NEWS — Triangle Foundation: newspapers should get sued and "slapped," business owners go to jail

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., May 21, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

Michigan homosexual lobby backs jail, lawsuits
for refusal to recognize homosexual “marriage”

Columnist: Triangle Fdn’s Kosofsky says business owners
should be jailed, newspapers sued and “slapped publicly”

SEATTLE — Michigan’s largest homosexual activist group says once marriage is legally redefined to include homosexual couples, business owners and even news media outlets who refuse to recognize such marriages should be jailed or sued and “publicly slapped,” a Jewish and openly bisexual columnist for the Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported Tuesday.

Statements attributed in the column to homosexual lobbyist Sean Kosofsky, director of policy for the Detroit-based Triangle Foundation, were denounced Wednesday by American Family Association of Michigan President Gary Glenn, co-author of the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by voters in 2004 to constitutionally reaffirm the legal definition of marriage in Michigan as only between one man and one woman.

“The Triangle Foundation openly admits homosexual activists’ intentions, once they gain sufficient political power, to impose their radical social agenda on America by brute force, trampling cherished American values such as religious freedom, freedom of speech, academic freedom, and even freedom of the press if it stands in their way,” Glenn said.

Glenn pointed to comments by Kosofsky reported Monday by David Benkof, author of Gay Essentials: Facts for Your Queer Brain and founder of the Q Syndicate, a “gay”-press syndicate that provides columns and other material to a hundred homosexual newspapers.

Benkof, who strays from “gay” political orthodoxy by opposing the redefinition of marriage, wrote in a column published Tuesday by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer that he had interviewed homosexual activists nationally about the legal implications of a California Supreme Court ruling last week declaring a constitutional “right” to so-called homosexual “marriage.”

Benkof wrote: “A representative of the largest Michigan gay-rights group, the Triangle Foundation…told me that people who continue to act as if marriage is a union between a man and a woman should face being fined, fired and even jailed until they relent. What happens if a traditionally religious business owner wants to extend his ‘marriage discount’ only to couples married in his eyes? Sean Kosofsky of Michigan’s largest gay-rights group, the Triangle Foundation, says, ‘If you are a public accommodation and you are open to anyone on Main Street, that means you must be open to everyone on Main Street. If they don’t do it, that’s contempt and they will go to jail.’ ”

Benkof continued: “Seattle’s Michael Taylor-Judd, president of the statewide Legal Marriage Alliance, said if a newspaper writes that a given same-sex marriage wasn’t really a marriage, ‘it is certainly in the realm of possibility for someone to bring a (libel) suit, and quite possibly to be successful.’ Kosofsky agreed: ‘I would be sympathetic to some damages. They need to be slapped publicly.’ ”

(See full Benkof column: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/363878_califgays21.html)

Glenn said the Triangle Foundation routinely justifies its hostility toward individuals and organizations who disagree with homosexual activists’ political agenda, as well as Triangle’s
admitted plans to suppress their opponents’ free speech rights, by demonizing those who support traditional one-man, one-woman marriage as promoters of “hate” and violence.

* The Triangle Foundation’s web site currently features a news release charging that support for Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment by Glenn and Catholic Cardinal Adam Maida of the Archdiocese of Detroit was a motivating factor in the alleged beating death of a homosexual senior citizen last year in Detroit. “It is appalling hypocrisy,” the statement reads, “for (Glenn and Maida) to pretend that their venomous words and organizing have no connection to the plague of hate violence against gay people, including the murder of Mr. Anthos.” http://www.tri.org/violence/pdfs/taskforce.pdf

Triangle’s claims were proven false when police reported they found no evidence of assault and
the Wayne County medical examiner’s office concluded the man had died from natural causes after a fall resulting from arthritic paralysis. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,262308,00.html

* Kosofsky has for years publicly accused Glenn’s organization of supporting murder, though only one news media outlet has ever published the allegation. “We personally believe that the AFA may support the murder of gay, lesbian and bisexual people,” Kosofsky said, as reported in 2001 by State News, the student newspaper at Michigan State University.
http://www.statenews.com/index.php/article/2001/11/gay-rights_group_fights

And Kosofsky in a published column in 2005 called Cardinal Maida “recklessly wicked,” accused him of “arrogance, bigotry and hypocrisy,” and said the Catholic church’s position in support of one-man, one-woman marriage “should be tossed in the trash.”
http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=13021

Glenn also noted that when Kosofsky said news media outlets should be sued and “slapped publicly” if they report material to which homosexual activists object, one example may have been fresh on his mind. Last month, Kosofsky attacked WNEM-TV Channel 5, Saginaw, for its coverage of a pro-homosexual student protest in public schools. “WNEM has run one of the worst stories I have seen in recent years on Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender issues by using insensitive and inflammatory terms,” Kosofsky wrote on his blog, Blog O’ Queer.
http://www.blogoqueer.org/2008/04/horrible-coverage-of-day-of-silence-in.html

Violations of religious freedom, free speech rights, academic freedom, and freedom of the press have become routine in countries and states that have already adopted so-called homosexual “marriage” or “hate crime” laws based on homosexual behavior, Glenn said.

* Swedish Pastor Ake Green in 2004 was sentenced to 30 days in jail for preaching a sermon in which he defined homosexual behavior as sinful and harmful to society. http://www.akegreen.org

* Baptist Press reported in 2005: “A Catholic bishop in Canada is under investigation by a government agency for condemning ‘gay marriage’… The bishop, Fred Henry of Calgary, is being investigated by the Alberta Human Rights Commission for comments he made about homosexuality in both a letter to parishioners and a Calgary Sun newspaper column. Two homosexuals filed the complaints.” http://www.bpnews.net/bpnews.asp?id=20716

* The Irish Times reported in 2003: “Clergy and bishops who distribute the Vatican’s latest publication describing homosexual activity as ‘evil’ could face prosecution under incitement to hatred legislation. …Those convicted under the Act can face jail terms of up to six months.”
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2003/0802/1059775167952.html

* The London Daily Telegraph reported in 2006: “New Government proposals on equality could require clergy to bless homosexual ‘weddings’ or face prosecution, the Church of England said yesterday. It said the proposed regulations could undermine official teaching and require Christians to act against their religious convictions.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1520849/Church-%27could-be-forced-to-bless-gay-weddings%27.html

* Catholic Charities in Boston was forced by a state “sexual orientation” law to either process the adoption of children to homosexual couples, a direct violation of Vatican policy, or abandon their century-old adoption referral services altogether. They chose the latter. http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2006/03/11/catholic_charities_stuns_state_ends_adoptions

* The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix newspaper was ordered by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal to pay three homosexual men $1,500 each after the newspaper agreed to run an ad that featured Bible verses critical of homosexual behavior. “As the Star-Phoenix lawyer said in his closing statement (before the Tribunal), ‘A Human Rights ruling against the Star-Phoenix and Mr. Owens could limit freedom of speech in the media, in churches and in classrooms.'” http://www.realwomenca.com/newsletter/1999_Sept_Oct/article_7.html

* A British couple were questioned by police on possible “hate crime” charges after they wrote a letter-to-the-editor of their local newspaper criticizing city officials for distributing brochures at city hall promoting homosexual behavior. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/4555406.stm

* The London Daily Telegraph reported last month: “A Christian couple who have taken in 28 children have been forced to give up being foster parents after they refused to promote homosexuality. Vincent Matherick, 65, and his 61-year-old wife Pauline were told by social services that they had to comply with legislation requiring them to treat homosexuality as equal to heterosexuality.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1567160/Christian-foster-parents-condemn-‘gay-laws’.html

* A British Anglican bishop in February was fined for refusing to hire an openly homosexual man as a church youth minister. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/feb/08021104.html

* The London Daily Telegraph reported in 2003: “A bishop who angered homosexuals by suggesting they seek a psychiatric cure is to be investigated by police to see if his outspoken views amount to a criminal offence, it emerged yesterday.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1446318/Bishop%27s-anti-gay-comments-spark-legal-investigation.html

* Eleven Christians in Philadelphia — including two grandmothers in their 70’s, one white and one African-American — were arrested and charged with “ethnic intimidation” under Pennsylvania’s “hate crimes” law when they tried to read Bible verses out loud during a homosexual street festival. They faced a cumulative 47 years in prison had they been convicted. http://www.cultureandfamily.org/articledisplay.asp?id=6542&department=CFI&categoryid=nation

* A New Mexico Christian photographer was fined $6,600 for refusing on religious grounds to photograph a homosexual marriage-like “commitment” ceremony.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200804/CUL20080416a.html

* Catholic bishops in Belgium and Spain were sued in 2004 by homosexual activist groups for making public statements in opposition to homosexual behavior and homosexual “marriage.”
http://www.ewtn.com/vnews/getstory.asp?number=43235

* Boston public school teachers were threatened with termination if they failed to portray so-called homosexual “marriage” in a positive light. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?pageId=27201

###

NEWS — CA court proves wisdom of MI voters' approval of marriage amendment

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Thurs., May 15, 2008

CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

California decision proves wisdom of Michigan voters’ approval of marriage amendment in ’04

Marriage law in Michigan at risk if federal Defense of Marriage Act repealed, amendment co-author says

Midland, Mich. — The California Supreme Court ruling Thursday legalizing so-called homosexual “marriage” proves Michigan voters’ “wisdom and foresight” in approving a Marriage Protection Amendment to the state constitution in 2004 to put the definition of marriage beyond the reach of activist judges, a co-author of the amendment said.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, first proposed the amendment in June 2003, the day an Ontario, Canada, court issued a ruling legalizing so-called homosexual “marriage” on Michigan’s border. Nearly 60 percent of Michigan voters voted to approve the amendment seventeen months later on the November 2004 ballot.

Glenn noted that in declaring a constitutional “right” to so-called homosexual “marriage,” the California Supreme Court overturned a state law approved by 61 percent of California voters on the ballot in 2000. Had that ballot measure been not just a statute, but a constitutional amendment as it was in Michigan, it could not have been overturned by the court, he said. http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/elections/2000-2002.htm

“The California decision proves that activist judges cannot be trusted to uphold either existing marriage laws or even a vote of the people themselves,” Glenn said, “and it proves how right Michigan voters were to secure the definition of marriage in Michigan in our state constitution in advance, before judges tried the same thing here.”

“It should also be a wakeup call to Americans that the real threat to radically redefine marriage is still very much alive,” Glenn said. “Even here in Michigan, our state laws and constitutional protections of marriage could be undone by activist judges if the federal Defense of Marriage Act is amended or repealed as early as next year, as major candidates for federal office are promising to do if elected.”

The federal DOMA was enacted in 1996 and provides that a state cannot be forced to accept or recognize so-called homosexual “marriages” legally performed in other states. Glenn said repeal of that federal law would allow a federal judge to order Michigan to recognize so-called homosexual “marriages” performed in California or in Massachusetts, where activist judges redefined marriage in 2003. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act

Glenn noted that Democratic U.S. Sen. Barack Obama has called for full repeal of DOMA. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/08/would-obama-pos.html

Plus, Glenn said, all Democrats representing Michigan in Congress, plus three Republicans — House members Joe Knollenberg, Thad McCotter, and Candice Miller — last year voted in favor of openly homosexual Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass.’s “Employment Non-Discrimination Act,” which both the White House and House Republican leaders said would empower federal judges to force states to recognize homosexual “marriages” performed in other states. Only President Bush’s veto threat has thus far stopped Frank’s bill from becoming law.

The White House in a statement said Frank’s legislation threatened to add federal recognition to homosexual “marriages” recognized under state law, as in Massachusetts and now California. “Provisions of this bill purport to give Federal statutory significance to same-sex marriage rights under State law. These provisions conflict with the Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage as the legal union between one man and one woman. The Administration strongly opposes any attempt to weaken this law, which is vital to defending the sanctity of marriage.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/legislative/sap/110-1/hr3685sap-r.pdf

House Republican Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Frank’s legislation if enacted “puts activist judges in the position of imposing same-sex marriage and civil union laws on states. Simply by using ENDA as the basis of their decisions – just as state Supreme Courts have done with state-level ENDA laws in the past – liberal judges will be empowered under this legislation to single-handedly undermine state and federal marriage laws across the country. I’m disappointed that the Majority turned back a straightforward proposal offered by House Republicans to protect state and federal marriage laws from being overturned, modified, or restricted by activist judges as a result of this deeply flawed legislation.” http://republicanleader.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=78178

Glenn pledged that the American Family Association of Michigan “will continue to stand firmly for constitutionally protecting marriage between one man and one woman and to uphold and defend the vote of the people of Michigan.”

“What the California decision should make clear is that the fight to protect one-man, one-woman marriage from the politically powerful homosexual lobby is far from over,” Glenn said. “It’s an ongoing fight that, for the sake of our children, requires eternal vigilance nationwide and here in Michigan.”

###

NEWS — Study: Divorce, unwed births cost MI taxpayers $1.5 billion each year

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., May 14, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

Study: Divorce, unwed births cost
Mich. taxpayers $1.5 billion a year

Family group backs bill to change state divorce law

LANSING, Mich. — High rates of divorce and children born out of wedlock cost Michigan taxpayers over $1.5 billion in public expenditures for government services each year, a new nationwide study found, making the need for public policies that promote getting and staying married not just a social or moral issue but a matter of dollars and cents, a statewide family values group said Wednesday.

The American Family Association of Michigan Wednesday forwarded to Gov. Jennifer Granholm and legislative leaders the results of first-ever research that calculated a minimum $112 billion annual cost to taxpayers nationwide resulting from high rates of divorce and unmarried childbearing. The landmark study — “The Taxpayer Costs of Divorce and Unwed Childbearing: First-Ever Estimates for the Nation and All 50 States” — was released last month at the National Press Club by two national family policy and research groups, the Institute for American Values and the Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.

Full study and background information: http://www.americanvalues.org/html/coff_mediaadvisory.htm
Executive summary: http://www.americanvalues.org/coff/executive_summary.pdf

“This study documents that divorce and unwed childbearing, which everyone knows are bad for children, are also costing Michigan taxpayers billions of dollars,” wrote AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn. “Even a small improvement in the health of marriages in Michigan would result in an enormous savings to taxpayers. Stronger families and fewer family breakups mean less crime, less poverty, and less reliance on costly government programs and social services.”

Glenn said an example of a public policy change that would reduce taxpayer costs due to marriage dissolution is bipartisan legislation introduced by Rep. Fulton Sheen, R-Allegan, Rep. Joel Sheltrown, D-West Branch, and twelve other lawmakers that would only allow divorce in Michigan if a couple is childless or if adultery, abandonment, or spousal or child abuse is involved. (House Bill 5761: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2007-2008/billintroduced/House/htm/2008-HIB-5761.htm)

Such legislation would help save taxpayers money by making it more difficult to break up a marriage when children are involved, Glenn said, pointing to the new study’s finding that of the 1.3 million households in Michigan living in poverty, 57 percent are comprised of households headed by a single or divorced female.

To calculate the fiscal impact of divorce and unwed child-bearing, the study projected that if all of those currently single or divorced females were to marry, a conservative estimate of at least 60 percent of them would see their family’s standard of living rise above the poverty level, reducing the total number of Michigan households living in poverty by 34 percent and saving Michigan taxpayers over $1.5 billion annually. (See state-by-state tables on pages 36 and 38 of the study.)

Dr. Ben Scafidi, Ph.D., economics professor at Georgia College & State University and the study’s principal investigator, said the costs were calculated on the basis of “increased taxpayer expenditures for anti-poverty, criminal justice and education programs, and through lower levels of taxes paid by individuals whose adult productivity has been negatively affected by increased childhood poverty caused by family fragmentation.”

“Prior research shows that marriage lifts single mothers out of poverty and therefore reduces the need for costly social benefits,” Scafidi said. “This new report shows that public concern about the decline of marriage need not be based only on ‘moral’ concerns, but that reducing high taxpayer costs of family fragmentation is a legitimate concern of government, policymakers and legislators, as well as community reformers and faith communities.”

The study’s findings were vetted by scholars and economists including faculty from the Andrew Young School of Policy Studies at Georgia State University, Morehouse College, Kennesaw State University, Mercer University, the University of Virginia, the Brookings Institution, the Urban Institute, and the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee. http://www.americanvalues.org/coff/advisors.pdf

Glenn said Michigan avoided even higher costs to taxpayers associated with the potential decline of marriage when voters in 2004 approved a Marriage Protection Amendment to the state constitution reaffirming the state’s legal definition of marriage as between one man and one woman.

He noted a commentary by Harvard constitutional law professor Mary Ann Glendon, writing in the Wall Street Journal, who wrote that “the Canadian government, which is considering same-sex marriage legislation, has just realized that retroactive social-security survivor benefits alone would cost its taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars.” http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004735

He also pointed to researchers who believe that public policy decisions in Europe redefining marriage to include homosexual couples and group marriage, thus diluting society’s commitment to marriage as the social ideal for raising children and breaking the traditional connection between marriage and child-bearing has contributed to a dramatic decline in the marriage rate and a dramatic increase in the percentage of children born out of wedlock. Both are major factors, the new study found, in increasing the tax burden for government services.

“Dutch Debate”: http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200407210936.asp

“The End of Marriage in Scandinavia”: http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/003/660zypwj.asp

“No Nordic Bliss”: http://www.nationalreview.com/kurtz/kurtz200602280810.asp

“Zombie Killers”: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MTU4NDEzNTY5ODNmOWU4M2Y1MGIwMTcyODdjZGQxOTk=

###

NEWS — Michigan Supreme Court upholds ban on govt recognition of homosexual "marriages"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., May 7, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

5-to-2 ruling validates Cox, marriage amendment supporters

Michigan Supreme Court upholds constitutional ban on govt. recognition of homosexual relationships “for any purpose,” including employment benefits

LANSING, Mich. — The Michigan Supreme Court Wednesday ruled that under a Marriage Protection Amendment approved by Michigan voters in 2004, government employers cannot recognize homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including for the purpose of offering spousal-type employment benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees.

The Court did not rule on whether government employment benefits can be offered to homosexual partners on some broader basis also available to other employees, which some local governments and universities — in anticipation of the court’s ruling — have attempted by amending the eligibility requirements for such benefits.

The decision validates the views of amendment supporters and Attorney General Mike Cox, whose interpretations of the amendment and its effects was challenged by the Michigan ACLU, representing the national AFL-CIO’s in-house homosexual activist group, National Pride at Work. www.PrideatWork.org

Gary Glenn, one of two co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment, who as president of the American Family Association of Michigan first proposed such an amendment in June 2003 following an Ontario court decision legalizing homosexual “marriage,” welcomed the court’s 5-to-2 decision.

“The Michigan Supreme Court has made clear that universities and state and local governments are not above the law and cannot choose to simply ignore a vote by the people of Michigan,” Glenn said. “The people of Michigan have constitutionally protected marriage as exclusively the union of one man and one woman, period, and that includes prohibiting the recognition of homosexual relationships as equal or similar to marriage for any purpose, including offering spousal-type benefits to the homosexual partners of government employees.”

Glenn said the issue of employment benefits itself was not before the court, citing the court’s clear statement when it wrote that “the only pertinent question (before the court) is whether the public employer is recognizing a domestic partnership as a union similar to marriage for any purpose.” (Bottom of page 13: http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/11-07/133429/133429-Opinion.pdf)

“When public employers provide domestic partners health-insurance benefits on the basis of the domestic partnership, they are without a doubt recognizing the partnership,” the court ruled. (page 21: http://courts.michigan.gov/supremecourt/Clerk/11-07/133429/133429-Opinion.pdf)

It is government recognition of such relationships which the Marriage Protection Amendment prohibits, not the benefits themselves, Glenn said.

He said the high court’s ruling “validates 100 percent and in full our interpretation of the Marriage Protection Amendment and its intended effects, which AFA-Michigan has clearly and consistently maintained throughout the 2004 election and over three years of court proceedings that followed. The decision three times in its 34-page decision cited or quoted directly from a legal brief submitted to the court by AFA-Michigan, he noted.

Glenn also noted that in the wake of last year’s Court of Appeals decision on the amendment, upheld Wednesday by the state Supreme Court, “even opponents of the amendment have been forced to admit that AFA-Michigan’s interpretation of its effects has been right all along.”

Homosexual activists and the Michigan ACLU argued during the 2004 campaign that the amendment would prohibit government employee benefits based on government recognition of homosexual relationships; then, after losing the election, the same groups argued in court that the amendment did not prohibit such benefits. Then, after the Court of Appeals decision last year, they reversed course again.

Attorney Jay Kaplan of the Michigan ACLU last June told Lansing City Pulse: “‘The Michigan Court of Appeals decision never said that public employers could not provide health care coverage to domestic partners of employees,’ Kaplan wrote in an e-mail. He said that employers can provide health insurance coverage for domestic partners as long as they do not specifically recognize the domestic partner relationship — by filing domestic partner benefit forms, for example — when determining criteria for insurance eligibility.” http://www.lansingcitypulse.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1133&Itemid=2

Between the Lines, a homosexual activist newsweekly in Detroit, reported: “(ACLU-Michigan lawyer Jay) Kaplan says that even under the Appeals Court ruling, benefits can be offered, but they have to be done in a way which does not recognize same-sex partners or relationships.” http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=25497

Kalamazoo Alliance for Equality, a homosexual activist group, said last June in a news release: “The Michigan Court of Appeals did not say that health insurance coverage for domestic partners is illegal. The court said that public employers cannot use criteria that recognizes the domestic partner relationship.” http://www.tri.org/docs/Kzoodprallies.doc

In order to be constitutional, the Court of Appeals had ruled, the eligibility criteria for benefits must be broad-based, not based specifically on singling out and recognizing homosexual partnerships for special treatment as if they are equal or similar to marriage between a man and a woman.

As a result, the University of Michigan, Michigan State University, and other public employers in the state have expanded the eligibility criteria of their benefit plans so as not to unconstitutionally offer benefits based on exclusively recognizing and benefiting homosexual relationships as if they’re equal or similar to marriage. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2007/06/15/benefits

“The irony is that despite all the manufactured outrage and falsehoods from homosexual activists and their newspaper editorial board allies over the last three years, the direct result of the changes required by the Marriage Protection Amendment is that more not fewer Michigan citizens are today eligible for coverage under health insurance plans offered by government employers,” Glenn said.

During the 2004 campaign, the campaign committee opposing the Marriage Protection Amendment praised Glenn and AFA-Michigan for openly acknowledging the effect the amendment would have regarding benefits based on government recognition of homosexual partnerships:

“The Coalition for a Fair Michigan said today that they were happy to find common ground with the Michigan affiliate of the American Family Association, one of the lead proponents of the proposed constitutional amendment that would ban legal recognition of any relationships other than opposite-sex marriage. Last night, at a forum on the amendment…both sides agreed that the amendment would go much further than defining marriage by also eliminating any government-sanctioned domestic partnership benefits. ‘I’m glad we could find common ground with the AFA, and I want to thank Gary Glenn for his willingness to be upfront on this point,’ said Wendy Howell, Campaign Manager for CFM.”
http://web.archive.org/web/20040920142248/www.coalitionforafairmichigan.org/6_24.htm

NEWS RELEASE — Trojan Horse "Bullying" Bill Loses 2nd GOP Co-Sponsor Richardville

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Fri., March 28, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978
Sen. Randy Richardville 517-373-3543

Richardville: “I will in no way support” bills as written

Trojan Horse “bullying”
bill loses 2nd GOP sponsor

Further blow to bill following homosexual activists’ “lobbying day”

LANSING — Two days after homosexual activist groups gathered at the state Capitol to pressure lawmakers to support a bill purported to protect public school students from bullying, a second Republican state senator who originally co-sponsored the legislation announced that he no longer supports the bill and would vote against it as written.

SB 107 original co-sponsors: http://www.legislature.mi.gov…2007-SB-0107

Sen. Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, one of only four Republicans listed among twenty co-sponsors of Democratic Sen. Glenn Anderson’s Senate Bill 107, said Friday in an e-mail to the American Family Association of Michigan that while he supports protecting students from bullying, he no longer agrees with the legislation’s segregation of students into special “protected class” categories.

(See full text of Richardville e-mail below)

The loss of a second senator previously on record supporting the legislation came as a blow to the bill’s promoters after over a hundred homosexual activists and their allies gathered at the state Capitol Wednesday for a so-called “Safe Schools Lobbying Day,” specifically intended to pressure more state senators to support the bill. The original list of 20 cosponsors had itself constituted a majority of the 38-member Senate; with the loss of two of those cosponsors, the bill no longer has a sure majority.

Original cosponsor Sen. Valde Garcia, R-Howell, Wednesday was the first to withdraw his support, and AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn, Midland, Friday predicted the bill may lose other original co-sponsors as well, and not just among the two remaining Republicans, Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, and Sen. Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks.

Glenn has characterized the bill as “Trojan Horse” legislation that would have no real effect on bullying but is being backed by homosexual activist groups who hope to use legitimate public concern about student safety as a ruse to establish — for the first time ever, anywhere in Michigan law — special “protected class” status based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.

Richardville, who Thursday evening discussed the legislation with Glenn by phone, Friday wrote that he had originally supported the bill’s approach but has since changed his mind.

“Per our conversation, let me reiterate I will in no way support the current version of Senate Bill 107 or (similar House-passed legislation),” Richardville wrote. “…First, I thought it best to delineate every potential cause of bullying, however I realize by segregating some I diminished the importance of others.”

Glenn noted that Richardville’s change of heart echoed Garcia’s objections to the bill.

“After being told that the goal was to prevent bullying in our public schools, a concept I support, I signed on as a co-sponsor of this legislation,” Garcia wrote Glenn Wednesday. “It was not until after the bill was introduced that I became aware of the exact definition of ‘harassment and bullying’ used in the bill, giving me serious concern about the bill’s intent. Because the bill gave special protection to certain groups of people, I immediately contacted the bill sponsor and told him that I could not support the bill as drafted and urged him to amend the bill so I could support it. …(S)hould this bill come before (the Senate) for consideration with no changes to the current definition of ‘harassment or bullying,’ I will not support the legislation.”

Glenn said the two senators’ experience “is proof of the deceptive nature of this Trojan Horse legislation and the way homosexual activist groups and their Democratic allies have tried to mislead not only state legislators but the general public.”

Glenn said SB 107 as written would require public schools to segregate students into special “protected” class categories, then dole out protection against bullying to students based on their membership in those categories — including, for the first time ever in Michigan law, categories based on “sexual orientation” (homosexual behavior) and “gender identity and expression” (cross-dressing). The precedent of those new segregated categories are the real agenda behind the legislation, he said, proven by the bill’s supporters’ opposition last year to AFA-Michigan-supported language that instead of creating segregated categories would have simply prohibited bullying against all students, no matter what the motivation.

Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Midland, last year attempted to amend the House version of the legislation to strike the language segregating students into “protected class” categories and replace it with language simply and expressly prohibiting all bullying against all students for all reasons. House Democratic leaders refused to even allow a vote on Moolenaar’s amendment, and the legislation passed the House on a largely party-line vote. http://www.gophouse.com/readarticle.asp?id=4231&District=98

The Michigan Association of School Boards has in the past warned school districts against referring to “sexual orientation” in their anti-harassment policies.

As the Oakland Press reported: “Bill Scharffe, director of bylaw and policy services for the Michigan Association of School Boards, advises local districts not to include the term ‘sexual orientation’ in their anti-harassment policies. ‘Schools need to be very careful with that,’ he said, noting that neither federal nor state civil rights laws consider people of a particular sexual orientation a protected class. He added that literal interpretation of ‘sexual orientation’ could include people who gravitate toward any sort of sexual activity, including that with animals, children and corpses.” http://www.theoaklandpress.com/stories/031305/edu_20050313006.shtml

Glenn said he has informed lawmakers and supporters of the legislation that if it is amended to protect all students from bullying without creating precedent-setting “protected class” status for the first time based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing, AFA-Michigan will no longer urge lawmakers to oppose it.

He noted however, that some lawmakers and mainstream media have opposed the legislation on a broader basis. The Lansing State Journal and the Grand Rapids Press, for example, have editorially opposed the bills, arguing that public school safety is being competently handled by caring local parents, educators, school boards, and law enforcement personnel without mandates by the state Legislature.

To read the full text of both Sen. Richardville’s and Sen. Garcia’s emails, click on the link below.

Continue reading “NEWS RELEASE — Trojan Horse "Bullying" Bill Loses 2nd GOP Co-Sponsor Richardville”

LANSING — Trojan Horse "Bullying" Bill Loses GOP Co-Sponsor

Sen. Garcia “will not support” legislation as written

Trojan Horse “bullying”
bill loses GOP co-sponsor

Loss comes as blow to bill on homosexual activists’ “lobbying day”

LANSING — On a day hundreds of homosexual activists gathered at the state Capitol to pressure lawmakers to support a bill purported to protect public school students from bullying, a Republican state senator who originally co-sponsored the legislation Wednesday announced that he no longer supports the bill and will vote against it as written.

SB 107 co-sponsors: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/….2007-SB-0107

Sen. Valde Garcia, R-Howell, one of only four Republicans listed among twenty co-sponsors of Democratic Sen. Glenn Anderson’s Senate Bill 107, said Wednesday in an e-mail to the American Family Association of Michigan that while he supports protecting students from bullying, he was not aware of the bill’s specific provisions until after agreeing to co-sponsor it.

(See full text of Garcia e-mail below)

The loss of a senator previously on record supporting the legislation came as a blow to the bill’s supporters on the day hundreds of homosexual activists gathered at the state Capitol for a so-called “Safe Schools Lobbying Day,” specifically intended to pressure more state senators to support the bill.

AFA-Michigan President Gary Glenn, Midland, predicted the bill may lose other original co-sponsors as well, and not just among the three remaining Republicans — Sen. Bruce Patterson, R-Canton, Sen. Randy Richardville, R-Monroe, and Sen. Ron Jelinek, R-Three Oaks.

Glenn has characterized the bill as “Trojan Horse” legislation that would have no real effect on bullying but is backed by homosexual activist groups who hope to use legitimate concerns about student safety as a ruse to establish — for the first time ever, anywhere in Michigan law — special “protected class” status based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.

Garcia’s letter proves that even some solidly conservative lawmakers were initially misled, he said.

“After being told that the goal was to prevent bullying in our public schools, a concept I support, I signed on as a co-sponsor of this legislation,” Garcia wrote Glenn. “It was not until after the bill was introduced that I became aware of the exact definition of ‘harassment and bullying’ used in the bill, giving me serious concern about the bill’s intent. Because the bill gave special protection to certain groups of people, I immediately contacted the bill sponsor and told him that I could not support the bill as drafted and urged him to amend the bill so I could support it.”

Garcia concluded that “should this bill come before (the Senate) for consideration with no changes to the current definition of ‘harassment or bullying,’ I will not support the legislation.”

Glenn praised Garcia’s record on family values issues in the Senate and said the GOP lawmaker’s experience “is proof of the deceptive nature of this Trojan Horse legislation and the way homosexual activist groups and their Democratic allies have tried to mislead not only state legislators but the general public.”

Glenn said SB 107 as written would require public schools to segregate students into special “protected” class categories, then dole out protection against bullying to students based on their membership in those categories — including, for the first time ever in Michigan law, categories based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing. The precedent of those new segregated categories are the real agenda behind the legislation, he said, proven by the bill’s supporters’ opposition last year to language that instead of creating segregated categories would have simply prohibited bullying against all students, no matter what the motivation.

Rep. John Moolenaar, R-Midland, last year attempted to amend the House version of the legislation to strike the language segregating students into “protected class” categories and replace it with language simply and expressly prohibiting all bullying against all students for all reasons. House Democratic leaders refused to even allow a vote on Moolenaar’s amendment, and the legislation passed the House on a largely party-line vote. http://www.gophouse.com/readarticle.asp?id=4231&District=98

The Michigan Association of School Boards has in the past warned school districts against referring to “sexual orientation” in their anti-harassment policies. As the Oakland Press reported: “Bill Scharffe, director of bylaw and policy services for the Michigan Association of School Boards, advises local districts not to include the term ‘sexual orientation’ in their anti-harassment policies. ‘Schools need to be very careful with that,’ he said, noting that neither federal nor state civil rights laws consider people of a particular sexual orientation a protected class. He added that literal interpretation of ‘sexual orientation’ could include people who gravitate toward any sort of sexual activity, including that with animals, children and corpses.” http://www.theoaklandpress.com…20050313006.shtml

Glenn said he has informed lawmakers and supporters of the legislation that if it is amended to protect all students from bullying without creating precedent-setting “protected class” status for the first time based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing, AFA-Michigan will no longer urge lawmakers to oppose it.

He noted however, that some lawmakers and mainstream media have opposed the legislation on a broader basis. The Lansing State Journal and the Grand Rapids Press, for example, have editorially opposed state-mandated “bullying” bills, arguing that public school safety is being competently handled by caring local parents, educators, school boards, and law enforcement personnel without mandates by the state Legislature.

Click on the link below to read the full text of Sen. Garcia’s email to AFA-MI:

Continue reading “LANSING — Trojan Horse "Bullying" Bill Loses GOP Co-Sponsor”

Help Stop Trojan Horse "Bullying" Legislation!

Dear AFA-Michigan supporter,

The Triangle Foundation, Michigan Equality, Gay Lesbian Straight Education Network, and other homosexual activist groups are urging individuals involved in the homosexual lifestyle to contact their state senator this Wednesday to urge support for homosexual activists’ Trojan Horse “bullying” bills.

As one state legislator observed to me over the phone this past weekend, these so-called “bullying” bills have nothing to do with bullying. In fact, homosexual activists and their Democrat allies in the state House of Representatives opposed language that would have simply prohibited all bullying against all students for all reasons. (See Midland Daily News: http://www.ourmidland.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=18143125&BRD=2289&PAG=461&dept_id=472542&rfi=6)

The real agenda behind this Trojan Horse legislation is to establish — for the first time ever, anywhere in Michigan law — special “protected class” status on the basis of homosexual behavior and cross-dressing; in this case, public school students who engage in such behavior.

Homosexual activists hope to use legitimate concern about student safety as a subterfuge to sneak special rights based on “sexual orientation” and “gender identity and expression” into law for the first time, then use that as precedent for inserting special protection for such behavior into Michigan’s “hate crime” and “civil rights” laws. And as it has in other countries and cities that have already created special status based on homosexual behavior, that will pose a direct threat to your religious freedom and free speech rights.

Even the Michigan Association of School Boards has warned school boards about the legal hazards of creating special rights and protections based on so-called “sexual orientation.”

As the Oakland Press reported:

“Bill Scharffe, director of bylaw and policy services for the Michigan Association of School Boards, advises local districts not to include the term ‘sexual orientation’ in their anti-harassment policies. ‘Schools need to be very careful with that,’ he said, noting that neither federal nor state civil rights laws consider people of a particular sexual orientation a protected class. He added that literal interpretation of ‘sexual orientation’ could include people who gravitate toward any sort of sexual activity, including that with animals, children and corpses.”

Please help AFA-Michigan stop this dangerous precedent-setting “gay rights” legislation:

1. Please click here to find your state Senator: http://senate.michigan.gov

2. Please send your Senator an e-mail urging him to vote against homosexual activists’ so-called “bullying” legislation. Specifically, urge him to vote against Senate Bill 107 and House Bills 4091 and 4162.

3. Please also e-mail Senate Education Committee Chairman Wayne Kuipers and urge him not to even schedule these “bullying” bills for consideration. E-mail: senwkuipers@senate.michigan.gov

4. Finally, please make the largest tax-deductible contribution you can today to the American Family Association of Michigan to make sure we have the resources to continue to stand guard for you and your family.

Contribute online: https://www.campaigncontribution.com/version6/process/info.asp?id=1700&jid=

Contribute by mail:
AFA-Michigan
PO Box 1904
Midland, Michigan 48641

We deeply appreciate your support!

God bless and keep you strong…

Gary Signature
Gary Glenn, President
AFA-Michigan

Nat'l Gay and Lesbian Task Force admits: "HIV is a gay disease"

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., Feb. 13, 2008
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

Michigan family values group welcomes admission,
urges lawmakers to block homosexual “rights” legislation

Nat’l Gay & Lesbian Task Force admits: “HIV is a gay disease”

DETROIT, Mi. — A Michigan family values organization Wednesday welcomed the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force’s startling admission that homosexual activity is predominantly responsible for the spread of the HIV virus in the U.S. and called on Michigan legislative leaders to block pending legislation that would give special “protected class” status to individuals who engage in such behavior.

Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay & Lesbian Task Force — in an address Friday to the National Conference on Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender Equality in Detroit — shocked attendees by calling HIV “a gay disease.” Despite medical data identifying homosexual activity among males as by far the largest single source of HIV infection in the U.S., homosexual activists have routinely condemned conservative and public health organizations for characterizing the disease as being predominantly associated with and spread by homosexual behavior.

Foreman further shocked attendees by himself referring to such data, saying that “with 70 percent of the people in this country living with HIV being gay or bi(-sexual), we cannot deny that HIV is a gay disease. We have to own that and face up to that.”

See Foreman’s formal remarks, last paragraph, page 3: http://www.thetaskforce.org/downloads/exec_director/cc08_state_of_movement.pdf

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan and co-author of the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by Michigan voters in 2004, responded to Foreman’s comments by saying the nationally prominent homosexual activist “shouldn’t stop there.”

“Before whatever dose of truth serum somebody slipped him wears off,” Glenn said, “Foreman should also publicly accept responsibility for professionally promoting a lifestyle that’s medically associated with a dramatically higher risk of domestic violence, mental illness, substance abuse, eating disorders, life-threatening diseases such as AIDS, cancer, and hepatitis, and premature death by up to twenty years.”

Glenn said his and other traditional values organizations will continue to “truthfully warn the public and particularly young people about the severe threat homosexual behavior poses to both personal and public health.”

“The only difference is, we will now quote Matt Foreman and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force in truthfully characterizing HIV infection in the U.S. as a predominantly homosexual-related disease, and challenge Michigan’s Triangle Foundation or any other homosexual activist group to dispute that characterization.”

Foreman’s comments are a dramatic departure from the long-standing strategic and rhetorical orthodoxy of the homosexual “rights” movement, which in the past has heatedly objected to any such characterization by critics of its political agenda.

The National Gay and Lesbian Task Force itself, in an August 2004 news release quoting Foreman, attacked the Bush Administration for “nominat(ing) individuals with extreme anti-gay views to the federal bench and other federal positions, including nominating Christian evangelical Jerry Thacker, who has called AIDS the ‘gay plague.'”
http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/pr729_082704

The San Francisco Chronicle reported in 2003 regarding Thacker: “Blasted by controversy over his characterizations of AIDS as a ‘gay plague,’ Christian activist Jerry Thacker — who is infected with the AIDS virus along with his wife and daughter — withdrew his nomination to a presidential AIDS advisory council Thursday.” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2003/01/24/MN240928.DTL

Homosexual activists reacted similarly last month to news reports of medical researchers’ finding that a new strain of drug-resistant bacterial infection is also being transmitted largely by homosexual activity at a rate “13 times greater for gay men than for the rest of the (San Francisco) population.” http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/15/MNI5UE0L8.DTL&hw=MRSA+gay&sn=001&sc=1000
Homosexual activists immediately decried the news reports for suggesting — based on medical fact — that homosexual behavior is associated with a dramatically higher risk of the MRSA infection. According to Concerned Women for America, a pro-family group which followed the story, homosexual activist groups immediately accused critics of having “claimed the outbreak was ‘the new AIDS,’ a ‘new gay disease’ and ‘the gay plague.’â€? http://www.cwfa.org/articles/14584/CFI/family/index.htm

Glenn said that in light of homosexual activists’ typical response to such medical findings, Foreman’s “startling new party line of admitting rather than denying medical fact about the health hazards of homosexual behavior — at least regarding HIV — has apparently left some homosexual activists in a quandary, and in shock.”

He pointed to comments by Todd Heywood, a Lansing homosexual activist who writes for Between the Lines, a homosexual advocacy newsmagazine published in metro Detroit, who told the Lansing State Journal:

“This story is likely to gain political traction in the coming days, weeks and months. When leaders of the right wing claim HIV AIDS as a gay disease, we all balk at that claim. But what happens when a national gay leader says it?” http://noise.typepad.com/election_countdown/2008/02/a-gay-disease.html

Foreman’s comment “rocked the American gay community,” Heywood wrote in an article for the Michigan Messenger, an alternative online news site. http://www.michiganmessenger.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=838

Derek Smiertka, former executive director of the Oakland County Republican Party under past chairman L. Brooks Patterson, and now executive director of Michigan Equality, a Lansing-based homosexual activist group, said:

“Although I disagree scientifically that it is a gay disease, our behavior reflects poorly when we look at hard numbers. We really have to take a hard look in the mirror before we start looking at other parts of the community. A good long hard look in the mirror.”

However, Glenn noted that Foreman and the Task Force are not the first homosexual activists to abandon homosexual activists’ politically correct orthodoxy by acknowledging the medical facts regarding HIV.

Lifesite News reported in 2006: “The Los Angeles Gay and Lesbian Center has abandoned a long-held homosexual activist contention by declaring on billboards posted throughout Southern California that HIV/AIDS is a ‘gay disease.’ According to a report by the Los Angeles Times, the Center is trying to address rapidly increasing HIV infection rates among the homosexual population by rallying the gay community to increasing vigilance against exposure to the disease. Activists for the homosexual lifestyle have, until this current development, strongly, and sometimes vehemently refused to admit that the disease is predominantly generated among homosexual men. The ad campaign…is in part a response to the findings of public health officials, who have noted that three out of four cases of HIV infections are found in men who engage in homosexual activity, the United Press International reported.” http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/oct/06100404.html

As a follow up to Foreman’s remarks, Glenn Wednesday e-mailed a statement to Michigan state Senate Majority Leader Mike Bishop and Speaker of the House Andy Dillon to advise them of Foreman’s admission and urge them to oppose a collection of bills he said “would further the threat to personal and public health by legitimizing, promoting, and protecting the unhealthy sexual practices which the nation’s leading homosexual lobby now admits is responsible for the spread of HIV.”

“Homosexual activists’ belated admission comes too late for HIV victims whose lives might have been saved had homosexual activists told the truth sooner, instead of condemning those who told the truth,” Glenn wrote, “but it’s not too late for you to ensure that legislation that would give special rights and protection to such behavior, and thus put more lives at risk, is not allowed to become law.”

Glenn specifically cited legislation in the Democrat-controlled House that would statutorily allow homosexual couples for the first time in Michigan to adopt children, “thus putting children at much greater risk of second-hand exposure to all the mental, emotional, and physical health-related traumas medically associated with homosexual behavior.”

He also cited pending legislation in the Michigan House that would amend the state’s “hate crime” and “civil rights” laws to grant special “protected class” and legally-recognized minority status to individuals expressly on the basis of their “sexual orientation” toward engaging in homosexual or bisexual behavior, the very behavior Foreman admitted is responsible for the spread of HIV.

He also cited legislation, already approved by the House, which would — rather than simply protect all public school students from all bullying regardless of its motivation — require public school districts instead to segregate students into special “protected class” categories, including “sexual orientation,” then dole out protection based expressly on students’ membership in such categories.

Glenn noted that Democratic control of the Michigan House is largely attributable to homosexual activist billionaire Jon Stryker of Kalamazoo, who contributed $5 million of his own funds during the 2006 election to an independent expenditure campaign to unseat the then Republican majority.

Foreman during his remarks Friday credited Stryker in part for homosexual activists’ political successes in 2006: “It was leaders like Jon Stryker…who helped fund campaigns to take out bigots and elect pro-(Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender) candidates.”

In response, Glenn said AFA-Michigan “will continue to oppose efforts by homosexual activists and their allies in Michigan’s Democrat-controlled House to push homosexual activist Jon Stryker’s agenda into law, including bills that would legitimize, enable, and protect the very behavior the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force now admits is predominantly responsible for transmission of the HIV virus,” Glenn wrote.

Last year, Foreman in a nationwide news release accused Glenn and Catholic Cardinal Adam Maida of Detroit — by virtue of their public support of Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment — of being responsible for inciting the alleged beating death of a 72 year old Detroit man who identified himself as being involved in the homosexual lifestyle. http://www.thetaskforce.org/press/releases/prMF_022307

Detroit police later announced they found no evidence of any beating, and the Wayne County Medical Examiner’s office ruled the death the result of a fall caused by arthritic paralysis of the man’s neck. http://www.websitetoolbox.com/tool/post/baptistwatch/vpost?id=1797389

However, Foreman has never retracted or apologized for the false accusation.

# # #

NEWS — Three Mich. Republicans Back Barney Frank's Federal "Gay Rights" Bill

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Wed., Nov. 7, 2007

CONTACT: Gary Glenn – 989-835-7978
Joe Knollenberg – 248-851-1366
Thad McCotter – 34-632-0314 or 248-685-9495
Candice Miller – 586-997-5010

Michigan Republicans Joe Knollenberg, Thad McCotter, Candice Miller support federal homosexual “rights” legislation

Three GOPers side with Barney Frank, ignore White House warning that
bill threatens religious freedom and validates homosexual “marriage”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Michigan Congressional Republicans Joe Knollenberg, Thad McCotter, and Candice Miller were among 35 GOP House members nationally who joined Democrats and homosexual activist groups Wednesday in supporting Rep. Barney Frank’s federal homosexual “rights” legislation, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 235 to 184.
“Joe Knollenberg, Thad McCotter, and Candace Miller sided with homosexual activist groups and liberal Democrats like Barney Frank to support legislation that threatens religious freedom, gives federal recognition to homosexual marriage, and discriminates against individuals, business owners, and organizations who believe homosexual behavior is wrong,” said Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan.

“By voting with Barney Frank and homosexual activist groups, they ignored warnings by the White House, rejected the Republican Party platform, and thumbed their nose at the people of Michigan, who overwhelmingly voted to constitutionally protect marriage as only between one man and one woman,” Glenn said.

“We urge Michigan families to hold Knollenberg, McCotter, and Miller accountable for helping Barney Frank pass legislation that would — for the first time in federal law — grant recognition to so-called homosexual ‘marriage’ and create special rights based on sexual behavior.”

Continue reading “NEWS — Three Mich. Republicans Back Barney Frank's Federal "Gay Rights" Bill”

NEWS (MACOMB): Family Group Says Drolet Likely to Use Civil Rights Post to Push Homosexual Agenda

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: Mon., June 11, 2007
CONTACT: Gary Glenn 989-835-7978

Former state rep voted against Marriage Protection
Amendment, was endorsed by Triangle Pride PAC

Family values group: Drolet likely to use new civil rights post to push homosexual agenda

A statewide family values group Monday said it expects Macomb County Commissioner Leon Drolet will use a new advisory post
with the U.S. Civil Rights Commission to promote homosexual “marriage,” homosexual adoption, and other elements of homosexual activists’ political agenda.

Drolet announced Monday that he has been appointed chairman of the Michigan Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.

Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan and co-author of the state Marriage Protection Amendment approved by Michigan voters in 2004, expressed disappointment that “a panel controlled by Republican presidential appointees would give a position of power and influence to a politician so committed to promoting homosexual behavior and radically redefining marriage and the family.”

Glenn pointed to Drolet’s track record as a political candidate and member of the Michigan House of Representatives:

* In his 2006 campaign for Macomb County Commissioner, Drolet was endorsed by Triangle Pride PAC, the political action arm of the Triangle Foundation, a homosexual activist group based in Detroit. (See Drolet endorsement at: http://www.pride-pac.org/guide/showall.php)

* Drolet was honored as a “hero” at the 2005 national convention of the Log Cabin Repubicans, a homosexual activist group that in 2004 refused to endorse President Bush’s reelection and spent $1 million in swing states on television advertisements attacking Bush for his support of a federal Marriage Protection Amendment. http://online.logcabin.org/news_views/news_release_040505.html

* In his 2004 campaign for reelection to the House, Drolet was endorsed by both Triangle Pride PAC and Between the Lines, a homosexual activist newsweekly in metro Detroit. Between the Lines quoted Triangle Foundation Director of Policy Sean Kosofsky as saying of Drolet: “Leon’s been a terrific advocate for us in the Legislature. He is the single strongest supporter of equality on the Republican side of the aisle.” http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=10223&section=news

* Drolet was one of only three Republican members of the state House who in 2004 voted against a Marriage Protection Amendment constitutionally defining marriage as being only between one man and one woman. Closing his floor debate against allowing Michigan voters to decide the issue on the ballot, he characterized the amendment as follows:

“Please stand up for equal protection under the law and for human equality by voting ‘no’ on this proposed amendment. And may the venomous serpent of discrimination and unequal treatment of people never again slither through the doors of this chamber.” http://www.justiceforallmichigan.com/indexB.html#drolet

The amendment was approved in November 2004 by over 60 percent of Macomb County voters. http://miboecfr.nicusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/precinct_srch.cgi?elect_year_type=2004GEN&county_code=50&Submit=Search

* Drolet was the only Republican sponsor of legislation to change state law to allow homosexual couples to adopt children: http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2005-2006/billintroduced/House/htm/2005-HIB-5399.htm

* Drolet was the primary sponsor of legislation to repeal Michigan’s ban on homosexual sodomy. Only three other lawmakers — one Republican and two Democrats — joined him as cosponsors. http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2003-HB-4905

* Drolet was the only Republican sponsor of legislation which, according to the Detroit Free Press, “aim(ed) to repeal the state’s law covering gross indecency, which the Michigan Supreme Court has partially defined as oral sex in public, payment for sexual acts, sex with a minor or forced sex.” The law is used by police to prevent homosexual activity in public restrooms, city parks, and highway rest areas. http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2003-HB-4614