The Christian Civic League of Maine's Mike Hein calls Pam's House Blend: "a leading source of radical homosexual propaganda, anti-Christian bigotry, and radical transgender advocacy."
He is "praying that Pam Spaulding will "turn away from her wicked and sinful promotion of homosexual behavior."
(CCLM's web site, 10/15/07)
Ex-gay "Christian" activist James Hartline on Pam:
"I have been mocked over and over again by ungodly and unprincipled anti-christian lesbians."
(from "Six Years In Sodom: From The Journal Of James Hartline," 9/4/2006, written from the "homosexual stronghold" of Hillcrest in San Diego).
"Pam is a 'twisted lesbian sister' and an 'embittered lesbian' of the 'self-imposed gutteral experiences of the gay ghetto.'" -- 9/5/2008
Peter LaBarbera of Americans for Truth Against Homosexuality heartily endorses the Blend, calling Pam:
A "vicious anti-Christian lesbian activist." (Concerned Women for America's radio show [9:15], 1/25/07)
"A nutty lesbian blogger." (MassResistance radio show [16:25], 2/3/07)
Pam's House Blend always seems to find these sick f*cks. The area of the country she is in? The home state of her wife? I know, they are everywhere. Pam just does such a great job of bringing them out into the light.
--Impeach Bush
who monitors yours Bevis ?? Just thought I would drop you a line,so the rest of your life is not wasted.
Good news in Michigan -- Kalamazoo has outlawed discrimination against LGBTs in employment, housing and access to public accommodations. Video is from WOOD-TV:
Two more blocks were added this week to the civil rights quilt, although both with threads still dangling. On June 25th, both houses of the Delaware legislature passed "Senate Bill 121, [which] adds sexual orientation to the list of protections under Delaware's anti-discrimination law. That law covers housing, employment, public works contracting, public accommodations and insurance." It's taken 10 years of trying to get this bill passed. Governor Markell apparently has spoken in favor of similar bills previously, so is expected to sign this one.
In Kalamazoo, MI on June 29th, the city council passed a fully-inclusive non-discrimination ordinance! This is incredibly exciting, because the ordinance had passed once before then was rescinded for strategic reasons. And now it's back, stronger than before. Get the inside scoop here from Mattkazoo.
The threads still dangling on these great developments? The Delaware bill protects us based on sexual orientation but not gender identity or expression, and the Kalamazoo city ordinance will have to weather a referendum challenge. As always, more work remains to be done. But we're used to that, and I'm not going to let that perennial reality get in the way of celebrating two victories for civil rights in one week. As Dan Savage is fond of saying, we're winning!
According to the Michigan Messenger, the bill by State Rep. Pam Byrnes will face an uphill battle with her fellow lawmakers, particularly Dems up for election in 2010. Byrnes will make the formal announcement about the bill today during a Pride rally.
"The time has come," Byrnes, the House speaker pro tem, said in an interview with Michigan Messenger, which first reported the lawmaker's plan on Friday afternoon. "I think attitudes are changing. We are seeing other states flip on this issue especially when you get the former Vice President Dick Cheney acknowledging same-sex marriages then I think we definitely see a change in attitude and it's time to revisit this."
A two-thirds majority in both legislative chambers is required in order to put the measure before Michigan voters. While the Democrats control the House, which would be more likely to pass Byrnes' bill, getting two-thirds of the Republican-controlled Senate would be highly more difficult.
The head anti-gay in Michigan responsible for getting the marriage amendment on the ballot, Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, is smugly confident that Byrnes's bill will go nowhere.
"In the unlikely event it ever does come up for a vote, we doubt it gets even a simple majority of the House voting in favor of overturning so recent a vote of the people," Glenn said in an email to Michigan Messenger. "It certainly will not get the two-thirds vote required to actually place it on the ballot. But it does make for high drama, as political theater goes, to announce such legislation during a homosexual 'rights' rally, even though it'll never see the light of day thereafter."
The polls in Michigan still show only 46.5% support the right of gay and lesbian couples to marry. The bottom line, though, is if not now, when? It will never be a good time to overturn this because pols are always looking to cover their *sses. Michigan Equality agrees.
Michelle Brown, co-director of Michigan Equality, said Byrnes' move was important, and would move the issue forward.
"If you don't ever start to talk about it, how will you ever be ready to talk about?" Brown said. "So to have someone in the legislature say: 'You know what, it's time we revisit it,' to me sort of says its a wake-up call for everybody that perhaps we all need to be listening to what the people of Michigan are saying."
Having been born and raised in the city, Charles has earned the respect of his community as a local newscaster for more than ten years. Also, his Saturday morning radio show has become the most listened-to talk radio show in the city. As he seeks the opportunity to serve his city on the Detroit City Council, Charles stands to make history as the first openly gay person elected to the body.
Charles has secured the endorsement of outgoing city councilwoman Sheila Cockrel, who has announced that she thinks Charles is the best person to replace her. With his high name recognition and strong community ties, he stands a great chance to rise up among a crowded field of candidates for the city council.
In a city with a strongly anti-gay voting record, Charles' candidacy presents a rare opportunity to elect an openly gay candidate based on his abilities and commitment to his city. Having lived openly and honestly for years, Detroit residents know and respect Charles as a person - he hopes to heighten that respect by working on behalf of his constituents on the city council.
Pugh told the AP that he's ready to face a tough crowd.
"I know there are going to be jabs thrown at me, smear campaigns," he said. "They are going to try to misrepresent me as someone who likes to be around young men. That's the most ludicrous notion. I'm a mentor. I'm a role model."
...Pugh will have to campaign on issues critical to Detroiters -- high property taxes, unemployment and home foreclosures, said the Rev. Kenneth J. Flowers, pastor of Greater New Mt. Moriah Missionary Baptist Church.
..."The key thing is to make sure whoever runs for office, whether straight, gay or what, the (voter) looks on your record and your stance on issues versus who you are sleeping with," Flowers said. Pugh doesn't believe that's much of a concern.
"When I pass an ordinance, it will be an ordinance that helps this city," he said. "My agenda is Detroit's agenda. I just happen to be black, a man and gay."
Honestly, after the spectacular crash and burn of disgraced ex-Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick, who put the city through a text-messaging sex scandal and spent time in the clink for perjury, and other corrupt pols who have held the city hostage, it's no surprise that people are ready to clean house -- 400 people have filed to run for the nine council seats in the Aug. 4 primary. You can support Pugh's run here.
As companies move toward inclusive coverage, Blue Cross of Michigan runs the other way (Michigan Messenger):
A broad coalition of organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, The National Association of Social Workers, Transgender Michigan and others, are condemning a move by Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan to eliminate coverage for gender reassignment surgery. The new entity calls itself The Michigan Coalition for Gender Equality.
The change was approved in Feb. says Jason Moon, a spokesman for the Office of Financial and Insurance Regulation. He called the change "unfortunate," but noted the law did not define gender reassignment surgery as a necessary medical care area. Moon said such areas were things like breast cancer and diabetes.
This guy and the McCain/Palin rally mobs are all that will be left of the GOP if they don't remake their party ASAP. Back in October Michigan Messenger uncovered the fact that at least two Republican precinct delegates were tied to white supremists. One of them was Randy Gray of Midland. Well, since the election didn't go his way, Gray decided to put on the sheets and hold a protest of the country's election of its first black president.
An image of Gray has now surfaced in the Midland Daily News (online edition at OurMidland.com). The newspaper said the image shows Gray, 30, protesting the election of Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States. And to top it off, Gray is dressed in his KKK robes while standing at a busy intersection in Midland. His protest was held in front of Garber Chevrolet at the corner of Eastman Avenue and Saginaw Road in Midland and lasted 15 or 20 minutes.
Police told the Midland Daily News that Gray was exercising his First Amendment rights. What was Gray's protest about?
"I feel white people feel more oppressed," he said. "We're basically told as white people we can't have any organizations. We're ruled by communists.
"It's not just about Barack Obama. It goes deeper than that."
According to the Midland Daily News report, Gray then went on to say the election of Obama to the presidency was the impetus for him to make the walk on Wednesday. The report fails to note that Gray is Michigan GOP precinct delegate for Midland.
While the right bleats about ACORN over voter registrations that ultimately don't matter, we have the Republicans in Michigan admitting that they wanted to prevent voters from casting ballots in an illegal scheme to purge rolls of names of people caught up in the mortgage meltdown. Marcy at FDL:
Democrats and Republicans have settled the suit seeking to prevent Michigan Republicans from using foreclosure lists to challenge voters. The MDP statement on the settlement says:
An agreement announced today by Obama for America, the Republican National Committee, the Democratic National Committee, the Michigan Republican Party, the Michigan Democratic Party, the Macomb County Republican Party, the Macomb County Democratic Party, and plaintiffs Duane Maletski, Sharon Lopez, and Frances M. Zick protects the voting rights of foreclosure victims. The settlement acknowledges the existence of an illegal scheme by the Republicans to use mortgage foreclosure lists to deny foreclosure victims their right to vote. This settlement has the force of law behind it and ensures that Republicans cannot disenfranchise families facing foreclosure. [my emphasis]
Here's Michigan Democratic Party Chair Mark Brewer on the settlement:
Today's settlement protects the voting rights of all Michigan citizens and guarantees that Republicans cannot use foreclosure lists to deny or challenge anyone's right to vote. It is no surprise the Republicans back pedaled when their illegal scheme was revealed, and their surrender today ensures that Republicans cannot take advantage of the economic crisis to deny anyone's voting rights. The agreement is a win for Michigan families ready to vote for change, and we will continue to aggressively protect everyone's right to vote. [my emphasis]
This is an update on the report last week about the Wayland Union High School students who beat up a classmate allegedly for her gay rights advocacy. (Grand Rapids Press):
The cases will be handled in Allegan County Juvenile Court, where a hearing date will be set, he said. Each girl will face one count of aggravated assault, which carries a maximum penalty of one year in a juvenile detention center and a $1,000 fine.
Because the two alleged attackers are younger than 18, the FBI did not investigate potential hate crime violations.
Today's the delegate showdown day as the Democratic National Committee's rules and bylaws committee sits down and attempts to come up with a solution for seating some, all or none of the delegates by the renegade states of Florida and Michigan. Those states chose to move up their primaries in violation of party rules and the penalty all candidates and states agree on was that those delegates cannot be seated.
There is supposed to be a huge rally at this meeting; purportedly 10,000 Hillary supporters -- along with McCain and Huckabee fans (!?) -- will show up. (Joe Sudbay of Americablog is at the Wardman Park Marriott to liveblog the meeting and just IMed me to say there aren't ten thousand people there, and he has pix.)
"We don't think it's a helpful dynamic to create chaos," David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, said. "In the interest of party unity, we're encouraging our supporters not to protest."
...Allida Black, a professor at George Washington University and a Clinton supporter, is helping to organize the demonstration and is hoping that people come from all over the nation. "We're trying to flood it," she says
The Clinton campaign believes that all delegates should be seated, the argument being every vote should count, since "the people" didn't make the decision to move up the primary. On the flip side, since Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan, the results of that primary can hardly be considered a barometer of the will of the voters there; in Florida, he was on the ballot, but did not campaign, something both candidates also agreed to at the outset. Given all of this, it will come down to a decision by the 30 members of the rules committee. And who is on the committee?
The committee has several Democratic heavyweights such as Harold Ickes, one of Hillary Clinton's top advisers; Donna Brazile, the campaign manager for Al Gore in 2000; and Alice Germond, the DNC secretary. The rest is made up of lawyers and state party members otherwise unlikely to appear on network TV.
And Ickes position is, no surprise. Read below the fold.
This is where you need to be, because wherever in the world you compete, Michigan can give you the upper hand.
--Jeff Daniels, in a pitch for the Michigan Economic Development Corporation
The Michigan Economic Development Corporation has been peppering the news channels with their advertisements for businesses seeking to move to, or grow within Michigan. Their commercials usually end with a variant of the statement above -- to date all of these commercials have ended with the phrase "...because wherever in the world you compete, Michigan can give you the upper hand."
The one place Michigan can't compete is regarding employment equality for it's LGBT citizens. As the Detroit Free Press reported on May 8th, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that public employers are barred from providing health care benefits to the partners of gay and lesbian employees.
The 5-2 ruling found that an amendment to the Michigan Constitution approved by voters in 2004 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman also applied to employee benefits. Specifically, the court found that language in the amendment prohibiting recognition of other unions "for any purpose" effectively bans same-sex partner benefits.
In providing benefits to same-sex domestic partners, employers recognize those relationships in a way indistinguishable from the way a marriage is recognized, the court majority found.
...[Tom Patrick, a Washtenaw County resident and a plaintiff in the lawsuit] said the court's ruling threatens his family's health care coverage. Patrick said he and his partner have four adopted children and one foster child, and they could lose coverage if his partner's employer, Eastern Michigan University, decides not to offer insurance for designated beneficiaries.
Jessie Olson, an attorney and gay rights advocate from Bangor, said the ruling leaves Michigan "at the bottom of the barrel. We are the worst of the worst of the worst when it comes to civil rights for same-sex couples."
Frankly, I'm tired of watching Jeff Daniels telling me how wonderful Michigan is for business. When it comes to its LGBT citizens, Michigan doesn't compete; Michigan doesn't give the families of those in same sex relationships the upper hand.
~~~~~
Further:
Jeff Daniels mentions San Francisco in his Michigan Economic Development Corporation piece for ePrize.
Here's how passing a marriage amendment can place a state in disadvatageous position to states that embrace equality. Watch the exodus of LGBT couples from universities and state agencies. When you "let the people decide" who has civil rights, this is what results. (Detroit Free Press):
An amendment to the state constitution approved by voters in 2004 to define marriage as the union of one man and one woman also prohibits public employers from providing health care and other benefits to the same sex partners of employees, a divided Michigan Supreme Court ruled today.
The court majority found that language in the amendment prohibiting recognition of other unions "for any purpose" included the extension of benefits to gay and lesbian partners of public employees. Several Michigan universities, including U-M and MSU, along with various municipal and school employers had offered the benefits as a means of attracting workers.
I took some time today watching government at work. I was going to say "in action" but things don't move that fast.
Prompted by Triangle Foundation I went to Lansing today to observe the Michigan Supreme Court as they heard oral arguments on whether domestic partner benefits are banned by Michigan's Marriage Protection Amendment. Triangle felt it would be good to pack the gallery with gays so that the justices could see faces of people who would be affected.
They succeeded a bit too well. This case was third on the docket and Triangle suspected that arguments would begin at 11:00 so suggested we arrive before 10:30. Turns out that the 100+ seats in the gallery were filled shortly after the court session started at 9:30 (I think the security guards were a bit surprised, I'm sure most cases draw few spectators). I was shown a conference room that was displaying a live feed from the court and by the end of debate on this case there were at least 25 people in the conference room. The hearings began at 10:30 and were over by 11:30.
There were three speakers before the court: the lawyer from Pride at Work, the Governor's lawyer, and the Assistant Attorney General. The reason for the Gov's lawyer is that she (a Democrat and pro-gay) disagrees with the Attorney General (a Republican) on this case and she wanted it clear that though he represents the "official" state position he does not represent her. Gov. Granholm had supported DP benefits in state worker contracts before the amendment took effect.
I won't attempt to try to reproduce the hour's worth of arguments. I'm sure you can read them in Between The Lines at http://www.pridesour... this Friday or next.
But I was struck by the general tone of the comments on both sides. The anti-gay side projected the idea that gay relationships are just like straight ones and because we must protect marriage (as the amendment says) we can't allow any legal recognition of those relationships. It may not look like DP benefits are similar to marriage but (using the old camel's-nose-under-the tent argument) give them enough legal recognition and they'll look just like marriage, which the amendment bans. The criteria for DP benefits even matches the criteria for marriage except for the gender of the participants.
Meanwhile the pro-gay speakers projected the idea that gay relationships aren't anything special, nope, not at all. We're just after a measly little bit of recognition from out employer (the state) but there are other kinds of relationships with economic dependence that are just as valid and those are nothing like marriage, so this isn't either.
The justices had no problem interrupting the speakers with questions. Two justices asked most of the questions, though by the end I think we heard from 5 of the 7. I don't recognize the names well enough to tell whether the most talkative were GOP or Dem.
As with the US Supremes, the actual ruling by the court won't be given for several months. I thought the justices asked pointed questions of both sides, so didn't get a sense of intention from them. But since the court is 4 GOP to 3 Dem (and the GOP members are quite conservative) I doubt they'll rule in our favor. Even so, various institutions (such as MSU) have rewritten their DP benefit requirements so that they aren't only for gay couples. This was referred to in one question by a justice to the pro- gay speaker -- if you can get DP benefits in this way why are you in front of us? Answer: DP benefits are only one of many issues that might be affected by the amendment.
I feel I'm caught with no good choices. This tale is, of course, getting lots of air-time in Michigan, but I don't know how much elsewhere.
Michigan is reeling. Unemployment is 7%, the auto industry is shedding jobs (I took a "special early" retirement last February), and house foreclosures abound (including the house next door). Because of term limits (no experienced legislators) and faltering economy the Mich. gov't can't pass a budget (we even had a 5 hour gov't shutdown).
One thing the legislature could do was move the Michigan presidential primaries to January 15, giving both Iowa and New Hampshire fits. Sitting with the rest of the pack on February 5 wasn't good enough. I can understand the reasoning, and even agree with it.
But the Democratic National Committee isn't buying. To protect the first in the country status of IA and NH, the DNC threatened to not seat delegates at next summer's convention. Next, all Dem candidates agreed not to campaign in Michigan (though fund-raising will continue). With all the media sources (especially blogs and YouTube), that didn't seem to be much of a hardship. Easier to tune them out.
The biggest blow came today when 5 candidates, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Gravel, and Kucinich requested their names be taken off the primary ballot. Hillary will stay on the ballot.
Of course, the GOP candidates are delighted. They have no trouble with a January 15 primary and appreciate the lack of competition. They even held a debate in Dearborn yesterday (Fred Thompson's first).
So what's a Michigan Democrat to do? My favorite candidate won't be on the ballot. It was someone who I thought had a reasonable chance to win and who wasn't Hillary. Should I boycott the primary? Put my preference down as a write-in candidate? Write letters to the candidates to say how disgusted I am with having no choice? Ask my state legislators to move the date back to Feb. 5? Any other ideas?
This is from OneNewsNow, the fundie news aggregation site of the American Family News Network, one of the many tentacles of Don and Tim Wildmon's "Christianist" gay-bashing American Family Association:
Doesn't it make you visualize 9/11 terrorists overrunning the municipal government, taking hostages? The news is actually more mundane.
A Detroit-area newspaper says the results of Tuesday's primary could lead to Hamtramck, Michigan, becoming the first city council in the U.S. to be controlled by Muslims.
The Detroit News says there are four Muslims in the Tuesday primary. If they are among the candidates who win and go on to run in the November election, they would have a chance to join a fifth Muslim who already sits on the six-member council and is up for re-election in 2009.
Democracy in action and religious diversity are apparently too threatening for the AFA, an organization that former staff attorney Joe Murray said in his interview with me, harbors anti-Catholic views as well, despite fundraising appeals to the conservative Catholic demographic: "During a weekly mandatory devotional at AFA, one top AFA executive made the statement that Catholics were not Christians (being a Catholic? this was news to me)."
[W]hile in the south my Christianity was constantly challenged by employees at AFA, as well as folks in the South. There is a belief among some fundamentalist Christians that Catholics are not Christian, and while such a position may not be institutionalized in AFA, it definitely runs through the minds of some of its employees. Why people feel the need to seek approval of their Christianity from fellow men is beyond me.
...Obviously, nobody can determine if a person is Christian enough-the last time I checked, such a decision belonged to a higher power.
It's no surprise to see that Muslims are painted with a terror-alert brush by the fear-mongering AFA.
A smackdown (albeit temporary) for the bible-beaters. They were up in arms over the Ann Arbor Public Schools, which offers partner benefits to employees.
The state appeals court dismissed the case in 2005 and ruled the taxpayers didn't "demand" that the district stop providing the benefits to gay partners before filing suit, as required under state law. They had sent letters to school board members asking them to stop the policy.
The high court's majority said the taxpayers did enough to challenge the policy but still ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing, or the right to sue.
The broader issue of same-sex benefits stems from a 2004 voter-approved constitutional amendment making the union between a man and a woman the only agreement recognized as a marriage "or similar union for any purpose."
The Supreme Court will hold oral arguments on the constitutionality of same-sex benefits in the next term.
Over at the Republic of M, good news for folks in Kalamazoo:
Thanks to the dedicated work of our state's GLBT community, led by the Kalamazoo Alliance for Equality and the Kalamazoo Gay and Lesbian Resource Center, the City of Kalamazoo has chosen to retain health insurance and other employment benefits for the families of the city's gay and lesbian workers.
More than 200 people marched in Wednesday rallies for the past three weeks to help secure this important victory for these vulnerable Kalamazoo famlies.
While the city has set aside what appears to be sufficient funds for this program, KAFE, KGLRC, Triangle Foundation, and the other local and statewide organizations involved in this effort will continue monitoring the situation to make sure that Kalamazoo's gay and lesbian employees and their families are not charged premiums that straight employees and their families do not have to pay.
Folks can go here to thank City Manager Ken Collard and the Kalamazoo City Commission.
[T]he Ann Arbor school district said it will not include domestic partner benefits in future union labor contracts. About 15 employees will not lose those benefits now, though they will end when existing contracts expire, The Ann Arbor News reported.
Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, said public universities and state and local governments should follow Kalamazoo?s lead and "honor the will of the voters."
Some public employers have said they will not take away domestic partner benefits until the case is decided once and for all.
***
Meanwhile, in California, its legislature passes a marriage equality bill for the second time (and the Governator has promised to veto it again).
Lawmakers approved the measure on a party-line vote, with the majority saying the Legislature should not to wait for the state Supreme Court to act on the issue. It passed 42-34.
"This does in fact provide equal marriage rights for all citizens of California," bill author Mark Leno, D-San Francisco, said as he began what marked the lengthiest debate so far this year on the Assembly floor.
"By denying a group of individuals the right to marry, we denigrate that entire group and deny them citizenship."
The bill now goes to the Senate, which adopted a similar measure in 2005. In his veto at that time, Schwarzenegger wrote that a gay marriage bill would violate Proposition 22, an initiative passed by California voters in 2000 that bars the state from recognizing out-of-state, same-sex marriages.
In a separate move that has also enraged the fundies in the Golden State, the Senate passed SB 11; it would allow all heterosexual couples 18 and older to register as domestic partners, in essence creating an official designated "civil union" untethered from the word "marriage" but fully equivalent within the state.
Anti-gay bleater Randy Thomasson, president of Campaign for Children and Families (CCF), came unglued.
"If SB 11 becomes the law, marriage will be functionally abolished...Awarding marriage rights to people who shack up but refuse to get married is completely ridiculous. Why get married if you can get all the legal rights and benefits of marriage without being committed?
Where is the lack of commitment, Randy? Now that the word marriage is removed from the civil rights being proposed in this measure, he's left sputtering and twisting in the wind, whining because he still wants to believe rights and benefits are tied to religious marriage.
The city of Kalamazoo has decided to strip health benefits from domestic partners of municipal employees. We all knew this kind of fallout was coming if marriage amendments passed in states around the country, and now Michigan is providing a stark look at what is likely to come. (365gay):
City Manager Kenneth Collard cited a decision last month by the Michigan supreme Court.
The high court agreed to hear an appeal of a lower court ruling that said the state's constitutional ban on same-sex marriage blocks the state, local governments and public institutions from providing benefits to the same-sex partners of employees.
In granting leave to appeal the court said that the lower court's order cannot be held up.
Four Kalamazoo gay city workers have their families covered under the benefits plan. Civil rights activists say they believe other cities and state funded universities that offer domestic partner benefits will follow suit.
The state amendment defines marriage as the union between a man and a woman and any other arrangement "or similar union for any purpose" will not be recognized. This specific language is meant to hurt gays and lesbians, not "protect marriage."
As these amendments passed, valiant efforts were made at the grassroots level to fight them off, but there was silence at the national level, even capitulation as a "leave it to the states" attitude prevailed. Civil rights were allowed to be determined at the ballot box, and ambitious pols threw gays and lesbians in vulnerable states to the wolves of the fear-mongering right.
The bleeding will continue in Michigan as the University of Michigan and Wayne State University have been directed by the court to shut down their benefits programs currently offered to gay and lesbian couples.
Presidential candidates -- is this kind of discrimination a matter of states' rights or civil rights? We'd like to know.
It's critical, particularly since Hillary Clinton for example, while endorsing the repeal of the portion of DOMA that bans federal recognition of same-sex relationships in states where marriage equality (or CUs, or DPs) exists -- still believes that states should decide which civil rights their taxpaying residents are entitled to.
In the meantime, states will have to make a decision about whether they want to portray themselves as welcoming of diversity, or as an arm of the religious right. The best and the brightest will look elsewhere when job hunting; LGBT residents will migrate to friendlier environs (taking their tax dollars with them), and large companies that count on and appreciate diversity will look elsewhere to do business and set up shop. It's not only the fundamentalists that get to make decisions about a state's economic fate.
The far-right elements in Michigan are working hard to defeat Matt's Safe School Law (HB 4162 and 4091), a proposed anti-bullying measure.
East Lansing resident Kevin Epling, whose son Matt was the impetus for the legislation, was pleased that the bill made it through the Dem-controlled state House. The fourteen-year-old Matt committed suicide, WZZM reports, after a traumatizing last day at MacDonald Middle School in 2002, when upperclassmen smeared him with raw eggs and syrup. The bill now faces a difficult path in the GOP-led state Senate.
Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, has been leading the charge against the legislation, using the argument that the language of the bill prohibits bullying based on a victim's religion, race, height, weight, religion, ancestry, socioeconomic class, national origin -- plus sexual orientation and gender identity. Can you guess what's causing the bee in the bonnet?
"Homosexual activists are using legitimate concern for student safety as a Trojan Horse to sneak their special rights agenda into law." -- Gary Glenn
Of course the tactic taken by Glenn and the fundie campaign is that the bill shouldn't specify any groups and should just blanket protect all students. Of course the problem with that smoke screen is that once something that non-specific is in place, the bigots can claim that somehow it violates their religious freedom or some such nonsense when a gay bullying incident arises. I assume, of course, that they wouldn't mind that religious protections would be in place.
Glenn is so hopped up about this bill that he's dropped over to Straight, Not Narrow, blogger Jim Johnson's pad, to whine. Jim said:
"Formally recognize homosexual behavior?" What are they doing, forming their own government and seeking diplomatic relations? Not recognizing GLBT students will keep them in their place, these conservatives are probably hoping--the closet.
The facts that those supporting the bill oppose such language makes pretty clear to any fair observer that the agenda behind this bill is something other than protecting ALL students.
Its purpose, which is why they refuse to protect kids as individuals, is to create "protected class" status for the first time ever in Michigan law based on homosexual behavior and cross-dressing.
"Homosexual activists are using legitimate concern for student safety as a Trojan Horse to sneak their special rights agenda into law." -- Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan
With the fundies tossing out this kind of irrational hate and fear in the Great Lake State, it's no wonder a bill that simply gives LGBT kids the ability to attend and learn without being subject to punishing harassment is going to have a tough slog in the GOP-led state Senate.
Matt's Safe School Law (HB 4162 and 4091), the proposed anti-bullying measure named after an East Lansing youth who committed suicide after a hazing incident, passed the Dem-controlled state House (59-50 with Republicans in opposition). It would require school districts to adopt anti-bullying and harassment policies. (WOOD-TV):
"This is not kids being kids. This is causing psychological impact, psychological scars _ if not leading children to commit suicide," said Rep. Pam Byrnes, a Democrat from Washtenaw County's Lyndon Township, who spoke at a rally inside the Capitol before the House vote. She was joined by Granholm, along with students, parents and gay rights activists who spent the day lobbying legislators.
Conservatives opposed the legislation because it would specifically protect students who are being bullied because of their sexual orientation _ in addition to race, height, weight, religion, ancestry, national origin, sex and other characteristics.
The bible-beating homophobe Gary Glenn, of the state's AFA, wrote this in a letter to the chair of the state's House Education Committee, Tim Melton. Remember, this is a bill about bullying, and he's goes off about health and homosexuality. Read the insanity after the flip.
This guy and the McCain/Palin rally mobs are all that will be left of the GOP if they don't remake their party ASAP. Back in October 
