LANSING – The Eliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act, Senate Bill 4, (SB4) has now passed in both the Michigan House Judiciary Committee and House of Representatives today. This bill would expand statewide nondiscrimination protections to include sexual orientation and gender identity.

The bill now heads to the Governor Gretchen Whitmer’s desk, where it is expected to be signed into law, making it the first time in over three years since any U.S. state has passed similar nondiscrimination protections. 

Once signed, Michigan will become the 22nd state to codify nondiscrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people.

In an email, Equality Michigan, the state’s largest LGBTQ+ advocacy group, lauded the action by lawmakers noting:

For our community, today is a day of triumph and a day of relief. The Michigan Legislature is sending a loud and clear bipartisan message: LGBTQ+ people are entitled to the same dignity, rights and protections as all Michiganders.

Equality Michigan and its predecessors have fought for decades to bring the LGBTQ+ community under the protection of the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act. Generations of courageous community leaders and grassroots organizing created the path forward, and we are proud that today, history has been made.

“It is with great enthusiasm that I celebrate Michigan’s vital step toward equality and justice for all,” said Buzz Thomas, Equality Michigan Chairman and former Senate Democratic Floor Leader.

“Today’s passing of the amendment to the Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act will help ensure future generations of LGBTQ+ youth and their families, that they will have a fair opportunity to earn a living, feel safe in their communities, and have access to the necessities one needs to build a better life. This is something everyone in our state deserves.”

“Today is a big step for equality and sends a powerful message to LGBTQ+ Michiganders that discrimination has no home in our state. Michigan now joins alongside 21 other states who have sent this same message to their own LGBTQ communities and codified these protections into law,” said Erin Knott (she/her), Executive Director for Equality Michigan. “Today’s victory would not have been possible without years of hard work from generations of courageous leaders. We are witnessing a sea change toward equality, bringing us closer to a future where everyone is treated equally under the law, no matter our gender, the color of our skin, how we worship, or who we love.”

“LGBTQ people — like all people — deserve to be treated with dignity and respect and to live life free from discrimination. By codifying non-discrimination protections into state law, Michigan brings us one step closer to creating a society where LGBTQ young people never have to fear being turned away from a business or told they cannot participate in an activity or enter a public space just because of who they are or who they love,” said Gwen Stembridge (she/her), Advocacy Campaign Manager for The Trevor Project. “We thank and honor the years of hard work of our fellow advocates, community leaders, and partners like Equality Michigan, who led the way to where we are today. Amid the ongoing legislative attacks on LGBTQ communities, especially trans youth, this proactive law is a beacon of hope and optimism.”

GRANT, Mi. – Some parents of teenagers in this Western Michigan small town about an hour North of Grand Rapids are extremely angry over an LGBTQ+ affirming mural painted on the wall at the Child and Adolescent Health Center at Grant Middle School.

During a school board meeting last week the anger spilled over into heated arguments with some in the audience saying the transgender flag, a video game character and other symbols painted in the mural were ‘Satanic.’ Prior to the board meeting social media threads on posts critical of the mural had become the mainstay of community discussions around Grant.

The student artist from Grant High School, Evelyn Gonzales, who was responsible for creating the mural maintains the artwork is intended to be inclusive. “I put my art up there to make people feel welcome,” she told WZZM 13, the ABC News affiliate in Grand Rapids.

Gonzales, high school sophomore who won a design competition, created the mural with a bright green background characters including one wearing a blue T-shirt with the colors of the transgender flag. Another student is outfitted in shorts overalls with a rainbow-striped T-shirt that many parents have complained represent the colors of the LGBTQ+ pride flag.

Two other characters are in clothing with colors of the bisexual flag — pink on the top, royal blue on the bottom and an overlapping purple stripe in the middle.

Gonzales added multiple smaller line drawings, including a mask, which some parents have complained is Satan, and a hamsa hand, which is considered a symbol for the hand of God in many cultures.

The mask and hand are both design elements that were not included in the artist’s original contest submission.

During the school board meeting Gonzales defended inclusion of the mask which she told the audience comes from a video game and another symbol she noted is a Hispanic sign of protection. Visibly upset she told the audience and the board “That’s not what I’m a part of- that’s not what I’m trying to put out there.”

According to journalist Jordan Gerblick writing for online video and PC/console gaming magazine ‘gamesradar+’ the mask is from the popular Genshin Impact game. The mask drawn by Gonzales is inspired by Genshin Impact character of Xiao, whose character is notably an immortal defender hired by one of the world’s seven supreme gods to kill demons, so the whole Satan allegation definitely doesn’t track, Gerblick pointed out.

Gonzales explaining her thinking and creative process did little to calm the enraged parents WZZM 13 reported as after she made her remarks and fled in tears one stood up and angrily said “I feel like she did a really good job finding excuses to defend the things she put on,” said Katelyn Thompson. “None of us are that stupid.”

As for the transgender flag, one parent implied it’s a sickness.

“When adults pretend things that are like real life, it’s a mental illness,” says Danielle Beight. “We need counselors, we need medication that’s going to help bipolar disorder, fix their brains.”

With another saying it is discriminatory against Christian beliefs.

“We and our administration should embrace that and get all of this hate material out of our schools, because it is hate material,” says Nate Thompson.

While some parents called for the mural to be removed or altered, WZZM reported that Grant Public Schools handbook includes a nondiscriminatory policy, saying in part, “any form of discrimination or harassment can be devastating to an individuals academic progress, social relationship and/or personal sense of self-worth.”

No decision was made on the future of the mural at Monday’s meeting.

After accusations of a decision being made in a closed door board executive decision after the public meeting, Grant Public Schools Superintendent Brett Zuver released a statement Wednesday:

At Grant Public Schools, our daily charge is to foster a safe, welcoming learning environment where all students can succeed. We are committed to creating a culture of civility, respect, understanding and inclusion as we provide all our students a well-rounded and academically challenging learning experience.

Recently, one of our students painted a mural in the Child and Adolescent Health Center located in the back of Grant Middle School. This student won a contest to brighten up the building and received approval to paint the proposed mural depicting smiling children and the message “Stay Healthy.”

The completed mural includes some features that were not part of the original submission, and at this week’s Board of Education meeting, many community members raised concerns about the mural. This matter was not on the board agenda. What to do moving forward does not require a board vote, no vote was taken, and no final decision was made at that time. 

We understand and recognize there are different opinions regarding the mural. We feel it is of the utmost importance to continue in a thoughtful, respectful, and deliberate manor. At this point, all parties involved are working together and advancing forward to come to a positive, and agreeable, resolution.

We encourage members of our school community who engage in discussions and debate to do so in a respectful, civil manner. We do not condone, and we will not tolerate discrimination, harassment or bullying whether in word, deed or on social media.

Great things are happening at Grant Public Schools. Let’s work together to remain focused on our mission of preparing all our students to succeed.

WZZM: No final decision was made on the future of controversial mural:

LANSING – A bill that would criminalize decisions by the parents of transgender teens to allow their progeny gender affirming care was introduced in the Michigan House Tuesday on National Coming Out day by Republican Rep. Ryan Berman.

The bill provides for severe penalties for parents or guardians who procure gender transition surgeries or irreversible hormonal procedures for children under 18.

The measure also defines obtaining gender affirming care for a trans teen as child abuse in the first degree. It proposes lifetime imprisonment for parents of trans youth and also mandates medical detransition for trans teens.

The law also names gender transition procedure, which includes puberty blockers and HRT as being covered in the definition for criminalizing medical transitions for trans youth.

ROCKFORD, Mi. – A candidate for a seat on the Rockford, Michigan school board in this town of approximately 6,000, located ten miles north of Grand Rapids, went onto far-right social media platform Truth Social founded by former President Trump and shared a graphic collage of the Progress Pride flag converted into a Nazi-style swastika.

“Like my new Pride flag?” candidate Craig Ladyman captioned the now-deleted post.

Ladyman has a long and documented social media history of denigrating the LGBTQ+ community. In one post he depicted himself carrying an assault style rifle with the caption; ” I like exercising my Liberty like a drag queen exercises their sexuality.”

Ladyman, who has a business executive profile on LinkedIn as an account executive for ArjoHuntleigh, a global medical technology company, lists himself as an ‘America First’ adherent and opposed emergency measures taken by Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, shown in a social media post open carrying an assault-style rifle standing with anti-Whitmer protestors in May of 2020.

In another recent post Ladyman referred to LGBTQ equality rights and community history as “grooming:”

WXMI-TV FOX 17 in Grand Rapids noted that the Nazi Progress Pride Flag image was sharply criticized by members of the Jewish community, LGBTQ people, as well as local leaders, including Rockford Public Schools Superintendent Steven Matthews, who said that the image made him feel “angry.”

“It’s a symbol that I don’t think represents who we are as a community and anybody who would use it I don’t think represents who we are as a community,” Matthews told Fox 17.

Ladyman, whose political ad states that he “will never go along with unconstitutional mandates, medical tyranny or the woke agenda,” didn’t back down when asked to comment on the backlash.

“While I was hoping the outrage would encourage people to do their research into this flag, I would like to state for the record that this image was not created by me,” he said in a written statement to WXMI-TV, after declining to appear on an on-camera interview.

Ladyman — a self-described “pro-God, pro-country and pro-Constitution school board candidate [who] will continue to fight for excellent education in schools without this sexual indoctrination” — credited the image to the British actor and far-right activist Laurence Fox, who first tweeted the altered flag in June 2022.

By Ron French | JAMESTOWN TOWNSHIP, Mi. – What started as a fight over an LGBTQ-themed graphic novel may end with the closure of a west Michigan public library.

Voters in Jamestown Township, a politically conservative community in Ottawa County, rejected renewal Tuesday of a millage that would support the Patmos Library. That vote guts the library’s operating budget in 2023 — 84 percent of the library’s $245,000 budget comes from property taxes collected through a millage.

Without a millage, the library is likely to run out of money sometime late next year, said Larry Walton, library board president.

“I wasn’t expecting anything like this,” Walton told Bridge Michigan Tuesday. “The library is the center of the community. For individuals to be short sighted to close that down over opposing LGBTQ is very disappointing.”

There have been protests at other Michigan public libraries and at school board meetings about books with LGBTQ themes. But Tuesday may be the first time a community voted, in effect, to close its library rather than have it remain open with books some consider to be “indoctrinating” children.

Continue reading at Bridge Michigan: (LINK)

*********************

Ryan Wieber, President of the Michigan Library Association, released a statement Friday regarding the situation at Patmos Library:

The Michigan Library Association stands in solidarity with the Patmos Library Board of Trustees on the decision to retain a small collection of LGBTQIA+ materials on their library shelves. We are equally disheartened to learn that continued funding for the library was defeated on the August primary ballot because the library would not remove these materials. 

We recognize that individuals have the right and responsibility to make decisions about what materials are suitable for themselves and their own families. We also stand united with the majority of the Patmos Library Board, and with librarians across the nation in upholding our Constitutional protections. The freedom to read is guaranteed by the Constitution. No one has the right to make rules restricting what other people read or to make decisions for other families. Freedom only exists when individuals can make their own choices. When a book is banned by those who want to censor voices they don’t agree with, our democracy itself is threatened.

Of utmost importance to any public library is curating collections that allow every citizen, young and old alike, to see themselves in the books and resources their library provides, and choosing a broad range of subject matter that reflects diverse experiences. It is important to emphasize that the presence of any reading materials in a library collection does not imply endorsement of the ideas expressed in those materials. The library is simply doing its job to provide a wide variety of views and expressions—if the library “endorses” anything, it is citizens’ right to access a broad selection of age-appropriate materials. This is a core tenant of librarianship – to provide for the interests of all, and to do so without bias.

Of the 50 library millages across Michigan that were on the August primary ballot, five were voted down, but only one was voted down due to extremist rhetoric and opposition concerning the small collection of materials with LGBTQIA+ themes on the shelves of the Patmos Library. 

And we all know that there are extreme consequences to be addressed for those that voted “NO”.

How will the community fare, when and if, the library closes its doors because its funding was not approved? Economically? Socially? Educationally? The Patmos Library serves many purposes – simultaneously a community center, voting precinct, history center, a place to read, gather, socialize, study and learn – a beautiful cultural institution in the heart of Hudsonville. The day will come when there is no access to WiFi. No access to employment assistance. No access to books, materials and eContent. No access to veteran’s benefits. No access to storytime. No access to afterschool, weekend and evening programs. No access to lifelong learning opportunities. NO ACCESS at all because the Patmos Library will shut and lock their doors and will no longer serve the needs of anyone, including those that voted no.

It is the responsibility of libraries throughout Michigan and our Nation to guarantee and facilitate access to all expressions of knowledge and intellectual activity, including those that some individuals in our society may consider to be unconventional, unpopular, or unacceptable. We stand with you as you uphold the first amendment rights that are enshrined in the Constitution by serving the entire population, including those who see value in material that others may find objectionable.

The Michigan Library Association will help Patmos Library in any way they deem needed to address this challenge.

There is a GoFundMe campaign established by local Jamestown resident, Jesse Dillman, who is raising funds to sustain library operations. As of Friday, August 5, 2022 the campaign had raised $12,571 of its $245,000 goal.

The link to the GoFundMe is here: (LINK)

**********************

The preceding excerpt was previously published by Bridge Michigan and is republished by permission. Photograph of Patmos Library sign by Ron French for Bridge Michigan republished by permission.

Bridge Michigan is a non-profit supported by readers like you. Membership at Bridge isn’t like a traditional newspaper subscription. It’s a community.

Every gift makes a difference, but monthly or annual recurring donations build long-term sustainability, helping us grow and prepare for the future. Join Bridge today with a credit card or, if you prefer, through PayPal. Thank you!

LANSING – In a ruling issued Monday, the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned a lower court decision regarding the state’s dormant 1931 state law that criminalizes medical providers performing abortion procedures.

According to Michigan Public Radio, the appeals court ruling paves the way for county prosecutors to file criminal charges against abortion providers under the 1931 state law. That law would ban all abortions in Michigan except to save the life of a pregnant person. But the decision does not take effect for 21 days, to allow time for parties to file an appeal.

Planned Parenthood of Michigan responded to today’s ruling in a statement:

“The injunction barring enforcement of Michigan’s 1931 criminal abortion ban remains in effect and applies to all Michigan county prosecutors. Under Michigan court rule MCR 7.215(F)(1)(a), “the Court of Appeals judgment is effective after the expiration of the time for filing an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, or, if such an application is filed, after the disposition of the case by the Supreme Court.”  This means that the Michigan Court of Appeals ruling cannot take effect during the 21 day appeal window. Planned Parenthood of Michigan will continue to evaluate our legal options and remains committed to protecting abortion access in Michigan. Planned Parenthood of Michigan will continue to provide abortion services in accordance with the law. PPMI patients can keep their appointments and our doors remain open.”

The Michigan Court of Appeals has overturned a lower court decision regarding the state’s dormant abortion law.

The appeals court ruling paves the way for county prosecutors to file criminal charges against abortion providers under the 1931 state law.https://t.co/FxC9euJ5xi

— Michigan Radio (@MichiganRadio) August 1, 2022

The Detroit Free-Press reported that the ruling means the 1931 law banning all abortions except those done to protect the life of a pregnant person essentially takes effect immediately, said David Kallman, an attorney for Great Lakes Justice Center, a conservative organization representing several Michigan prosecutors who challenged the injunction.

“We’re ecstatic. It’s wonderful. That’s exactly what we’ve been saying all along,” Kallman said Monday morning in a phone interview.

LANSING – In a 5-2 decision on Thursday, the Michigan Supreme Court ruled in Rouch World, LLC v Department of Civil Rights that the state’s 1976 Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

The case, brought by the Michigan companies Rouch World and Uprooted Electrolysis, sought to challenge the state’s Civil Rights Commission for its interpretation of the law that classified sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes. The lawsuit came in the wake of the companies’ refusal to serve transgender customers and those in same-sex relationships, prompting customer complaints that resulted in Civil Rights Commission investigations.

Given the arguments of the case, the Court was asked to determine whether the law’s inclusion of the word “sex” as a protected category applied to instances of discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community.

Republican Justice Elizabeth Clement joined Democratic justices Richard Bernstein, Megan Cavanagh and Elizabeth Welch – as well as Democratic Chief Justice Bridget McCormack – in the majority opinion.

“Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation necessarily constitutes discrimination because of sex,” Clement wrote in the Court’s majority opinion. “Accordingly, the denial of ‘the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation or public service’ on the basis of sexual orientation constitutes discrimination ‘because of…sex’ and, therefore, constitutes a violation of the [Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act] under MCL 37.2302(a).”

In his dissent alongside fellow Republican Justice David Viviano, Brian Zahra asserted his belief that the Court had overreached in its ruling.

“This Court’s function is to interpret and apply the laws that the Legislature writes,” Justice Zahra wrote. “That is not what the majority opinion has done.”

While the ruling was not at odds with his own views on the matter, Zahra wrote, the Court’s mandate was not observed by its majority in the case.

“Though I take no issue with today’s outcome, because I do not recognize the manner in which it has been achieved by the majority opinion to be faithful to the judicial role, I dissent,” Zahra wrote.

Similar arguments of overreach were made by the plaintiffs in the case who argued that the state legislature, not the Civil Rights Commission, held sole power to expand the law.

“The Legislature has declined to add ‘sexual orientation’ numerous times over the nearly 50 years since the [Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act] was enacted by the Legislature,” the plaintiff companies wrote in their case brief last November. “Further, the Legislature explicitly rejected adding ‘sexual orientation’ to the [Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act]. The unelected [Michigan Civil Rights Commission] is not the Legislature and is not politically accountable to the people.”

Previous, bipartisan efforts have been made by state lawmakers to codify sexual orientation and gender identity as protected classes under the law. Such efforts, however, have failed to gain requisite traction in the state’s Republican-controlled legislature.

In writing the majority opinion, Justice Cavanagh rejected such narratives as pertinent to the duty of the Court.

“Should the Legislature disapprove of an application of a statute’s enacted language, the Legislature remains free to amend the statute,” Cavanagh wrote. “This Court, however, is bound by the language that the Legislature has enacted, not what the parties or amici believe the Legislature should have enacted or what any individual representative believed was enacted.”

Following its announcement Thursday afternoon, LGBTQ advocates in the state heralded the decision as a victory for equality in the state.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who had argued the case before the Court in conjunction with entities including the American Civil Liberties Union, released a statement following the ruling.

“Now, more than ever, it is critical that those of us elected to public office work to preserve and protect the rights of all residents,” Nessel said. “Today’s ruling confirms what we have long known – that the protections afforded by the [Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act] cover all Michiganders.”

The decision garnered similar praise from other top state officials, including Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Lieutenant Governor Garlin Gilchrist.

“As a mom, a governor, and proud ally of the community, I am so grateful for this ruling,” Whitmer said in a statement. “It will save lives, protect families, and help ensure that every Michigander is treated with dignity and respect by law.”

With the Court’s expansion of the law’s protections, members of Michigan’s LGBTQ community are now shielded from discrimination in all areas outlined in the law’s language.

Such includes protection in sectors including employment, housing, education and public accommodations.

“For too long, LGBTQ+ Michiganders had been left out of our state’s civil rights protections,” Whitmer said. “No longer. Because of this ruling, nobody can legally be fired from their job or evicted from their home because of who they love.”

LANSING – In such a political swing state as Michigan has emerged to be in recent elections, the presence of an out LGBTQ statewide official for the last four years – a first in the state’s history – has been as much of a political anomaly for the region as it’s been a cultural one.

Running for re-election in November after becoming the state’s first LGBTQ candidate to be elected to statewide office, Democratic Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel has sought to use her office and identity as an out, married lesbian to advocate for LGBTQ equality.

Prior to her run for office, she had been involved in LGBTQ legal advocacy efforts in the state, having served as co-counsel in the 2014 DeBoer v. Snyder case that briefly ruled Michigan’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional in the leadup to the U.S. Supreme Court’s legalization of same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015.

For Nessel, an importance surrounding the representation she has provided to other members of Michigan’s LGBTQ community has remained throughout her first term in office.

Saying Farewell to #PrideMonth. However, all year long: we believe in LGBTQ rights and that love will always win! pic.twitter.com/iAWMXZCJ73

— Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (@MIAttyGen) June 30, 2022

“Especially for younger generations, it allows for people to see that you can be an openly gay person and be successful in public life,” Nessel told the Washington Blade. “I have never hid who I was, I made every effort to ensure that people sort of have a little insight into my background and also see my family – [I’m] as proud of my family as any person who’s in an opposite-sex marriage – and to see that you can succeed and you can win a statewide election even in a very purple state as long as you have the right policies and as long as you’re willing to put in the work.”

Defeating then-Speaker of the Michigan House of Representatives Tom Leonard, Nessel was elected in 2018 as part of a wave of Democratic ascensions to offices across the nation. She ran, in part, on her experience as a prosecutor and one of the state’s top civil rights lawyers on issues relating to LGBTQ equality.

Since then, she has worked with other top officeholders to advance causes involving statewide civil rights efforts and promises made during her initial campaign. Her partnership with officials including Governor Gretchen Whitmer and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson has spanned issues ranging from abortion access to defending Michigan election systems in the wake of the 2020 presidential election and subsequent allegations of widespread voter fraud in the state.

Now entering the final months of her re-election campaign against Republican opponent and Kalamazoo attorney Matt DePerno, the attorney general has remained at the epicenter of efforts to establish additional protections for the state’s LGBTQ community. In a case currently pending in the Michigan Supreme Court, Nessel has argued for an interpretation of the language in the state’s Elliot-Larsen Civil Rights Act to expand its prohibition on discrimination to include an individual’s sexual orientation and gender identity.

Given the state’s history with regard to progress on LGBTQ rights, the importance of such litigation and the attorney general’s role, Nessel said, remains paramount.

“If you look at Michigan, every right that an LGBTQ person has in this state was won in a court battle because, legislatively, we’ve never passed anything that was helpful to the [LGBTQ] community, only laws that are harmful to the community,” Nessel said.

@MIAttyGen @MIAttyGen enjoyed attending @MIPride at the State Capitol today! #PrideMonth pic.twitter.com/zz7KlGYpFk

— Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (@MIAttyGen) June 26, 2022

But following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization to overturn the nationwide right to abortion, Nessel says she is also prepared to stand against challenges to Michigan residents’ rights to privacy in other areas including sexual intimacy.

AG Nessel released a statement on #DobbsvJackson:

"The overturning of Roe is not just the loss of a right; it is the erosion of our status as equal citizens under the law. As a nation, we trust in our highest court to hold sacred their duty, free from political whim…

— Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (@MIAttyGen) June 24, 2022

"I will continue to fight for a women’s right to choose with the full weight of my office. Michigan residents must continue to fight for reproductive rights at the ballot box in November."

Statement in full: https://t.co/oxjCoxO7o8

— Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel (@MIAttyGen) June 24, 2022

In the event of the Supreme Court ruling to overturn its 2003 decision in Lawrence v. Texas that established a nationwide right to same-sex intimacy and privacy regarding consensual sex acts, Nessel said that she would take multiple approaches to ensuring the right – which would affect both same- and opposite-sex couples’ ability to engage in certain private sex acts – remained.

“If Lawrence v. Texas were overturned, it’s not just that I would fight, whether testifying before the legislature or using the bully pulpit to talk about how egregious the thought is of being able to basically prosecute people for something that takes place in the privacy of their own bedroom with another consenting adult and how horrendous that is,” Nessel said. “But then, I myself would refuse to prosecute any sodomy cases.”

With the attorney general’s position as the state’s top law enforcement official, charged with bringing cases in the courts on behalf of the state, critics have characterized such moves as a neglect of duty.

Following the announcement in late June of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dobbs, DePerno released a statement criticizing Nessel’s messaging that she would not prosecute abortion-related cases should the practice once again become criminalized in the state.

“It is deeply troubling that Dana Nessel pledged to not enforce the opinion of the Supreme Court even before their announcement this morning,” DePerno said. “We cannot have an Attorney General who believes she is better than the Supreme Court and the law.”

Pointing to laws rarely tried by county or state prosecutors, such as Michigan’s ban on adultery, Nessel, however, argued that such is a matter of prioritizing her department’s resources to best serve and aid her constituents.

“There are so many laws on the books that it’s your prosecutorial discretion as to whether or not you want to bring those cases,” Nessel said. “To me, my priority is protecting the health, the safety and the welfare of my constituents and prosecuting abortion cases – that’s going to jeopardize the lives of women and not assist them. Prosecuting sodomy cases – I don’t know who I’m benefiting if I were to engage in that.”

In the face of vast legal uncertainty that has now gripped the nation, coupled with a looming election day in November, she said that she intends to continue doing such.

“I expect my office to be very active in protecting LGBTQ rights which is what we’ve done since literally the minute I took office,” Nessel said.

The most recent WDIV/Detroit News polling conducted in early July currently places Nessel with a seven-point lead over DePerno, with almost 17 percent of voters undecided.

LANSING – A Michigan Senate Pride Month resolution was rejected Tuesday by Republican lawmakers who were demanding a disclaimer referring to LGBTQ+ people as a lifestyle choice. The language of the resolution was identical to the same format used in 2021, which the House and Senate approved the resolution last year, a first for the GOP-led Legislature.

This year however the resolution which would have recognized June 2022 as “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) Pride Month,” was derailed by Republican State Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey. In a statement provided to Bridge Michigan, the Majority leader said that he “made suggestions” for amendments to make the resolution “more reflective of the diversity of opinions in the Senate.” 

The resolution was pulled and sent to the Senate Government Operations Committee that Shirkey chairs. The resolution’s chief sponsor, state Sen. Jeremy Moss, D-Southfield accused the Republican leadership of being regressive throwing Pride Month back into the trash heap.”

Shirkey wanted to replace language specific to the LGBT community with references to valuing “all” Michigan residents, and he proposed removing language about the government’s “low and insufficient” response to the HIV/AIDS crisis and civil rights, Moss told Bridge Michigan.

But most concerning to him, Moss said, was a disclaimer Shirkey wanted to add: “Though not every citizen in Michigan agrees with the lifestyle of the LGBT community, it is agreed that every life is special, precious, unique and loved by the the creator, and each person is created in God’s image.”

Moss refused the addition, calling it a “negative” statement about LGBTQ residents thatimplies being gay is a choice. It would be like amending a Jewish American Heritage Month resolution to note that “not everyone in the state of Michigan supports the Jewish lifestyle,” added Moss, who is gay and Jewish. 

“I will not be gaslit that this is my problem,” Moss said of the resolution’s failure to pass the Senate on Tuesday. “I did not change the stakes. I did not move the goalposts. They did.”

LANSING, Mi. – Republican State Senator Tom Barrett sent text messages soliciting donations to his Congressional campaign that opened with the announcement to recipients that, “your child’s gender reassignment surgery has been booked.” 

According to multiple screen shots that have been shared in media reports and on Twitter, there are multiple iterations of the message, which instruct recipients to donate to Barrett’s campaign to make clear their opposition to “the operation” and “Biden’s National Transgender Strategy.” 

That “strategy,” according to a fundraising email linked to the text message, includes “forcing 5-year-olds to learn about gender reassignment surgeries, gender identities, and other radical ideas.”

Barrett’s office did not immediately return a request to comment from The Los Angeles Blade. 

A second-term member of the Michigan Senate, Barrett is seeking the Republican nomination to run against Democratic incumbent Rep. Elissa Slotkin in the November general election to represent Michigan’s newly created 7^th Congressional District. The Republican primary will be held on August 2. 

Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow (D) made headlines earlier this week with a viral speech on the Senate floor in which she denounced her Republican colleagues’ use of scare tactics designed to inflame hatred toward LGBTQ people and their allies. 

Republican State Senator Lana Theis had sent a fundraising email that accused McMorrow of wanting to “groom and sexualize kindergarteners” for her support of measures that protect LGBTQ youth in schools. 

Meanwhile, WinRed – the fundraising platform behind Barrett’s text message and email campaigns – is under investigation by four state attorneys general for using tactics that violate the consumer protection laws, which follow a New York Times investigation of the Trump campaigns’ practice of automatically enrolling donors into monthly or weekly contributions. 

In January, a federal judge in Minnesota struck down a lawsuit from the company that attempted to stop the probes.