, and at this point, there are no other challengers.

It wasn’t immediately known if the AFA, headed by noted activist Gary Glenn, will again campaign against Baillargeon.

http://www.whtc.com/news/articles/2010/apr/06/baillargeon-back-campaign-trail/
__________________________________________________

NEWS — Saginaw Democrats elect homosexual activist, marriage amendment foe as party chair

Homosexual activist’s election as chairman reveals Saginaw Democratic Party at odds with county voters, party’s own base

59 percent of county voters — including blacks and union
households — approved marriage amendment in 2004

SAGINAW, Mich. — A Midland resident who co-authored Michigan’s
Marriage Protection Amendment — overwhelmingly approved by state and Saginaw County voters in 2004 — Friday said the Saginaw County Democratic Party’s election last week of an openly homosexual activist party chair is further evidence that party officials are at odds not only with county voters but with the party’s own base of African-American and union households who strongly supported the amendment.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said that “by electing an openly homosexual activist committed to repealing constitutional protection of one-man, one-woman marriage, local Democrats have allowed their party to be taken over by a chairman whose personal agenda is dramatically at odds with the traditional family values strongly shared not only by most voters but by key constituencies within the party itself.”

“In solidarity especially with African-American and union households who strongly supported the Marriage Protection Amendment,” Glenn said, “we encourage rank-and-file Democrats in Saginaw County to take their party back from homosexual activists such as Garnet Lewis, who will obviously steer the party in a direction not supported by voters of either party.”

The Saginaw News last Friday reported the county party’s election of former legislative candidate and Central Michigan University administrator Garnet Lewis, but notably failed to disclose to its readers any mention of her self-professed sexual identity, affiliation with state and local homosexual activist groups, or the strong personal offense at voter approval of the Marriage Protection Amendment that she said was the primary motivator of her involvement in county politics. http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2010/03/garnet_lewis_takes_reins_at_sa.html

Coverage of Lewis’ election by a homosexual activist newsmagazine in Detroit was more forthright. Between the Lines reported that Lewis is “an open lesbian (and) advocate for (lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender) rights” who has served on the boards of both statewide and local homosexual activist lobbying groups. http://www.pridesource.com/article.html?article=40574

Following her loss in a 2008 bid for the state House of Representatives, during which she was endorsed by state and national homosexual activist groups, held a fundraiser at a “gay” bar near Detroit, and benefited from over $300,000 in independent expenditures by a political action committee funded by an openly homosexual billionaire in Kalamazoo, Lewis wrote on a homosexual activist blog, Rainbow Mittens, that her political activism was in direct response to voter approval of the Marriage Protection Amendment.

“I decided to become engaged in local politics on November 5, 2004 at approximately 1:23 a.m.,” Lewis wrote. “George Bush had won a second term but, most importantly, Proposal 2 (the Marriage Protection Amendment) passed here in the state. …(T)he majority of people in this state were saying that my relationship did not matter and should not be legally recognized. It was offensive to me then, and it remains offensive to me now. After discussing the passage of Proposal 2 with my partner, we both decided to get involved locally in our county political organization. It was that or move to Canada or Germany.”

Lewis’ stand — though out of step with the 59 percent of voters who in 2004 approved the amendment both statewide and in Saginaw County — is nonetheless consistent with state Democratic Party officials’ allegiance to homosexual activists’ political agenda, Glenn said.

Delegates to the Michigan Democratic Party convention in 2006 approved a platform which stated: “We call for the repeal of 2004 Proposal 2 which adds discrimination to our State Constitution.” http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=20122

The full text of the amendment states: “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.”

African-Americans supported amendment

Glenn pointed to the Marriage Protection Amendment’s approval in 2004 by voters in heavily African-American population centers; for example, by 51 percent of the vote in the city of Saginaw, 52 percent in the city limits of Detroit and Flint, 57 percent in Muskegon, and 67 percent in Benton Harbor.

He also cited a Detroit Free Press report the day after the November 2004 general election detailing an exit poll of 2,343 Michigan voters which found that the amendment had been supported by 59 percent of all black voters in the state. (“Gay marriage ban easily wins in state,” by Dawson Bell, Detroit Free Press, November 3, 2004)

Union households supported amendment

Glenn also pointed to a Detroit News poll in mid-October 2004 which found that “two-thirds of union households support Proposal 2, identical to the level of support in non-union households,” according to a statewide survey of 600 likely voters conducted by Mitchell Research & Communications, Inc. of East Lansing. (“Same-sex marriage ban likely to pass,” by Charlie Cain and Mark Hornbeck, Detroit News Lansing Bureau, October 22, 2004)

Half of all Democrats supported the amendment…and still do

The same Detroit News survey found that 51 percent of Democrats overall were planning to vote in favor of the amendment. (Detroit News, Oct. 22, 2004)
Five years later, that support hasn’t waned, according to a September 2009 poll by Lansing
Democratic political consultant Mark Grebner which found that half of all Democrats said they would vote against a ballot measure attempting to repeal the amendment. http://www.michiganliberal.com/diary/15250/repealling-michigans-prohibition-on-gay-marriage

Remarkably, Glenn said, the Grebner poll suggests that supporters of the Marriage Protection Amendment would have “a reasonable shot at defeating any ballot campaign to repeal the amendment even if Democrats were the only ones allowed to vote.”

Add in the 58 percent of independents and 91 percent of Republicans who said they too would vote against repeal of the amendment, according to Grebner, and such an election “wouldn’t even be close,” Glenn said.

“That’s why electing a chairman whose primary motivation is her personal agenda of promoting so-called homosexual ‘marriage’ is so curious, unless they’re in the business of helping the opposition, since it likely offends half the Democrats and will further alienate independents and Republicans from Democratic candidates,” Glenn said.

“Politically, it might have been better for Saginaw County Democrats if Chairman Lewis had moved to Canada or Germany instead, as she threatened,” he said.

He noted that in 2004, rank-and-file Michigan Republicans in state convention overwhelmingly adopted a resolution endorsing the Marriage Protection Amendment, by a vote of 1,259 to 40.
__________________________________________________

DETROIT FREE PRESS — Battle lines drawn over (lesbian) custody challenge

Dear AFA-Michigan supporter,

The well-placed “fear of a voter backlash” cited in the articles below is a direct result of AFA-Michigan supporters such as you taking action in the past. So let’s remind them, especially since articles such as these will no doubt generate calls and e-mails to the Legislature from homosexual activists demanding their “right” to intentionally deny children either a mother or a father.

Please call your state representative today and tell him that this current court case is proof of why House Bill 4131 should be defeated, to stop more innocent children from being used as pawns in court battles to win marriage and adoption “rights” for homosexual relationships.

Click here to find your state representative: http://house.michigan.gov/find_a_rep.asp

Or call House Speaker Andy Dillon’s office — 517-373-0857 — and ask to be connected to your state representative.

Thanks as always for your support!

Gary Glenn, President
AFA-Michigan

————————————————-

“The only people who may adopt in Michigan are married couples and single individuals, either gay or straight. …That in effect bars gay couples from adopting because of Proposal 2, the constitutional amendment Michigan voters approved in 2004. It limits marriage to ‘the union of one man and one woman.’ …A legislative effort to allow adoption by a partner in an unmarried relationship is stalled. House Bill 4131, the so-called second-parent adoption measure, is stuck on the floor of the state House, just like its predecessor two years ago. The chief sponsor, Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith, D-South Lyon, says she can’t get enough votes because some supporters are fearful of a voter backlash from allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt.”

——————————————–

DETROIT FREE PRESS
Detroit, Michigan
March 8, 2010

Battle lines drawn over custody challenge
March 22 hearing set for long-shot suit by Trenton woman
by David Ashenfelter, Free Press Staff Writer

Renee Harmon says there were two turning points in her relationship with Tammy Davis.

The first happened in June 2008, when Davis said she was unhappy and wanted to end their 19-year relationship.

The second occurred last September when, Harmon said, Davis’ new partner slammed the door in her face and told her the children were no longer hers.

“For someone who has only known my children for a short time to tell me that they’re not mine made me angry, and I lost it,” Harmon said recently. “I’m their mother. I have fed them, changed their diapers, nurtured them and loved them unconditionally since the day they were born.”

Harmon said she forced her way into the Grosse Ile home she used to share with Davis in a desperate attempt to see the children — a 10-year-old girl and twin 7-year-old boys. Harmon said they had decided that Davis should carry the children because she is younger.

Days after the blowup, Davis obtained a personal protection order that has prevented Harmon from having any contact with her or the children. Harmon said Davis has refused to have the order amended so Harmon can visit the children.

Last month, Harmon sued for joint custody in Wayne County Circuit Court. The first hurdle for her lawyers will come March 22, when they try to persuade Judge Kathleen McCarthy that Harmon has legal standing to sue.

If they lose, which they said is very possible, they’re prepared to appeal all the way to the Michigan Supreme Court in an effort to secure joint custody rights for nonbiological partners in gay and straight unmarried relationships.

“To say these children are not as important as the children of married, heterosexual parents is the height of insensitivity,” said Dana Nessel, one of Harmon’s lawyers.

Though Davis wouldn’t comment, her lawyer, David Viar of Rochester, said: “It’s an extremely sensitive, private and personal matter. Ms. Davis requests that the public and the media respect her privacy and the privacy of her children.”

The case has created a stir in metro Detroit’s gay and lesbian community. Nessel and co-counsel Nicole Childers of Royal Oak said 275 people attended a legal fund-raiser for Harmon in January.

In 2007, more than 22,000 same-sex couples lived in Michigan and 18% of them were raising children, according to a study from the UCLA School of Law. An estimated 7,800 Michigan children were living in same-sex households then.

Under state law, the only people who can petition for custody are biological parents or the husband of the biological mother if the child was born during their marriage.

An adoptive parent — biological or nonbiological — also may petition for custody. But the only people who may adopt in Michigan are married couples and single individuals, either gay or straight.

Though state law doesn’t expressly prohibit adoptions by unwed couples, Michigan courts and judges require adoptive couples to be married.

That in effect bars gay couples from adopting because of Proposal 2, the constitutional amendment Michigan voters approved in 2004. It limits marriage to “the union of one man and one woman.” The state Supreme Court has interpreted it to also ban civil unions for gay couples.

A legislative effort to allow adoption by a partner in an unmarried relationship is stalled. House Bill 4131, the so-called second-parent adoption measure, is stuck on the floor of the state House, just like its predecessor two years ago.

The chief sponsor, Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith, D-South Lyon, says she can’t get enough votes because some supporters are fearful of a voter backlash from allowing gay and lesbian couples to adopt.

Supporters, including the Michigan Department of Human Services, the Michigan Psychological Association and the National Association of Social Workers, say the bill would protect the children of unmarried couples by enabling them to receive insurance, pension and Social Security benefits from either parent, should one of them die or become disabled. And it would protect their right to continue their relationship and receive financial support from both parents after a breakup.

The Michigan Family Forum opposes the bill, saying it would undermine the sanctity of marriage. The Michigan Catholic Conference opposes the bill because it doesn’t want the state to dictate how faith-based groups handle adoption services.

Though most states allow single gays and lesbians to adopt, only 16 allow adoptions by same-sex couples. Michigan is among six states that prohibit both same-sex and unmarried heterosexual couples from jointly adopting.

ACLU lawyer Jay Kaplan said Michigan’s situation is tragic.

“I’ve seen parents who have been raising children for many years, but because the biological parent holds all of the legal cards, the kids are taken away and they’re never allowed to see them again,” Kaplan said.

“Our courts and our current laws are operating out of a different century,” he added. “We are not taking into account the families that exist in Michigan, and by doing that, we’re doing a great disservice and harm to children.”

http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20100308/NEWS06/3080449/1001/News/Battle-lines-drawn-over-custody-challenge&template=fullarticle

—————————————

“The Detroit Free Press reports a bill sponsored by Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith — a Democratic candidate for governor — that would allow adoption by an unwed partner is stalled on the House floor, as her peers appear unwilling to vote on an issue that could upset their conservative constituents. After all, Michigan voters in 2004 approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as ‘the union of one man and one woman,’ essentially banning marriage — and the legal rights that come with it — for gay couples.”

————————

MLIVE.COM
Detroit, Michigan
March 8, 2010

Same-sex custody battle: Should Michigan
extend parental rights to gay partners?

by Jonathan Oosting

Renee Harmon on Fox News

Renee Harmon and Tammy Davis lived together for 19 years and raised three children in Metro Detroit.

But following the couple’s bitter breakup, Harmon has not seen the kids in more than six months and has no custody rights: Her partner delivered the children after artificial insemination and Michigan does not allow gay marriage or second-parent adoption.

“I love them more than anything in the world,” Harmon told Fox 2. “And then for someone to tell me they’re not my kids? You know, how dare she.”

Harmon filed a lawsuit last month in Wayne Circuit Court seeking joint custody of the children, and a judge will hear arguments later this month.

While her case is considered a long shot, Harmon says she plans on taking the battle to the Michigan Supreme Court if necessary.

Harmon told Fox 2 she last saw the children — twin 7-year-old boys and a 10-year-old girl — on the first day of school in 2009 at the Grosse Ile home the couple used to share, where she said Davis’ new partner slammed the door on her face and refused visitation.

Upset but undeterred, Harmon forced her way inside the home to see her children. Davis responded by taking out a personal protection order, and Harmon has not seen the children since.

As Jessica Carreras of Pride Source wrote last month, Harmon’s custody battle is one of several to pop up around the nation as states deal with a “lack of clear legislation on matters of marriage, adoption and what it means to be a ‘parent.'”

The Detroit Free Press reports a bill sponsored by Rep. Alma Wheeler Smith — a Democratic candidate for governor — that would allow adoption by an unwed partner is stalled on the House floor, as her peers appear unwilling to vote on an issue that could upset their conservative constituents.

After all, Michigan voters in 2004 approved a constitutional amendment defining marriage as “the union of one man and one woman,” essentially banning marriage — and the legal rights that come with it — for gay couples.

But Jay Kaplan, an attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, tells the newspaper situations like Harmon’s are tragic for both parents and children.

“We are not taking into account the families that exist in Michigan, and by doing that, we’re doing a great disservice and harm to children.”

What’s your take: Does Harmon deserve custody rights? Would you support legislation that would allow an unwed individual to adopt the biological child of their domestic partner?

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2010/03/same-sex_custody_battle_should.html
__________________________________________________

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

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
__________________________________________________

HOLY BULLIES — Hypocrisy of the day – Gary Glenn (again)

HOLY BULLIES AND HEADLESS MONSTERS
(homosexual activist website)
Columbia, South Carolina
February 15, 2010

Hypocrisy of the day — Gary Glenn (again)

Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan got a little press from the right-wing One News Now today:

…Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, is concerned that the “Hate Crimes Act” signed into law last year will be used to prosecute those who speak in favor of traditional biblical morality. He cites a personal example.

“Several years ago Cardinal Adam Maida of Detroit and I were personally accused by the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force in a news release of being responsible for inciting the alleged beating death of a 72-year-old homosexual man in Detroit, merely because we had actively supported Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment reaffirming marriage as only between a man and a woman,” he remarks.

Glenn says aside from the fact that officials found that there was no assault and the man died of natural causes, it illustrates the point that preachers of biblical truth are being targeted…

Glenn is speaking of the case of 72-year-old Andrew Anthos, who died mysteriously in 2007. Anthos, shortly before his death, had told family members that he was attacked because of his sexual orientation. However, the police and medical examiners concluded that his death was the result of a fall and there was no evidence that he was attacked.

But Glenn plays a little loose with the facts regarding the Gay and Lesbian Task Force letter. This is what it said:

“For years, Michigan has been subjected to the homophobic rants of Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, while so many otherwise good and decent people have been silent. Just two years ago, the state endured an ugly campaign, led by Cardinal Adam Maida, to ‘protect marriage’ by writing anti-gay discrimination into its constitution. Based on that amendment, a three-judge panel of Michigan’s court of appeals voted last month to terminate medical insurance coverage for families of LGBT government workers throughout the state.

So while the letter did somewhat link him to Anthos’s death (which was probably unfair), Glenn really has no right to plead total innocence here. He wasn’t “merely standing up for marriage.” The letter speaks to his long history of vilifying the lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender community.

Like in 2006 when he spoke against gay/straight alliances in public schools because according to him, they “promote risky behavior,”

Or when he opposed anti-discrimination policies on the assumption that they would make bathrooms co-ed,

Or when he opposed anti-bullying legislation because according to him, it “promoted the homosexual agenda.”

Or that ridiculous lawsuit he has help to launch against hate crimes legislation, legislation which does nothing to punish anyone for speech unless that speech is advocating violence,

Or last week when he declared that there should criminal sanctions against “homosexual behavior.” The discussion that he had with me afterwards in which he tried to justify his words only spoke to his desire to further stigmatize the lgbt community even to the point of using information designed to help us as a weapon against us.

And that’s the huge hypocrisy of folks like Glenn. They claim that they are being attacked for merely standing up for “Christian values,” and it’s a good lie they tell as long as no one is made aware of how low they stoop to defend their idea of morality.

http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2010/02/hypocrisy-of-day-gary-glenn-again.html
__________________________________________________

NEW YORK TIMES — Many successful (homosexual) marriages share an open secret

NEW YORK TIMES
New York, New York
January 28, 2010

Many successful (homosexual) marriages share an open secret
by Scott James

“As the trial phase of the constitutional battle to overturn (California’s) ban on same-sex marriage concludes in federal court, (homosexual) nuptials are portrayed by opponents as an effort to rewrite the traditional rules of matrimony. Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many (homosexual) couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research.

A study to be released next month…reveals that monogamy is not a central feature for many. Some (homosexual) men and lesbians argue that, as a result, they have stronger, longer-lasting and more honest relationships. And while that may sound counterintuitive, some experts say boundary-challenging (homosexual) relationships represent an evolution in marriage — one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.

New research at San Francisco State University reveals just how common open relationships are among (homosexual) men and lesbians in the Bay Area. The Gay Couples Study has followed 556 male couples for three years — about 50 percent of those surveyed have sex outside their relationships, with the knowledge and approval of their partners. …’With straight people, it’s called affairs or cheating,’ said Colleen Hoff, the study’s principal investigator, ‘but with gay people it does not have such negative connotations.’

…None of this is news in the (homosexual) community, but few will speak publicly about it. …They (worry) that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.

‘The traditional American marriage is in crisis, and we need insight,’ (Joe Quirk, author of the best-selling relationship book ‘It’s Not You, It’s Biology’) said, citing the fresh perspective (homosexual) couples bring to matrimony. ‘If innovation in marriage is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.’”

Read the full New York Times story here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/29/us/29sfmetro.html
__________________________________________________