|Why We Fight
These two Fox News videos — http://bit.ly/ktvnc7 — offer the most vivid example we’ve seen of how homosexual activist groups will, if allowed, use the anti-bullying issue as cover for indoctrinating public school students as young as first grade to believe that homosexual behavior and gender confusion are normal and healthy, an indoctrination message not supported either by medical research or by the overwhelming majority of most parents.
These videos also explain why the American Family Association of Michigan has for over five years been unmoveable in its opposition to allowing homosexual activists to use “anti-bullying” legislation in Lansing as a Trojan Horse by which to bring the same type material into Michigan public school classrooms, including elementary and middle schools.
I’ll be taping a public affairs TV show in Lansing tomorrow to talk about this issue and others, and I’ll send you a link to that show when it’s available.
You can click http://bit.ly/eLOdSW to make a tax-deductible contribution to our work by secure credit card, or by mail to PO Box 1904, Midland, Michigan 48641. Thanks for your prayers and support, which makes all that we do possible.
|â€Ž“(Tennessee state Senator Stacey) Campfield said the new version accomplishes the same objective as the original – ensuring that parents, not teachers or others coming to classrooms, make decisions on when children learn about sexuality and what they learn.”
The Senate approved, 19-11, a modified version of Sen. Stacey Campfield’s bill to block teaching about homosexuality in kindergarten through eighth grade.
|“The Senate higher education bill includes a religious conscience clause requiring state universities with accredited counseling programs to ‘report’ on actions to protect counseling students from having to do something which might interfere with the ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’ of the student. …That move comes in response to the case of Julea Ward. Ward was a graduate student in the Eastern Michigan University counseling program, but she was expelled from the program when she declined to counsel a gay student. In refusing to counsel the student she said approving of homosexuality would violate her sincerely held religious beliefs that the Bible condemned homosexuality. … Wardâ€™s case has become a cause celebre for the religious right, especially for Gary Glenn and the American Family Association of Michigan.”
Budget deal includes controversial non-budgetary provisions
by Todd A. Heywood
|“Recruiting children? You bet we are. Why would we push anti-bullying programs or social studies classes that teach kids about the historical contributions of famous queers unless we wanted to deliberately educate children to accept queer sexuality as normal?”
Queerty columnist openly admits that so-called anti-bullying bills are a Trojan Horse propaganda ploy by which to promote homosexual behavior as safe and normal in our public schools.
In fact, medical research indicates that such behavior is a severe threat to both personal and public health, associated with a dramatically higher incidence of mental illness, eating disorders, substance abuse, syphilis and other STDs, serious life-threatening diseases such as cancer, hepatitis, and AIDS, and premature death by up to 20 years.
Homosexual columnist writes:
“We want educators to teach future generations of children to accept queer sexuality. …The younger generation doesnâ€™t fear homosexuality as much because theyâ€™re exposed to fags on TV, online, and at school. And I donâ€™t know a single lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender person who wants that to stop.
I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that itâ€™s OK to be gay, that people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other, and that anyone can kiss a person of the same sex without feeling like a freak.
…I and a lot of other people want to indoctrinate, recruit, teach, and expose children to queer sexuality and there’s nothing wrong with that.
…(W)e do our opponents an even greater service when we trip all over ourselves promising not to mention queers in front of the kids when in fact weâ€™d love to. And because we hide from this very basic fact and treat it like something to be ashamed of, we end up with watered-down unemotional pleas for equality…
How about this? How about we accept that we want kids to think better about queers… That would at least be honest.”
|Please read the article below, then contact Gov. Snyder and legislative
leadership and tell them to keep pro-family protections in Michigan’s
higher education budget.
Gov. Rick Snyder: Rick.Snyder@michigan.gov
Senate Leader Randy Richardville: SenRichardville@senate.michigan.gov
House Speaker Jase Bolger: JaseBolger@house.mi.gov
Universities fighting social amendments
The state’s universities are hoping to see their budget come out of conference a bit lighter than it entered, at least in verbiage.
Michael Boulus, executive director of the Presidents Council, State Universities of Michigan, said the institutions are trying to have removed from the budgets language that penalizes those schools with domestic partner benefits for their employees. They also want struck language requiring reports on embryonic stem cell research and protecting religious rights of counseling students.
“It’s a historic cut at 15 percent,” Mr. Boulus said. “Then to couple it with extremely intrusive and questionably flawed social and religious beliefs … It’s a troublesome trend among many Republicans to micromanage universities.”
Mr. Boulus told Gongwer News on Friday that he was already working with legislative leadership to have the provisions removed from the final budget package, but he is also exploring other options.
“It’s not enforceable if we want to take it to court,” Mr. Boulus said of the boilerplate.
There was discussion overnight of seeking Governor Rick Snyder’s veto of the language. While Mr. Snyder has said he is still reviewing the language in the budgets, he has also said he does not approve of non-budgetary items in the budget bills.
But Mr. Boulus said he is being cautious about discussing the veto option both because he does not know where Mr. Snyder stands on the provisions and because he is not sure if vetoing the domestic partner benefits language would mean a cut to universities. The provision sets aside 5 percent of the funding for each university and gives that money to the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System if the university has a health benefits plan that covers non-married domestic partners and their dependents.
Vetoing the provision could simply remove the instructions for how to spend that 5 percent or it could remove that 5 percent from the appropriation.
|Please take a minute right now to e-mail Attorney General Bill Schuette and simply THANK him for taking this strong decisive action to stop a rogue state agency from forcing Michigan taxpayers to subsidize homosexual activity among state employees!
Family group applauds Schuette lawsuit to block taxpayer subsidy of state employees’ homosexual relationships
Calls on lawmakers to limit spousal-type benefits only to married employees, as Schuette bill attempted in 1998
LANSING, Mich. — In the face of an impending $1.8 billion deficit in the state budget, a statewide family values Friday applauded Attorney General Bill Schuette’s announced lawsuit to “protect taxpayers from being forced by the Michigan Civil Service Commission to fund yet another multi-million dollar expansion of employment benefits for government employees, the most recent driven by an obviously ideological fixation, no matter how much it costs, on forcing taxpayers to subsidize homosexual relationships that many taxpayers consider immoral and characterized by behavior that threatens both personal and public health.”
Gary Glenn, Midland, president of the American Family Association of Michigan and one of two co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment approved by voters in 2004, said:
“On behalf of the overwhelming majority of voters who approved Michigan’s Marriage Protection Amendment, we salute Attorney General Schuette for taking strong, decisive action to prevent a rogue state agency from recognizing and treating homosexual activity among government employees as something equal or similar to marriage. Taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize government employees’ homosexual relationships under any circumstance, but at a time when the state is facing a nearly two-billion dollar deficit, forcing taxpayers to spend an additional $11 million dollars to do so is particularly unconscionable.”
“When our state is already drowning in red ink, forcing taxpayers to fund new benefits for any new group of beneficiaries — but especially a group medically proven to be at severely elevated risk of substance abuse and expensive life-threatening diseases such as AIDS, cancer, and hepatitis — is all the more unthinkable and will further increase both the state budget deficit and the cost of health care.”
He pointed to a national homosexual activist group’s embarrassing experience with the cost of its own same-sex benefits plan. According to the Washington Blade, a “gay” advocacy newspaper in the nation’s capital, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force — which is critical of employers who cite cost in refusing to offer same-sex benefits — was forced in 2003 to cut back its own same-sex benefits plan, calling it “prohibitively expensive” and unsustainable. http://www.cnsnews.com/node/5503
“When the NGLTF’s unionized staff threatened to go public with a dispute over domestic partner benefits,” the Blade reported, “(executive director Lorri) Jean called for dropping a longstanding NGLTF policy of paying 100 percent of the health insurance premium for staff members’ domestic partners, saying the benefit was prohibitively expensive…(and)…a 100 percent benefit plan for domestic partners could not be sustained, Jean said, at a time when the group had a $500,000 debt.” (Washington Blade, March 7, 2003)
Glenn, one of two co-authors of the Marriage Protection Amendment overwhelmingly approved by voters in 2004, said that because of the scientifically proven social, financial, and health benefits of marriage between a man and a woman, the state should statutorily restrict spousal-type state employment benefits exclusively to married employees as an incentive to marry.
“Every study ever done proves that traditional marriage results in increased health and financial security for both men and women, and that their children are healthier, do better in school, and are less likely as teens to use drugs, get pregnant, or commit juvenile crime, all of which reduces the cost to taxpayers for law enforcement, social welfare, and other government programs,” Glenn said.
“Getting married is also the single biggest factor in avoiding or escaping poverty,” Glenn said, citing a study published five months ago by the Heritage Foundation which found that in Michigan, children of single mothers are more than six times more likely to live in poverty than children of married parents. http://www.heritage.org/Multimedia/InfoGraphic/2010/Marriage-Poverty-Charts/Marriage-and-Poverty-in-Michigan
“Rather than force taxpayers to subsidize unmarried relationships, Michigan should as a matter of fiscal policy alone reduce the size and expense of government by doing everything possible to encourage and incentivize traditional marriage,” he said. “That includes saving money by restricting tax-funded employment benefits exclusively to state employees who are married, specifically to reward and encourage employees to get married and stay married.”
“More marriage means less government, less government spending, and less of a burden on taxpayers,” he said.
Glenn noted that a pre-election poll by the Detroit Free Press in 2004 found that a larger percentage of the state’s population opposed tax-financed same-sex benefits for government employees than supported the amendment itself, which ended up passing with nearly 60 percent of the vote. (“Gay marriage ban headed for passage,” Detroit Free Press, Oct. 2, 2004)
Glenn said that the Civil Service Commission’s approved benefits plan, by drawing the eligibility requirements for such benefits so narrowly — with the express purpose being to cover the homosexual partners of state employees, advocates of the policy said, while excluding family members such as parents and siblings — the commission’s plan may have granted legal recognition of unmarried homosexual and heterosexual relationships as being “similar to” marriage, a step the state Supreme Court ruled in 2008 is prohibited by the amendment. Attesting to its agreement with Glenn’s views as a co-author as to the amendment’s intent, the court quoted or cited AFA-Michigan’s legal brief on the issue three times in its decision in Pride at Work (AFL-CIO) v. Granholm.
“As we made clear in public statements as far back as the ballot campaign for the amendment in 2004, we believe an unrestricted benefits policy that allows a state employee to cover anyone he chooses, including family members such as parents, siblings, or grandparents, probably would be constitutional since it obviously would not be based on treating the employee’s relationship as similar to a marriage,” he said. “But that’s not what the Civil Service Commission did.”
But there’s a big distinction between the question of constitutionality and whether such a plan is good public policy, Glenn said. AFA-Michigan would oppose such an unrestricted plan, even if constitutional, because it would increase the tax burden on Michigan families even more than the Civil Service Commission’s plan. Attorneys for the University of Michigan agreed in the Pride at Work case, arguing in court that because of the cost, the university should not be compelled to broadly offer benefits to any individual an employee chooses in order to be allowed to continue covering employees’ homosexual partners.
* Even if a court finds that the Civil Service Commission plan is allowed under the Marriage Protection Amendment, that doesn’t mean the state constitution requires such benefits be offered, Glenn said. Ideally, the state should instead enact legislation such as that Schuette himself introduced over a decade ago as a member of the state Senate, restricting taxpayer-financed state employment benefits only to the spouses of married employees, with the obvious effect of statutorily prohibiting the commission’s unmarried partner benefits plan in future collective bargaining agreements with state employees. Schuette’s legislation passed the Senate in 1998 but was not brought up for consideration by the House.
Metro Times, a Detroit newsweekly, reported in 1999: “State Sen. Bill Schuette, R-Midland, is pushing legislation prohibiting employees of state-funded entities from receiving domestic partner benefits. That legislation evolved from an earlier Schuette effort to target the extension of such benefits at Wayne State University, the University of Michigan and other institutions. The attorney general ruled that public colleges and universities could be barred from extending the benefits only if there was a law against it for all employees of entities receiving state funds. …Ginotti says the senator wants to stop the use of taxes to support benefits for unmarried partners because their bond isnâ€™t legally recognized.” http://www2.metrotimes.com/news/story.asp?id=10989
The Post newspaper at Ohio University reported in 1997: “When Michigan State University became the third Michigan university in September — preceded by Wayne State University and the University of Michigan — to grant such benefits, backlash arose from a state senator. Although the decision was supported by the MSU Board of Trustees after more than two years of research and debate, state Sen. Bill Schuette, R-Midland, created a plan to penalize universities for funding benefits to partners of gay and lesbian faculty and staff by not permitting them to use state money to pay for the benefits, according to the MSU State News. Phil Ginotte, Schuette’s spokesman, said the trustees made an unwise decision — ‘a mistake’ that will ‘resonate through the state,’ according to the Sept. 15 issue of the MSU State News.” (Oct. 27, 1997) http://www.thepost.ohiou.edu/archives/102797/partners.html
Glenn also dismissed arguments by homosexual activist groups and their political allies that the state must subsidize the homosexual and other unmarried partners of state employees in order to be competitive in hiring.
“Homosexual behavior is not a requirement or indicator of being among the best and brightest. The severe public health consequences alone prove that engaging in such behavior is neither the best or brightest decision, and taxpayers certainly shouldn’t be forced to pay for the medical consequences of such behavior.”
|â€Ž”We haven’t been able to put an anti-bullying policy in place for years because Gary Glenn, the head of the American Family Association of Michigan, says it’s just a Trojan Horse to push the gay agenda. And that’s been enough to scare Republican lawmakers… Sen. Rick Jones has finally taken up the issue, but there’s no provision to help kids who are gay. That would upset Gary Glenn, who is quite fragile, too much.” Liberal Lansing political columnist complains about AFA-Michigan’s effectiveness in blocking homosexual activists’ political agenda… In fact, Sen. Jones’ bill would equally protect all students from all bullying for all reasons, without establishing homosexual behavior in state law as a “characteristic” worthy of special protection. Liberals aren’t happy that each individual child — including those involved in homosexual behavior — would be equally protected as individuals. They’re only happy if their pet political constituencies and causes are mentioned in the law by name as worthy of special “group rights” and protections. http://blog.mlive.com/capitolchronicles/2011/05/the_michigan_legislature_slash.html __________________________________________________|
|â€Ž”Rep. Dave Agema, R-Grandville, offered a successful amendment on the floor that would dock universities another 5 percent in state aid that provide medical and other benefits to the domestic partners of their employees. The practice violates the 2004 amendment that banned gay marriage, he said. “And subverts the will of the people, the rule of law and moral values.”
Salute to Rep. Agema and House Republicans! Michigan taxpayers should not be forced to subsidize homosexual relationships among state university employees.
This budget also includes a requirement, already approved by the state Senate, that universities report to the Legislature each year on steps they’ve taken to protect the religious conscience rights of Christian students. It’s intended to prevent cases such as Eastern Michigan University’s expulsion of Christian grad student Julea Ward of Southfield because she refused to counsel another student on how to improve his homosexual relationship.
Read “Lawmakers want university explanation for expulsion of Christian,” World Net Daily, at: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=144881
|â€Ž”The scientific telephone survey…found that 65 percent of all respondents objected to teaching elementary school children that homosexuality is a ‘normal alternative lifestyle.’ The question was, ‘Do you believe elementary school children should be taught that homosexuality is a normal alternative lifestyle?'”
WORLD NET DAILY — “Only 22 percent agreed that (teaching elementary school children that homosexual behavior is a ‘normal alternative lifestyle’) would be right, and only 13 percent were unsure.
Nearly 80 percent of the self-identified members of the GOP objected, as did nearly 60 percent of the independents. Even among those who identified with the Democrat Party, more than 55 percent said those lessons are not appropriate.”
|â€Ž”The bill advanced Tuesday does not include language about motivation or characteristics (such as homosexual behavior). A representative of Equality Michigan, a gay rights group, said the organization could not support the proposal as approved by the committee.”
“An estimated 45 states already have passed anti-bullying laws. Republican Gov. Rick Snyder has said it’s time for Michigan to join them. Past proposals have bogged down over language about motivation for bullying and characteristics of victims. Some proposals have included lists aimed at protecting bullying victims if they were targeted because of their sexual orientation, weight or other factors. Many Republicans wouldn’t vote for those proposals, wary it was an attempt to carve out special protections for gay students or other groups.”
Now it’s homosexual activists who say they oppose an anti-bullying bill, one that — specifically because it’s doesn’t single out homosexual behavior for special protection — actually has a chance of becoming law.
Thanks to AFA-Michigan supporters who contacted the Senate Judiciary Committee to help ensure this legislation and legitimate concern about student safety would not once again be used as a Trojan Horse for homosexual activists’ political agenda.