ASSOCIATED PRESS: Michigan Court is First to Ban Homosexual Benefits


“Conservatives, however, are lauding the decision and say the (Michigan Court of Appeals) interpreted the (marriage) amendment’s clear wording. ‘Since two-thirds of all the (state) marriage amendments are more similar to Michigan’s language, who’s to say that the Michigan decision won’t be the prevailing precedent in the future?’ said Gary Glenn, the president of the American Family Association of Michigan who helped write Michigan’s measure.”


ASSOCIATED PRESS
Lansing, Michigan – February 7, 2007

Michigan court is first to ban benefits for gay partners
by Dave Eggert

When a Michigan appeals court recently ruled that partners of gays and lesbians who work for government and state universities can’t be covered by their partners’ health insurance, gay rights advocates nationally became alarmed. They fear the decision could encourage similar rulings in 17 other states whose bans on gay marriage could be interpreted to prohibit domestic partner benefits for same-sex couples. Michigan, one of 27 states with constitutional bans on gay marriage, is the first to rule that public employers can’t offer health benefits if they’re based on treating same-sex relationships as similar to marriage.

“It really is just a matter of time before we start seeing wholesale litigation in this area,” said Carrie Evans, state legislative director for the Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights group in Washington, D.C. In Alaska, the only other state to rule so far on the benefits given to the same-sex partners of public employees, the courts went the other way, ruling that it’s unconstitutional to deny such benefits.

But more than a score of states have yet to grapple with how their gay marriage bans apply to same-sex partner benefits.
For Dennis Patrick, 43, a professor at Eastern Michigan University whose partner, Tom Patrick, is covered under Dennis’ health insurance, losing the court case has been tough. The couple has adopted four foster children, one with a developmental disability. Tom Patrick works part-time to care for the kids. “If he has to go back to work full-time, that hurts our family. Or we have to pay for health benefits out of pocket, which hurts our family,” said Dennis Patrick, one of 21 plaintiffs who sued the state. He worries the ruling could immediately strip Tom’s insurance unless it’s halted by the Michigan Supreme Court, where the case will be appealed. “It’s pretty scary,” he said. “To me that either demonstrates a lack of understanding of how this can affect our family or other families, or it’s just mean and cruel.”

In its ruling, the three-judge panel said “the people, in an act of self-government, could rationally conclude that the welfare and morals of society benefit from protecting and strengthening traditional marriages.” Twenty-three states have passed constitutional bans on gay marriage since 2004, largely in response to gay marriages being performed in Massachusetts. Eighteen of those states, including Michigan, have broader amendments that also prohibit the recognition of civil unions or same-sex partnerships.
Michigan’s appeals court decision caught some by surprise.

Continue reading “ASSOCIATED PRESS: Michigan Court is First to Ban Homosexual Benefits”

ASSOCIATED PRESS: Court Sides with MI Marriage Amendment on Issue of "Gay Benefits"


“The state Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Michigan’s ban against gay marriage also blocks public universities and state and local governments from providing health insurance benefits to the partners of gay workers. …The court said the constitutional amendment doesn’t prevent public employers from giving benefits to unmarried partners if they’re based on something other than a marriage-like union. Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan and co-author of the amendment, said universities and governments could let all their employees designate a beneficiary — a grandmother, gay partner or uncle.


ASSOCIATED PRESS
Lansing, Michigan – February 2, 2007

Court rules gay couples can’t receive health insurance benefits

LANSING, Mich. — Associate professor Alexandra Stern says a big reason she moved from California to Ann Arbor in 2002 was because the University of Michigan provides health care benefits to her lesbian partner.

Now she’s wondering if they should stay.

The state Court of Appeals ruled Friday that Michigan’s ban against gay marriage also blocks public universities and state and local governments from providing health insurance benefits to the partners of gay workers.

“It’s very upsetting when you put down roots in a place. You’re a taxpayer and you contribute. But then you get slapped in the face,” said Stern, 40, a medical historian and associate professor of obstetrics and gynecology. She and her partner, Terri Koreck, are trying to adopt a baby.

“If the climate becomes really hostile, we would seriously consider moving elsewhere,” Stern said.

A three-judge panel cited the “plain language” of a 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment making the union between a man and woman the only agreement recognized as a marriage “or similar union for any purpose.”

“The protection of the institution of marriage is a longstanding public policy and tradition in the law of Michigan,” wrote Judges Kurtis Wilder, Joel Hoekstra and Brian Zahra.

Continue reading “ASSOCIATED PRESS: Court Sides with MI Marriage Amendment on Issue of "Gay Benefits"”

SALON.COM: There Is a Gay Agenda — Winning Elections


“Medical supplies heir Jon Stryker of Michigan, who is openly gay, and his Colorado-based sister Pat finished eighth and 14th, donating $1.2 million and $605,000, respectively, this election cycle. …(F)or Stryker, taking control of the House in his home state of Michigan was a key goal. Based on filings with the Michigan secretary of state, Stryker made more than $5 million in political donations within the state through both his personal contributions and his PAC, the Coalition for Progress. While the GOP lost only one seat in the state Senate, however, Democrats did take control of the state House, just as Stryker had hoped. Stryker also poured more than $1 million into the reelection campaign of Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm.”


————————

SALON.COM
New York, New York – November 29, 2006

There is a Gay Agenda — Winning Elections
Gay millionaires and their allies poured unprecedented sums into the 2006 election — and it worked.
by Kerry Eleveld

Five weeks before the 2004 election, Rep. Sue Kelly, N.Y.-19 , made what seemed to be a safe move for a six-term Republican congresswoman accustomed to winning reelection by comfortable margins. Like 226 other members of the U.S. House, she voted to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have altered the U.S. Constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Sure enough, the residents of Kelly’s Hudson Valley district returned the moderate Republican to Congress that November with 67 percent of the vote. Voting for a constitutional amendment she had once vowed to oppose seemed to have few negative consequences for her politically — and so she did it again in July 2006. To the degree either vote was noticed, they mostly helped quiet talk of a future GOP primary challenge from the right.

But at least one constituent who did take notice of what Kelly had done also took offense. This September, openly gay businessman Adam Rose wrote a $500,000 check to Majority Action, a so-called 527 political advocacy group, for the express purpose of unseating Sue Kelly in the November election.


“Medical supplies heir Jon Stryker of Michigan, who is openly gay, and his Colorado-based sister Pat finished eighth and 14th, donating $1.2 million and $605,000, respectively, this election cycle. …(F)or Stryker, taking control of the House in his home state of Michigan was a key goal. Based on filings with the Michigan secretary of state, Stryker made more than $5 million in political donations within the state through both his personal contributions and his PAC, the Coalition for Progress. While the GOP lost only one seat in the state Senate, however, Democrats did take control of the state House, just as Stryker had hoped. Stryker also poured more than $1 million into the reelection campaign of Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm.”


SALON.COM
New York, New York – November 29, 2006

There is a Gay Agenda — Winning Elections
Gay millionaires and their allies poured unprecedented sums into the 2006 election — and it worked.
by Kerry Eleveld

Five weeks before the 2004 election, Rep. Sue Kelly, N.Y.-19 , made what seemed to be a safe move for a six-term Republican congresswoman accustomed to winning reelection by comfortable margins. Like 226 other members of the U.S. House, she voted to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment, which would have altered the U.S. Constitution to deny same-sex couples the right to marry.

Sure enough, the residents of Kelly’s Hudson Valley district returned the moderate Republican to Congress that November with 67 percent of the vote. Voting for a constitutional amendment she had once vowed to oppose seemed to have few negative consequences for her politically — and so she did it again in July 2006. To the degree either vote was noticed, they mostly helped quiet talk of a future GOP primary challenge from the right.

But at least one constituent who did take notice of what Kelly had done also took offense. This September, openly gay businessman Adam Rose wrote a $500,000 check to Majority Action, a so-called 527 political advocacy group, for the express purpose of unseating Sue Kelly in the November election.

“When she made that vote,” explained Rose, “I took a look at the political environment, and I said there’s nothing I can do about who’s president. There’s nothing I can do about the fact that Republicans control both houses [of Congress]. However, here is one thing I can have an impact on.” Rose’s half-million meant that Democratic challenger John Hall was actually able to compete with Kelly financially — and topple the once-safe incumbent this past Election Day in a race decided by fewer than 5,000 votes.
Rose is one of five wealthy people in the top 20 donors to federal 527s this election cycle whose contributions were either partially or entirely motivated by an effort to combat anti-gay legislation and defeat anti-gay incumbents. They turned the 2006 election into an object lesson in targeted giving that could fundamentally change the way politicians think about the consequences of taking anti-gay stances. And the money they gave to federal 527s, while considerable, was in several cases only a small portion of the millions they spent on politics in 2006, since much of their cash went to low-profile but vitally important state-level races.

Continue reading “SALON.COM: There Is a Gay Agenda — Winning Elections”

BETWEEN THE LINES: Wealthy Homosexuals Give Millions to "Pro-Gay" Politicians


“Jon Stryker, an architect from Kalamazoo, inherited his fortune, estimated at $1.7 billion, from a medical products corporation his grandfather started in 1941. …At the federal level, Stryker also contributed $750,000 during the 2005-06 election cycle to the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund, a national PAC that seeks to find, train, and run openly gay candidates for office. …And elsewhere, he contributed $200,000 to four (homosexual) statewide organizations fighting anti-gay marriage amendments at the ballot box in November.

…But no openly gay person of wealth has charged into the political fray as dramatically as Tim Gill of Colorado. …Gill, a self-made millionaire from the software boom, has been the motivator, inspiration, and strategist for many gay millionaires making political contributions in recent years. …The Gill groups have also provided operating funds to MassEquality’s work to support equal marriage rights in Massachusetts, and support for Michigan’s Triangle Foundation and Equality Michigan.”


BETWEEN THE LINES
(homosexual newsmagazine)
Detroit, Michigan – December 7, 2006

Kalamazoo billionaire invests in LGBT politics
by Lisa Keen

He’s not a household name, not even in gay households, outside of Michigan. But he’s gay, he’s on the Forbes list of the world’s richest people, and he’s using his billions to improve the political landscape for LGBT people in Michigan and the United States.

Jon Stryker, an architect from Kalamazoo, inherited his fortune, estimated at $1.7 billion, from a medical products corporation his grandfather started in 1941. At 47, he ranks No. 6 on a list of largest contributors to 527 political advocacy groups.

More impressively, he poured $4.6 million of his own money into the Coalition for Progress, a political action committee he created only in August 2006. Along with a $500,000 contribution from his sister and assorted small contributions from others, the Coalition for Progress had a war chest of $5.2 million and spent much of it on elections for the Michigan legislature.

According to records filed with the Michigan Bureau of Elections, the Coalition spent $1.5 million in the governor’s race, where Stryker’s preferred candidate, pro-gay Democratic incumbent Jennifer M. Granholm, defeated anti-gay Republican challenger Dick DeVos. It also spent at least $1 million on 18 state house and senate races, successfully helping to unseat at least six anti-gay legislators, preserve the seats of two pro-gay ones, and win control of the state House for the Democrats.

“The thing that’s concerning,” said a spokesperson for the dethroned Republican speaker to the Kalamazoo Gazette after the election, “is that he has used his billions in inheritance to fund some very left-wing causes, including reversal of (anti-) gay marriage laws in other states.”

Continue reading “BETWEEN THE LINES: Wealthy Homosexuals Give Millions to "Pro-Gay" Politicians”

Michigan Dems urge repeal of Marriage Protection Amendment

Michigan Democrats urged to rescind call to repeal Marriage Protection Amendment

Nearly 60 percent of voters approved measure in 2004

LANSING — A co-author of Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment — overwhelmingly approved by voters two years ago as Proposal 2 — Monday urged state Democratic Party officials to rescind a newly-adopted party platform provision expressly calling for repeal of the amendment.

Delegates to last month’s Michigan Democratic Party convention 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

Gary Glenn, Midland, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, in a letter e-mailed Monday to Michigan Democratic Party Chairman Mark Brewer, said the party’s new call for repeal of the voter-approved amendment “puts Democratic Party officials demonstrably and dramatically at odds with the values not only of Michigan voters overall, but with major elements of the Democratic Party’s own base.”

“By calling for repeal of the constitutional protection of one-man, one-woman marriage overwhelmingly approved by Michigan voters,” Glenn wrote, “you have allowed a tiny but very loud special interest group of homosexual activists to put the party on record with a slap in the face to the traditional family values shared by most rank-and-file Democrats, particularly African-Americans and union households.”

“On behalf of Michigan voters of all parties, but especially African-American and union households who so strongly supported constitutional protection of marriage between one man and one woman, we urge Michigan Democrats to take their party back from homosexual activist pressure groups and their allies who are now obviously steering the party in the wrong direction,” Glenn wrote.

Proposal 2, the 2004 ballot measure that amended Michigan’s constitution to reaffirm the definition of marriage as only between one man and one woman, was approved by 59 percent of general election voters in November 2004.

The full text of the amendment stated: “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 that found the amendment was 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 nonunion 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)

Democrats overall supported amendment

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)

The Michigan Democratic Party in 2004 remained neutral on the issue, acknowledging strong support for protecting one-man, one-woman marriage among traditionally Democratic constituencies.

However, in this week’s issue of Between the Lines, a homosexual activist newsweekly in the Detroit area, activists praised an element of the Democratic Party’s new 2006 platform that had not previously been reported by the news media.

“Obviously, on the Proposal 2 issue, the party has much better hindsight than they did foresight; it’s regrettable that the party did not weigh in on Proposal 2 (in 2004), but I’m glad the party wants it gone,” said Sean Kosofsky, a member of both the Democratic Party and of Triangle Pride PAC’s elections committee. “Calling for the repeal of Proposal 2 is a bold move that we need to unify our state.”

Glenn disagreed. “Michigan voters have already spoken with a strong united voice, and they said they want one-man, one-woman marriage constitutionally protected from homosexual activists and their political agenda.”

Glenn first called for a Marriage Protection Amendment in June 2003 following an Ontario court ruling that legalized so-called homosexual “marriage” just across Michigan’s border. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/19/world/main559437.shtml

After falling short of receiving the required two-thirds vote in the Legislature, the amendment appeared on the 2004 ballot after supporters near-miraculously gathered nearly half a million signatures in less than three months with volunteer petition circulators.

In 2004, the Michigan Republican Party in convention overwhelmingly adopted a resolution endorsing the Marriage Protection Amendment, by a vote of 1,259 to 40.

CHUCK COLSON — Call Congress TODAY to protect marriage!

Time to Amend
by Chuck Colson

Protecting Traditional Marriage

Next week the House of Representatives will be voting on the Marriage Protection Amendment, which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman.

Our opponents say there is no need for this amendment because the states will do it, and they cite last week’s New York Court of Appeals decision supporting heterosexual marriage as evidence. Well, they’re wrong.

Yes, the Court of Appeals in New York did uphold New York’s law limiting marriage to one man and one woman. But in holding that there was a “rational basis� for this, the New York court is swimming against the tide of recent Supreme Court decisions in the area of gay rights.

This “tide� makes it virtually certain that when state statutes or constitutional provisions barring gay “marriage� reach the Supreme Court, they will be struck down.

Let me tell you why: In Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992, Justice Kennedy affirmed the right of abortion by defining “liberty� as the right to “define one’s own concept of existence, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.�

As Justice Scalia noted in his dissent, such a definition could embrace anything. Scalia is right.
Continue reading “CHUCK COLSON — Call Congress TODAY to protect marriage!”

LANSING ST. JOURNAL — Prop 2 clearly written, clearly backed

The following guest opinion was published in response to the Lansing State Journal’s July 10th misleading editorial found by clicking here.

LANSING STATE JOURNAL
Lansing, Michigan
July 13, 2006

(Editorial Page)

Proposal 2 clearly written, clearly backed
by Gary Glenn

As usual, the LSJ (July 10 editorial) misrepresented the American Family Association of Michigan’s lawsuit against Michigan State University.

The purpose of the Marriage Protection Amendment is to protect not just the word “marriage,” but the unique legal and social standing of the institution of marriage.

MSU’s same-sex benefits policy unconstitutionally establishes eligibility by using the requirements for marriage found in state law, inserting the words “domestic partnership” instead.

MSU’s policy itself discriminates, applying only to homosexual employees. Appropriately, unmarried heterosexual couples don’t qualify. Neither do an employee’s mother, sister or roommate. If MSU doesn’t let an employee put her sick grandmother on university insurance, how do they justify singling out only homosexual employees? Constitutionally, they cannot.
Continue reading “LANSING ST. JOURNAL — Prop 2 clearly written, clearly backed”

FAMILY NEWS IN FOCUS — Group sues MSU over benefits

Conservative group sues Michigan
university over gay-partner benefits

Click here and then click on the “Play Audio” button to hear Focus on the Family’s radio coverage of the American Family Association of Michigan lawsuit to enforce our state Marriage Protection Amendment and protect taxpayers from being forced to financially subsidize homosexual behavior by government employees.

AGAPE PRESS — MSU not above the law, pro-family activist says

AGAPE PRESS
Tupelo, Mississippi
July 6, 2006


MSU not above the law, pro-family activist says

by Jody Brown

No state institution is above the law, says a pro-family activist in Michigan — and that’s why his organization and a legal group in Ann Arbor have filed a lawsuit against Michigan State University (MSU).

Voters in the Wolverine State overwhelmingly approved a marriage protection amendment to the state constitution in 2004.

But Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, alleges that MSU’s policy providing spousal-type benefits to school employees’ homosexual partners violates the now-amended constitution because it uses taxpayer monies to subsidize those same-sex relationships as if they are equal or similar to marriage.
Continue reading “AGAPE PRESS — MSU not above the law, pro-family activist says”

STATE NEWS — Michigan Pride festival to celebrate diversity

“Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association (of) Michigan, said the (homosexual ‘pride’) festival brings about awareness, but not in the way some (lesbian-gay-bisexual-transgender) people intend. ‘I think it invigorates and activates most citizens of Michigan to be alert and on guard to protect marriage and other traditional values,’ Glenn said. ‘I think people in Michigan made their voice heard in 2004 when they overwhelmingly approved constitutional protection of one-man, one-woman marriage and rejected homosexuals’ radical attempts to redefine it.'”

Continue reading “STATE NEWS — Michigan Pride festival to celebrate diversity”