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

Detroit homosexual activist Sean Kosovsky (left) says media who criticize homosexual “marriages” as illegitimate should be sued for libel and “slapped around publicly.” Kosovsky has also recklessly and falsely accused Gary Glenn’s American Family Association of Michigan of supporting the murder of homosexuals.

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

By Gary Glenn, President, AFA-Michigan

LOS ANGELES — 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 Los Angeles Daily News reported Monday.

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.

Pro-family attorney Jan LaRue offered the following analysis for Americans For Truth readers on the far-reaching effects of the California Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of “same-sex marriage” (click HERE for a PDF of the court’s decision):

Californians must pass the marriage amendment in November in order to preserve traditional marriage. However, the amendment will not necessarily undo the consequences of the court’s holding that sexual orientation is a suspect class, akin to race, sex and religion, and, therefore, subject to strict scrutiny analysis. This is the first court in the nation to do that.

The lower courts will apply the ruling and rationale, knowing that the Supremes will uphold their rulings. It means that any restriction on “sexual orientation” will be presumed by courts to be unconstitutional unless the court is convinced that there is a compelling governmental interest that justifies the restriction.

It will be devastating for schools, businesses, religious organizations, individuals, the state national guard, freedom of speech and religion, association, etc. It can hardly be overstated.

Jan LaRue is a member of the California and U.S. Supreme Court bars and a member of the Board of Advisors of the Culture and Media Institute. She served as Chief Counsel at Concerned Women for America, Director of Legal Studies at Family Research Council, and Senior Counsel for the National Law Center for Children and Families.

A leader in the Southern Baptist Convention says while he agreed with many elements of the recently released “An Evangelical Manifesto,” he did not sign the document for a number of reasons.

Last week, a group of Christian leaders released “An Evangelical Manifesto,” a document that organizers say is meant to reclaim the definition of what it means to be evangelical. But in a written response, Southern Seminary President Albert Mohler Junior explained he did not sign the document because of his concern for evangelical identity. Dr. Mohler also claims the document is not clear when it comes to the targets of its criticism. …

Dissenting justices called the ruling a ‘startling’ act of ‘legal jujitsu’ that “’oversteps judicial power’

California Supreme Court

By Jan LaRue, Esq.
Culture and Media Institute, May 15, 2008

I was a Californian for 40 years, so I have to ask my former fellow citizens: Are you going to sit by and do nothing while four black-robed despots take away your right to govern yourselves?

By one vote, the California Supreme Court today rejected the expressed will of Californians to limit marriage to a man and a woman.

In 2000, a 61.4 percent majority of Californians passed Proposition 22, which limited marriage to a man and a woman and precluded California’s recognition of same-sex “marriages” consummated elsewhere. In a decision derided by a dissenting California justice as “legal jujitsu,” the Supreme Court majority held that the ban on same-sex marriage is an infringement of the fundamental state constitutional right to marry.

California is now the second state after Massachusetts where homosexuals will be allowed to “marry.” But unlike Massachusetts, California has no law that prohibits homosexual couples living in states that don’t recognize same-sex “marriage” from marrying in the Golden State. The California Supreme Court has opened the door to a legal battle royal across the nation. Homosexual couples will flock to California to marry, return to their home states, and file lawsuits to force the recognition of their Land of Fruits and Nuts marriages—and the destruction of the 1996 federal Defense of Marriage Act [DOMA].

JUDICIAL ACTIVISM AT ITS WORST: This will always be immoral. California’s highest court has created a “fundamental” marriage right out of behavior — homosexuality — that is fundamentally wrong and destructive. At left is a homosexual male kissing scene as it appeared on the CBS soap “As the World Turns.” Everywhere Americans turn — TV, media, schools, in corporations and the courts — this unhealthy and immoral behavior is being promoted.

California’s highest court has just invalidated California’s Proposition 22, creating a legal “fundamental” right to homosexual so-called “marriage” out of thin air, under the guise of equal protection. We’re reading the 172-page decision — available at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S147999.PDF — now, but as we suspected, the court’s majority made use of the fact that in California, homosexual couples already have been given most of the same rights as normal couples — including the right to adopt children.

Footnote 72 on page 117 of the California decision is key:

Contrary to the contention of the Proposition 22 Legal Defense Fund and the
Campaign, the distinction in nomenclature between marriage and domestic partnership cannot be defended on the basis of an asserted difference in the effect on children of being raised by an opposite-sex couple instead of by a same-sex couple. Because the governing California statutes permit same-sex couples to adopt and raise children and additionally draw no distinction between married couples and domestic partners with regard to the legal rights and responsibilities relating to children raised within each of these family relationships, the asserted difference in the effect on children does not provide a justification for the differentiation in nomenclature set forth in the challenged statutes.”

Concerned Women for America, May 13, 2008
By J. Matt Barber

Take Action

Don’t let this egregious and discriminatory action by the University of Toledo be ignored. Please contact University of Toledo President Lloyd Jacobs and respectfully request that he immediately reinstate Crystal Dixon (pictured at left) and issue a public apology to her, the African-American community and to Christians worldwide. (e-mail: UTPresident@utoledo.edu or phone him at 419-530-2211 / Fax: 419-5304984)

____________

The University of Toledo (UT) has sent a message: African-American Christians need not apply.

The University of Toledo (UT) has sent a message – loud and clear – to potential employees and students: African-American Christians need not apply.

UT President Lloyd Jacobs has betrayed his own anti-Christian bigotry and intolerance in what amounts to a prima facie violation of the U.S. Constitution, Ohio’s state constitution and Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Recently, Jacobs, who portrays himself as a bastion of “tolerance” and “diversity,” overtly and shamelessly discriminated against Crystal Dixon, a black, Christian employee, because of her constitutionally protected, factually based and popularly held viewpoint relative to — ironically — civil rights. Understandably, many in the Christian and African-American communities are outraged.

Dixon, who was Associate Vice President of Human Resources at UT, has been arbitrarily fired from her job because she publicly defended the integrity of African-American civil rights struggles and further expressed her sincerely held religious beliefs relative to those struggles.

Cybercast News Service reports:

College Official Fired for Column on Homosexuality
By Pete Winn
CNSNews.com Senior Staff Writer
May 12, 2008

(CNSNews.com) – Cybercast News Service has learned that a University of Toledo administrator has lost her job because she wrote a newspaper commentary that questioned whether homosexuality is a civil rights issue.

Crystal Dixon, the associate vice president of human resources at the state university, had earlier been put on paid administrative leave for the Apr. 18 column published in the Toledo Free Press, as detailed in a previous CNSNews.com report.

“She has been fired,” said Brian Rooney, spokesman for the Thomas More Law Center, an Ann Arbor, Mich.-based legal-defense group which is representing Dixon.

Rooney told Cybercast News Service that the university had offered Dixon “another position, in a different part of the university, not in human resources” because she had argued in her editorial that sexual orientation is not an immutable characteristic like race or sex and should not be afforded the same protection under civil rights laws.

“She said no, that’s when she was fired,” Rooney said. “We are going to do everything we can within the law to try to show that the firing was improper and potentially illegal.”

Click HERE to read the entire CNSNews article

Gender-confused “rights”? Women should feel safe and not have to worry about (“transgender”) men in dresses using female restrooms and shower facilities, say Maryland activists with the Citizens for Responsible Government.

From NotMyShower.com and the Citizens for Responsible Government, a Montgomery, County Maryland grassroots organization formed by citizens outraged at Montgomery County, Maryland’s passage of a “gender identity” “nondiscrmination” bill:

“By the stroke of a very powerful pen, County Executive Leggett has broken the biological barriers that separate male and female facilities. No longer will women and girls be able to feel completely safe in the most private and personal bathroom and locker facilities of schools, public pools, malls, stores, health clubs, restaurants and other such public places throughout the county. County Executive Ike Leggett signed Bill 23-07, the outrageous legislation that may result in forcing even religious schools to hire transgender teachers; and then also allow cross-dressing but biological males in your daughter’s school locker room. Maryland Citizens for a Responsible Government has filed a referendum to prevent the implementation of Bill 23-07. We are calling on every concerned Montgomery County citizen to join us in this huge undertaking.”