Shouldn't governments do everything possible to insure that public schools are a safe place for ALL students? There are, to me at least, a surprising number of legislators who disagree, and it just makes my hair hurt.
One of the major issues being debated these days across the United States that affects the GLBT community is bullying in schools. Michigan has turned into a battleground state for that issue, and it's a battle GLBT students are in serious danger of losing.
The bill under consideration lists several specific areas for which students may not be harassed, one of them being homosexuality. From the Detroit Free Press article:
Opposition largely exists because the measure would prohibit bullying based on a victim’s sexual orientation — along with a number of other characteristics such as height, weight, religion and race.
Michigan law shouldn’t formally recognize homosexual behavior, conservatives say, nor should gays get special protection. Republicans favor a broad ban against all bullying in schools.
"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.
Gay rights groups and others respond that the bills don’t single out any group and say listing why students may be harassed would keep schools from ignoring certain types of intimidation.
A law would send a strong message that bullying must be taken seriously, says Kevin Epling of East Lansing, whose 14-year-old son, Matt, killed himself in 2002 after being smeared with raw eggs and syrup during a hazing incident.
“This isn’t a political issue. This is a very simple issue of right and wrong,” Epling said. “Our kids should not have to be going to school and fearing for their own safety.”
If the measure is enacted, it would be the first time state law separates gays and lesbians into a protected class, according to the Midland-based American Family Association of Michigan.“Public school officials have a legal duty not to put children at risk by in any way legitimizing or encouraging homosexual behavior,” said Gary Glenn, the group’s president.
I wonder if Mr. Glenn has spoken to Mr. Epling. Perhaps Mr. Glenn should visit Matt Epling's grave and consider how legitimate Matt's life was.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Actually, I have spoken with Mr. Epling, and I don't need to visit his son's grave to acknowledge the value of his life.
ReplyDeleteThe usual hysterics of this blog aside, we've urged the Legislature to protect ALL students against bullying by prohibiting bullying of "any student for any reason, regardless of the motivation."
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.
You can read the full statement of our concerns about that precedent at:
http://www.afamichigan.org/2007/03/29/news-house-dems-try-to-hide-homosexual-agenda-on-bullying-bill/
If the real purpose is to protect ALL kids, then the bill's backers should agree to separate the issue of student safety from the issue of "gay rights." Then, it'll probably pass nearly unanimously and be signed into law.
I can't imagine Mr. Epling will feel he's failed to honor his son's memory if a bill prohibiting bullying "of any student for any reason" is signed into law.
You're correct that this bill is likely to fail as long as it segregates kids into protected class categories, then doles out protection based on membership in one of the categories.
But an "any student, any reason" bill would likely pass. If it's not allowed to do so, it'll be the fault of homosexual activist groups who've hijacked the legislation to use as a Trojan Horse for their own agenda.
Gary Glenn, President
American Family Association of Michigan
Although I am struck by the irony of a member of the AFA accusing me of "hysterics", I appreciate and respect the fact that Mr. Glenn is participating in the discussion here, stating his view, and signing his name.
ReplyDeleteI'm glad Mr. Glenn has spoken to Mr. Epling--kudos for that act, but I still don't buy his position. If this bill singled out homosexuals as the only protected class, Mr. Glenn might very well have a point. However, according to the FREEP article I linked to, that is not the case. Therefore, it strikes me as a position intended to either specifically discriminate against GLBT students, or to have a bill vague enough that it would be more difficult to enforce bullying toward GLBT students. Either way, GLBT students would be at higher risk of continued bullying and there would be a greater chance of more tragedies like that of Matt Epling.
Yes, all children should be protected and feel safe at school. I was gay bashed quite a bit in junior high school, while the teachers and admin. stood back and watched.
ReplyDelete(ps. luv your site)
Gary Glenn and the AFA are the hysterical crowd. The AFA believes gays should be locked up under sodomy laws and recently even said that prosecuting people with hate crimes is anti-Christian. What does that say about what they think Christianity is?
ReplyDeleteSaying "Bullying is bad don't do it," is like saying "don't discriminate, it's mean."
Enumeration, the legal principle that requires specific instructions for legal protection, got a huge endorsment from the U.S. Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans. But I guess Gary Glenn is smarter than the rest of us.
No. He just gets paid to politically assassinate gay people.
OK, Jim and Sean, you choose:
ReplyDelete1. Bill that keeps language referencing segregated classes and dies in Senate committee, i.e., no bullying law at all.
2. Bill that removes reference to segregated classes, replaces it with a prohibition against bullying of "any student for any reason," which probably passes overwhelmingly and becomes law.
It's possible I'm wrong, but I do believe those are your realistic choices.
Careful, the choice you make will reveal whether your true agenda is protecting students from bullying or protecting them only if it's done via segregated categories, which of course would set a precedent for adding "orientation" and "identity" language elsewhere in Michigan law, which is your real motivation. (On the other hand, if you can't get SO and GI language into law disguised as protecting kids from bullying, you know you're not gonna get it done straight up in Ell-Larson or EthnInt legislation.)
You couldn't even hold the House Democrats on your initial language -- guess Stryker's gonna have to drop a few mill in the Democrat primary next year -- and that was BEFORE a single mainstream news media outlet reported our characterization of the legislation.
(Also, Sean, you gotta talk to those BTL gals about airing your dirty laundry. Embarassing.)
GG
I find it somewhat unsettling that Mr. Glenn and his "family" organization would work so diligently to prevent GLBT people from forming stable, loving, committed, monogamous relationships... and then write in his letter:
ReplyDelete"Since summer, I’ve been dating a really wonderful guy…This is his first relationship, so he has not yet been ruined by all the heartache, lies, deceit, and game-playing that are the hallmark of gay relationships. I know the odds of making a gay male relationship work. A study I once read suggested that nine out of 10 gay men cheat on their lovers.” (”Brent’s Fagenda” by Brent Dorian Carpenter, columnist, Between the Lines, Jan. 30, 2002.)"
In one breath, Mr. Glenn condemns same-sex relationships, and in the next, he complains about promiscuity (from a study in 1978, no less). This is just a small sample of the deceptive points he makes in his letter. His quote from an International Journal of Epidemiology article is especially telling... that article was in reference to HIV/AIDS impact, not general gay male longevity.
I'll never understand why any group which operates under a "Christian" banner will resort to such deceptive and mean-spirited tactics to demonize a segment of the population. After all, why shouldn't a person's sexual orientation or gender identity be a protected class?
The reality is that even if such things are indeed "a choice" as some claim, these elements are such a critical part of a person's life. It iso less critical than a person's religion, which is unquestionably a choice, and fully protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
So yes, sexual orientation or gender identity must be protected just as a person's race, sex, or religion. Vague language never works, and rarely stands up to legal scrutiny.
Now who's doing the hijacking?
Mr. Glen I'm not convinced by the point you're trying to make with these two choices that you present. You haven't made or attempted a convincing argument that a bill which generalizes bullying is equivalent to the bill that's been proposed.
ReplyDeleteAll you seem to have done is first assume that it *is* equivalent, and from there assume that proponents of the existing bill secretly know that it is, and thus you're free to conclude that the only reason they would continue to push the existing bill is because there *must* be a greater agenda here at work that is more than the simple desire to prevent bullying.
In your mind it must all be neatly Q.E.D., but frankly to me it just comes across as someone who's reaching for a reason to fight a bill he doesn't like.
Let's talk about airing some dirty laundry, since Gary Glenn likes to talk about it so much: I don't see how Gary Glenn can have the nerve to talk about families or try to represent families at all. This is the same Gary Glenn who recently got into trouble with the Federal Election Commission for having a political action committee that was never listed as such. He is (or was?) chairman of a group called the Council for Responsible Government. His group was found guilty of:
ReplyDelete"failing to register as a political committee with the Commission, failing to report its contributions and expenditures, knowingly accepting contributions in excess of $5,000, and knowingly accepting corporate and/or union contributions; or in the alternative, that the Council for Responsible Government, Inc. and its Accountability Project violated § 441b(a) and 441d(a) by making prohibited corporate independent expenditures that failed to contain a proper disclaimer and that William ?Bill? Wilson and Gary Glenn, as corporate officers of the Council, violated 2 U.S.C. § 441b(a) by consenting to prohibited corporate independent expenditures.2. Approve the Factual and Legal Analysis, as recommended in the General Counsel's Memorandum dated April 7, 2005.3."
You can read more about the President of the American Family Association of Michgigan at:
http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqs/searcheqs?SUBMIT=documents&CURRSTATE=fec.mur.gui.Summary (and type in Gary Glenn in the "word/phrase" section.
Or here:
http://eqs.sdrdc.com/eqsdocs/00004C5F.pdf
Or here:
http://www.fec.gov/members/weintraub/murs/sormur5024plus.pdf
There is also quite a bit about his history--just Google his name.
I am sick and tired of people like Glenn who act as if they are moral authorites and who talk about laws and justice when their own history shows that they can't follow the law, or at least show they are pretty good at getting around it.
And I am really sick of the fact that people like Gary Glenn have given the word 'family' a bad name...
The usual hysterics of this blog aside, we've urged the Legislature to protect ALL students against bullying by prohibiting bullying of "any student for any reason, regardless of the motivation."
ReplyDeleteWell that's really Swell of you Gary, considering you know full well the outcast status gay kids have always had, and if your kind has its way will always have, in their own communities.
It all seems so simple: "All kids should be free from bullying while in school. What part of 'ALL' don't you understand?" And yet, it isn't. In communities and cultures where certain groups have always been outcasts, that mental picture of who "all" is, may well not include, and in fact is very likely to Not include, the outcasts. You're counting on that fact, Aren't you Gary?
When I was in grade school I was taught the most filthy lies about homosexuals you could imagine...a lot of it from people like you Gary. You cannot expect, and you sure as hell don't expect Gary do you, that school administrators who believe those lies will admit that "all" was intended to include what they, and you, regard as a dangerous sexual deviancy unless you write it in neon and hang it around their necks. They will not regard anti-gay bullying as bullying at all, unless you specifically insist that it is, and require them to protect gay kids. Otherwise they'll simply continue to regard it as a healthy animus toward a dangerous sexual practice and they won't protect gay kids. Until one of them gets badly hurt and then the lawsuits start flying.
Let's be real here Gary. You regard homosexuality, and likewise openly gay students, as a Danger to the other students. Anti-gay bullying serves a useful purpose in keeping those kids closeted, isolated and generally away from the normal kids, isn't that right Gary. A fearful homosexual is a good homosexual, isn't that right Gary. This business about protecting ALL students is just tactical rhetoric on your part, isn't it Gary...because you don't think gay kids constitute a legitimate part of 'All', any more then a cancer constitutes a legitimate part of the human body...do you.
Depending upon the wording of the legislation, I'll take you up on your offer Glenn. You will undoubtedly consider this a victory for your side since "sexual orientation" isn't singled out (along with all other categories), but I predict will regret changing it to "any reason" once the lawsuits start. That wording includes gays and school who fail in their responsibilities to protect gay students will face huge lawsuits. You guys set yourselves up with the Equal Access Act only to discover that yes, it does allow GSAs as well and I'm willing to bet your going to sucker yourselves again. It's clear you don't give a damn about gay kids. So go ahead: Bring. It. On.
ReplyDeleteMr. Glenn's attitude causes me to conclude that keeping GLBT people in their place is exactly what this is all about. He wants GLBT people to sit down, shut up, and take the crap that he and his supporters think they have the God-given duty to throw.
ReplyDeleteIt is beyond comprehension how anyone could oppose legislation to protect gay kids from bullying and harassment. It tells me that there is some kind of sadistic pleasure in seeing some kid kill themselves because of someone's bullshit religious freedom. Time and time again, stats show, regardless of town or city, gay kids are particularly vulnerable to bullying. Just the perception of being gay can open a kid up to relentless bullying. As a survivor of schoolyard bullying, the motivation behind it was crystal clear...anti-gay hate. Organizations such as Mr. Glenn's, are responsible for the climate that causes this. They cleverly disguise their hate with insulting references to behaviour when the real motivation is to belittle and dehumanize gay people. Shameful that they call themselves pro-family when they have done more to hurt families than any other movement in this century. You Mr. Glenn ought to hang your head in shame, you are the furthest specimen from a christian one could possibly imagine.
ReplyDelete