A pro-family advocate in Michigan says he's honored to be on the front lines in fighting for First Amendment rights to speak out against homosexuality.
Gary Glenn, president of the American Family Association of Michigan, is concerned that the "Hate Crimes Act" signed into law last year will be used to prosecute those who speak in favor of traditional biblical morality. He cites a personal example.
"Several years ago Cardinal Adam Maida of Detroit and I were personally accused by the National Gay &Lesbian Task Force in a news release of being responsible for inciting the alleged beating death of a 72-year-old homosexual man in Detroit, merely because we had actively supported Michigan's Marriage Protection Amendment reaffirming marriage as only between a man and a woman," he remarks.
Glenn says aside from the fact that officials found that there was no assault and the man died of natural causes, it illustrates the point that preachers of biblical truth are being targeted. He encourages boldness.
"Don't be intimidated," he counsels. "Continue to speak biblical truth; continue to tell people that marriage is and always has been between one man and one woman -- that's what's best for society, best for children. And stand up against these continuing restrictions on the exercise of free speech."
Glenn is speaking of the case of 72-year-old Andrew Anthos, who died mysteriously in 2007. Anthos, shortly before his death, had told family members that he was attacked because of his sexual orientation. However, the police and medical examiners concluded that his death was the result of a fall and there was no evidence that he was attacked.
But Glenn plays a little loose with the facts regarding the Gay and Lesbian Task Force letter. This is what it said:
"For years, Michigan has been subjected to the homophobic rants of Gary Glenn of the American Family Association of Michigan, while so many otherwise good and decent people have been silent. Just two years ago, the state endured an ugly campaign, led by Cardinal Adam Maida, to 'protect marriage' by writing anti-gay discrimination into its constitution. Based on that amendment, a three-judge panel of Michigan's court of appeals voted last month to terminate medical insurance coverage for families of LGBT government workers throughout the state.
So while the letter did somewhat link him to Anthos's death (which was probably unfair), Glenn really has no right to plead total innocence here. He wasn't "merely standing up for marriage." The letter speaks to his long history of vilifying the lgbt community.
Like in 2006 when he spoke against gay/straight alliances in public schools because according to him, they "promote risky behavior,"
Or when he opposed anti-discrimination policies on the assumption that they would make bathrooms co-ed,
Or when he opposed anti-bullying legislation because according to him, it "promoted the homosexual agenda."
Or that ridiculous lawsuit he has help to launch against hate crimes legislation, legislation which does nothing to punish anyone for speech unless that speech is advocating violence,
Or last week when he declared that there should criminal sanctions against "homosexual behavior." The discussion that he had with me afterwards in which he tried to justify his words only spoke to his desire to further stigmatize the lgbt community even to the point of using information designed to help us as a weapon against us.
And that's the huge hypocrisy of folks like Glenn. They claim that they are being attacked for merely standing up for "Christian values." It's a good lie they tell as long as no one is made aware of low they stoop to defend their idea of morality.
UPDATE - Check out One News Now's "poll" on hate crimes legislation and the "variety" of questions it offers:
What kind of impact do you believe the Hate Crimes Act will have on freedom of expression for Christians? (related article)
10 comments:
From Gary Glenn:
Tsu, thanks for this helpful summary of the positions AFA-Michigan has taken, including hyperlinks to the original source documents. I've distributed it to our supporters and will likely post it on AFA-Michigan's website. (Far from any concern about our exchanges being "on the record," I want them disseminated as widely as possible, including the one you recently refused to post because of your obvious exhomophobia.
Some questions about what you wrote above:
1. You write that it was "probably" unfair for the NGLTF to suggest that I was guilty of inciting a falsely-alleged murder because of AFA-Michigan's publicly-expressed position on various pieces of legislation.
Man up, Al. You're not bashful about expressing your opinion, so which is it. Was it or wasn't it fair? Was NGLTF wrong, or not?
2. Similarly, do you think NGLTF was wrong and unfair to accuse Cardinal Maida of inciting murder solely because of his support for Michigan's Marriage Protection Amendment? Or do you agree with NGLTF that his public expression of his religious and political views constitutes incitment to murder, and that he should be held accountable accordingly?
3. You write that the so-called "hate crime" law "does nothing to punish anyone for speech UNLESS that speech is advocating violence."
Thank you for acknowledging that the law does seek to punish speech in some cases, i.e., "advocating violence," so the critical legal question is, which speech would a judge appointed to the federal bench by President Obama -- after being vetted by the NGLTF, of course -- find falls into the "advocating violence" category.
But we don't have to wait for that court case to learn your opinion, Al: do you believe that AFA-Michigan's publicly stated positions on the issues you catalogued above "advocate violence"?
4. If you answer "No" to #3, do you acknowledge that major homosexual activist groups disagree with you, i.e., they have routinely accused critics of homosexual behavior and homosexual activists' political agenda of inciting and thus being responsible for acts of violence against individuals who engage in homosexual behavior? (Such as the NGLTF news release in question, or those who said James Dobson was responsible for inciting the death of Matt Shepard merely by expressing his political and religious views on homosexual behavior?
5. Or do you agree with Jeff Montgomery, the most prominent homosexual activist in Michigan, whose comments were reported by the Saginaw News:
"Jeffrey Montgomery is calling out the political extremists and religious fundamentalists whose RHETORIC, he says, has fueled a steady rise in hate crimes against gays and lesbians. 'We've seen an increase in vitriolic, vociferous, vehement, demonizing RHETORIC against gays and lesbians,' said Montgomery, executive director of the Triangle Foundation, a Detroit-based advocacy group. 'The VOCAL anti-gay activists should be held accountable as ACCESSORIES to these crimes because, many times, it is their RHETORIC that led the perpetrators to believe that their crimes are OK.' ...If a criminal borrows a gun and then uses it to kill someone, the law considers the gun owner an accessory to the crime. So, too, are the people who own the WORDS that incite violence, Montgomery said."
We're either guilty or we're not, Al. Which do you think?
(More in next post)
Unless the Gay & Lesbian Task Force has the authority to arrest people, his example is ridiculous anyway.
Sorry Gary, there will be no second post here. The only one who will monopolize my blog for a monologue is me. LOL
Secondly, I'm all for you distributing my entire post "as is" so that folks see just how you play fast and loose with facts and position.
As a matter of fact, I encourage you to distribute our first exchange "as is" (the one where you tried to defend putting gays and lesbians in jail) in its entirety so that everyone can see how you have a tendency to distort and cherry pick studies.
About hate crimes legislation - I would sincerely HOPE that you stand against any type of speech which promotes violence. In this case, hate crimes legislation covers speech if someone actually tells someone else to commit violence. I don't think what NGLTF did to you qualifies as hate speech.
About that matter at hand - you and the NGLTF - you tried to step distort my point (why am I not surprised.)
While I was not in agreement with NGTLF's hyperbole in your case (only because of the police's final statement in the Anthos case), I certainly didn't agree with you trying to minimize your role in stigmatizing lgbts. You weren't merely "defending marriage." You have made it your life's work to demonize and (according to the post I linked to regarding our last conversation) lie about our health in order stigmatize us.
In the broader sense, there is a point to be made that when folks like yourself demonize lgbts the way that you do, it does give somewhat a license for ignorant people to play "target practice" at us. Words do mean things Mr. Glenn. When folks like Dobson says that gays want to destroy the Earth, that's more than simply expressing a religious view.
Granted, unless you actively call for violence, it doesn't count as hate speech. But in a sense, you are just like Fred Phelps, despite the fact that you attempt to sugarcoat your hatred with phony claims of Christian piety. It gets you over on ignorant people, but the bottom line is when you remove the phoniness, your rhetoric is no different than that of Phelps
Not one person has been arrested for anit-gay SPEECH since the Hate Crime bill was passed. Not one.
If Fred Phelps and his posse of vile hatemongers can still roam around toting signs bearing images of stick figures sodomizing each other and featuring slogans like 'FAGS BURN IN HELL", then ministers who are more subtle in the way they express the same sentiments are probably safe.
Two men, two points of view. The issue we are all arguing about, however, is if there is any substance to either side. Call it God or nature - being homosexual is a deviation from what is natural, a deviation from how we work and it is destructive to our culture and our future.
The hate speech issue is just silly. Violence is illegal. If I hit you because you smell, or because you wear jeans, or because you are homosexual it is wrong and it is punishable. It isn't more wrong because you are homosexual. Smelly people deserve (and get) the same protection.
You are free to feel and think what you want don't cry if others challenge you.
Anonymous, I think you generalize a bit too much about hate crimes legislation. The problem is that Glenn and others like him seem to have no problem with hate crimes legislation that protects religion but will suddenly pull the "hate crimes legislation unfairly punishes speech" card when it protects sexual orientation or gender identity.
And I think that something needs to be said about how these discussions regarding hate crimes legislation spring up. Hate crimes legislation have existed for awhile and very few people have problem with it but when the categories of sexual orientation and gender identity are added, then folks want to bring up how "all crime is the same" nonsense. It seems totally insincere to me.
It is unavoidable that our perspectives, our presuppositions color our views and positions I suppose. Regardless of when the discussion started "hate crimes" still seem foolish to me. No one can reach into someone's motives reliably. You punish the act not the motive. Obviously the discussion will continue and each side will lobby for its perspective. I just hope that we can attempt to be civil in the process and let all speak and lobby freely.
Alvin: "actually tells someone to commit violence" would be subject to the extremely restrictive Brandenburg test, which requires someone's speech to be highly likely to lead to imminent violence. "That man's a homo, kill him now!" would meet the test if the speaker and "that man" were present in the same location; little else would.
Gary Glen is a whack job. I know of him from being involved in Michigan politics and I'm on his side of the aisle. The problem with Gary Glen is that he gives us a very bad name and is a disappointed to all Republicans who reason and principle to guide their opinions. I actually think he is a closet homosexual who hides behind his vitriol for homosexuals. He fumes hatred for these individuals and from my experience, people who overreact to a concept believe it, but struggle with it.
Well none of us are psychiatrists so we can't really guess Glenn's motivations. But still . . .
Post a Comment