It’s not just Republicans who are hypocrites. Don’t forget about Spitzer, who prosecuted cases involving prostitution. It’s not an R or D thing. It’s simply a “male” thing — where male politicians can’t control their sexual urges. I know you want to turn this into a “Republican” issue, but it’s equal opportunity across the aisle — just ask Detroit’s Democratic mayor or NY’s new governor.

John Featherman

If that’s not a “EEWWWWW” inspiring statement and video clip, I don’t know what is.

right on

Official slogans:

I’m John McCain and my position on everything Depends on who’s lobbying me.

or

I change my policy positions as often as I change my Depends.

or ????

So I’m proposing we all start sending boxes of “Depends” to:

John McCain 2008
P.O. Box 16118
Arlington, VA 22215

April 09. 2008 9:00AM

Former Christian school leaders receive probation

BY GLEN BAITY
The Dispatch

The former proprietors of a Christian boys’ school accused of child abuse have signed a deferred prosecution agreement, bringing an end to a lengthy investigation process.

Earl Stanley Mitchell and Lucinda Mitchell, who ran the Abounding Grace School for Boys in Arcadia, will complete an 18-month supervised probation and a five-year unsupervised probation in lieu of active sentences.

District Attorney Garry Frank said the agreement was the best option “based on an evaluation of all the evidence and all the possibilities that might result from a jury trial.”

During that time, they will be subject to a number of restrictions. The Mitchells will be prohibited from teaching or supervising a child under 18 in a residential setting; being employed by or volunteering in a facility where they would supervise or teach a person under the age of 18; or teaching or supervising anyone under age 18 in an educational nonresidential setting, unless pre-approved by the officials in charge of those activities.

The Mitchells signed the agreement Monday.

If either of the Mitchells violates the terms, Frank said, prosecution would move forward. Lucinda Mitchell would face two felony child abuse charges, and Earl Stanley Mitchell would face three felony child abuse counts. Each charge carries a maximum term of 98 months, or about 8 years, in prison.

Those charges stem from complaints filed against the couple in 2004 alleging abuse at Abounding Grace. Accusers said students at the school were paddled excessively and denied regular bathroom use, among other abuses.

The Mitchells have repeatedly denied those charges in the past.

Glen Baity can be reached at 249-3981, ext. 227, or glen.baity@the-dispatch.com.

I have a question for you. Do you believe that the amendment was written in the manner it was written to allow more unmarried couples to receive benefits or to eliminate any codified recognition of same-sex relationships?

Your characterization of a meeting of the minds by the opposing sides ignores what was actually happening. Those opposed to the amendment wanted those in favor of it to own up to their actual intentions…and getting some admission was important to the campaign that would be waged to oppose the amendment. Trying to suggest that everyone was in agreement and happy with the amendment is ridiculous.

If you believe it was written to expand benefits, then what were the other states that passed similar bans on same-sex marriage amendments in 2004 (funded by many of the same groups) attempting to achieve? Were they also seeking to extend benefits to more people?

The fact that universities in Michigan worked in conjunction with interested parties to find the means to continue offering coverage to same-sex couples should not be attributed to the good intentions of those who authored the amendment.

Given the spin you’re attempting, you must think the gay community is ignorant. If this amendment was about providing insurance to more individuals, why did it require an amendment to ban same-sex marriage? Seems like a rather convoluted approach, don’t ya think?

I appreciate your effort to whitewash the intentions of those who sponsor such amendments…but don’t expect me to believe for one minute that you’re doing anything more than trying to spin this into something it wasn’t. The fact that gay couples can still receive benefits is the result of the hard work of those who understand the gravity of the efforts of those who are set on denying any rights or recognitions to homosexuals.

Lastly, you can forego the lecture about being progressive. Do you really think anyone who identifies as such would have opposed extending benefits to unmarried couples? For your information, I don’t think progressives believe amendments designed to ban one thing are the best means to provide another. We’re far more practical…and honest…than that.

Regards,

Daniel