You are viewing this article in the archives. For the latest breaking news and updates in Ann Arbor and the surrounding area, see
Posted on Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 3:52 p.m.

Andrew Shirvell stands behind Republican Dave Agema after anti-gay Facebook posts

By Ryan J. Stanton

Andrew Shirvell, the assistant state attorney general fired for blog posts against a gay University of Michigan student body president, is standing behind embattled Republican Dave Agema.


Andrew Shirvell

Marissa McClain | The Michigan Daily

Shirvell signed an online petition supporting Agema, a Republican National Committeeman who has come under fire for posting anti-gay material on Facebook, MLive reported.

In an interview with MLive, Shirvell lauded Agema's stand "against the radical homosexual agenda."

"I'm proud to support Dave Agema, and I think that attacking him is completely ridiculous and wrong," Shirvell told MLive, adding Agema is "experiencing everything I've experienced over the last two years," including "absolutely uncontrolled hatred and death threats."

Shirvell was fired by the state in 2010 after it was determined he used computers in the attorney general's office to wage an aggressive anti-gay campaign against Chris Armstrong, then the openly gay U-M student body president.

Shirvell's campaign against Armstrong and his firing garnered national attention. Last August, a jury ruled Shirvell owed Armstrong $4.5 million as part of a federal defamation lawsuit.

On Wednesday, Shirvell told MLive he is in the midst of appealing that "outrageous ruling" and still is fighting to get his job back.

Agema has attracted widespread attention since posting an article on Facebook titled "Everyone Should Know These Statistics on Homosexuals."

Purportedly written by "Frank Joseph, M.D.," it contains a number claims about the "filthy" homosexual lifestyle, including a statement that "39-59% of homosexuals are infected with intestinal parasites."

Despite calls for his resignation, Agema has remained unapologetic.

Ryan J. Stanton covers government and politics for Reach him at or 734-623-2529. You also can follow him on Twitter or subscribe to's email newsletters.



Fri, Apr 5, 2013 : 3:23 a.m.

"I'm proud to support Dave Agema, and I think that attacking him is completely ridiculous and wrong," Shirvell told MLive, adding Agema is "experiencing everything I've experienced over the last two years," including "absolutely uncontrolled hatred and death threats." Andy and Dave can dish it out, but can't take it.


Fri, Apr 5, 2013 : 1:35 p.m.

I don't think those words mean what you think they mean.

Colorado Sun

Fri, Apr 5, 2013 : 5:17 a.m.

Much of what Mr. Shirvell did was protected by the First Amendment.


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 6:41 p.m.

Ugh, this guy is still around? It's disgusting what people like this do to ruin the reputation of the (very) few rational conservatives that I know.


Fri, Apr 5, 2013 : 1:34 p.m.

What similarities are there between Shirvell and Armstrong?

Colorado Sun

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 11:33 p.m.

Same with Armstrong and the Democratic Party. Armstrong worked for Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi. Does the mainstream Democratic Party want to be associated with someone like Armstrong?

Alan Goldsmith

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:14 p.m.

Why is this news when Rick Snyder's silence isn't?

David Cahill

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 2:53 p.m.

With friends like Shirvell, who needs enemies? 8-)


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 1:13 p.m. can stop posting photos of this weasel any time now. I really don't want to see his face.


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:43 p.m.

Insult to weasels, fjord. I'd trust a weasel more any day than I'd trust either one of these hate-mongers.

Hugh Giariola

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 12:58 p.m.

Of course he does.....


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 12:41 p.m.

Andrew Shirvell and Dave Agema, talk about intestinal parasites.


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 10:25 a.m.

Ryan, who are you bashing, Agema or Shirvell? What does this article do to enlighten the public on an issue? Agema didn't ask for Shirvell's support, so you aren't enlightening us about his views. How surprising is it that Shirvell is still opposed to gay rights or the "gay lifestyle"? Why does ignore real news like the continued hiding of the report of the external investigation of child porn at UM Children's hospital while ginning up a news story about Agema & Shirvell?


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 5:14 a.m.

several times i read the link called <Statistics everyone should know about homosexuals." if only HALF of these statistics are true (checking the sources, they appear credible) i would suggest the gay community has a LOT bigger fish to fry than a stat-weilding republican and his supporters. if these stats are true (they appear credible) then the LGBT community and addvocates have a LOT bigger problems than a few republican homophobes (real or imagined.) a LOT bigger problems. why isn't anyone concerned that these stats might be true? and what some of them (esp. the mental health stats and the chronic disease stats) might mean to the gay community? and how to help improve these outcomes? it appears there's a whole lot of energy being wasted on shooting the messenger.


Mon, Apr 8, 2013 : 12:39 p.m.

What are you even trying to say Mpope? Give it are a bigot.

Jaime Magiera

Sat, Apr 6, 2013 : 2:15 p.m.

mpope, this is about rights: The right to the same privileges as any other people in education, health, economic, etc. systems. You suggested "educating" people based on outdated, inconclusive and inaccurate information. The reason the information was posted on the FB page in the first place was to try to create a wedge to deny gay people rights. What Andrew Shirvel did was an attempt to deny gay people their rights. When homophobes attempt to spin nonsense into justification to deny people their rights, it's an issue. When government figures who are supposed to be working for the public good spout such nonsense, it shows they cannot be trusted to work for the rights of all citizens. People can spout homophobic nonsense all they want... unless they try to institutionalize that nonsense and/or they are in a position of public policy - which is meant to be for the public good. It's interesting to note that you haven't been able to provide any recent peer-reviewed information - which implies you have ulterior motives.


Sat, Apr 6, 2013 : 3:41 a.m.

jaime, i guess i should be honored to meet the spokesperson for readership. thank you for 'illuminating' me (to borrow a term) on what is and isn't relevant 'here.' why are you arguing civil rights with me? i never mentioned a single civil right, not real or imagined. not granted nor suppressed nor repealed, nor abused, nor ignored nor nothing. i mentioned (at this point, repeatedly, with less than satisfactory engagement returns ) is responsibility to consider potential. so, you've codified what's not relevant 'here' i.e., stats that oppose your pet studies. i'll offer a suggestion as to what is in very short supply 'here' i.e., a sampling of the usual suspects' ability to engage beyond their biases.

Jaime Magiera

Fri, Apr 5, 2013 : 9:40 p.m.


Jaime Magiera

Fri, Apr 5, 2013 : 9:39 p.m.

1. Yes, findings that are 30 years later by large organizations of researchers and other professionals are more apt to be correct. That shouldn't surprise you. 2. Was I familiar with the findings? Yes, in fact if you read back on threads related to gay rights and homophobia here the past few years here you will see me referencing those things. Your point is not really relevant here because you have yet to provide any modern peer-reveiwed research. Anything in regards to dangers of education on the lifestyle, etc. would have to be based on current research. Note that when talking about civil rights, you have to prove a legitimate reason for a group to be separated from the rest in terms of enjoying those rights. If you can't find current research to back up your claims, you're argument is dead in the water. Like now.


Fri, Apr 5, 2013 : 2:21 p.m.

jaime, your refutation of the first statistics gives gives rise to several questions: 1. to your reading, how are the APA and AMA findings more credible? do these associations have no history of reversing findings? are these associations free of all bias? 2. were you familiar with these findings BEFORE you originally read the story of Ageman's facebook posting? my point is this: any/ all of the original findings have been denounced from the very first moments of first story on Ageman. that kind of reactive denial seems irresponsible when people's health and well-being are suggested to be so significantly impacted. you counter with different findings.. which can also be refuted. those rebuttals can then countered. and then refuted again. and this can go on and on... SO... *is the original set of statistics presented in an unloving tone? yes. *does the possibilityfor any semblance of truth suggest that LGBT persons might like to think of life-style changes and strategies to reduce some of the potential harm? yes. *should the potential for harm temper the public policy esp. in how homosexuality is taught in school? public educators would be entirely irresponsible to ignore the tension between presenting homosexuality as an equal alternative lifestyle and the task of tempering it with caution. this approach is nothing new.

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 10:01 p.m.

What exactly is the negative outcome mpope? Can you illuminate us using current research and information about the harm gay people bring to society? I have yet to see anything remotely related to current, valid research by non-biased professionals. I can name a few positives for you, as stated by longtime professional health organizations who support gay rights and gay parenting.... American Psychological Association, American Association of Pediatrics, American Medical Association. Do you need more? I can provide a boatload.

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 9:56 p.m.

Also, note that 1978 was over 35 years ago. Lets use some current numbers, shall we?

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 9:54 p.m.

trespas, be sure you understand what you quoted. The values given were for the enrolled members of SFCCC. "The San Francisco City Clinic Cohort (SFCCC) consists of approximately 6700 homosexual men recruited between 1978 and 1980 from a clinic for sexually transmitted diseases to participate in a hepatitis B study. Because of the selection procedures, these men were probably more sexually active than most homosexual men in SF ."


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 8:09 p.m.

Peter, that's one action-packed response you made there. did you notice, though, your intolerance greatly detracts from the case you appear to be trying to make for tolerance?


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 6:55 p.m.

How about 'mpopers'?


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:21 p.m.

'mpope, none of that is credible, and it only looks credible to you because you want it to be true to justify your hatred of gay people.' so much judgment and presumption and even attempted mind-reading. so little substance. carry on, Houdini. Jaime, i've made it clear i'm not interested in the purported frequency (or hyper frequency as it's asserted) of any particular gay person. i'm concerned with the potential for the medical and mental health statistics to be true. i'm dismayed how so much potential (dare i say 'possible'?) negative outcome is denounced as homophobic. clownfish offered refuting statistics, but i read much of the verbage as explaining away the results. i suspect the problem with the Ageman link is this-- it opens with a lengthy acrimonious passage, which would entice many to disregard the whole thing. proving again, presentation accounts for much. still, i think reactive dismissal is unwise, unhelpful AND it demonstrates a serious bias on the parts of LBGT activists (as least the armchair activists who frequently post on most of us have friends and loved ones who live a gay lifestyle. we should be sincerely concerned which of these health statistics might impact them. by the way, the vociferous charge, 'homophobe' has quickly become the new Godwin's law. and it's certainly the pendulum swing of gay slurs from the 70s and 80s. Can we come up with something new? a cogent argument, maybe? a respectful way to address people with whom you disagree, perhaps?


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:17 p.m.

Even if there was a greater risk of chronic disease is that going to make someone that is gay suddenly stop because of higher risk of disease?? Everyone is at risk for STI's just the same and everyone is still trying to have sex as much as possible. Cigarettes? Alcohol? All can cause a disease or kill you but people still do them because that is part of life if you so choose. Stop worrying about an entire community that you clearly are against anyways.


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 3:14 p.m.

@Jaime- In a survey of 751 homosexual men in San Francisco (Darrow 1989) the number of sexual partners per year in the following percentiles, 10, 25,50,75,90,95, were 0, 12, 36, 84, 204, 329. Thus the average number of partners per year in that cohort was 36 per year and 10% had more than 204 partners per year. page 57

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 2:32 p.m.

mpope, nobody is defending a lifestyle - we don't have to. It really doesn't matter if someone sleeps with 1, 2, 20 or 120 people a year. It's not illegal to do so. That's part of the problem here. The "evidence" against gay people in that document is more about exaggerating and attacking perceived lifestyle for things that are not even legal/illegal - which shows how fallacious it is to deny gay people equal rights. Now, on to the topic of lack of concern for issue such as depression, drug abuse, etc... There is an ever increasing support network for LGBT people throughout the United States. I used to live with the director of the Wellness Network back in the early 1990s, which introduced me to that aspect. I've seen things continue to get better for the LGBT community in terms of addressing those issues. No one is shooting the messenger here. The issue is that the "messenger" is actually a homophobe trying to manipulate people through fear. A real "messenger" would link to current research AND current resources to help the LGBT community.

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 2:20 p.m.

trespass, it's supported by being familiar with the gay community since the mid-1980s (adopted by a gay couple in fact). In any population, there are outliers in terms of behavior. However, in this case, I know of no evidence that any significant portion of *any* population has 2.2 new partners a week aside from sex workers. I challenge you to actually provide such evidence.


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 1:43 p.m.

mpope, none of that is credible, and it only looks credible to you because you want it to be true to justify your hatred of gay people.


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 1:38 p.m.

'However, probably not for reasons that you realize.' So much presumption, so little time..... and you're sincerely worried about the judgment of others? ... ... oh. ok. Jaime, as i previously stated, my interest is not with the purported promiscuity of homosexual persons. my interest is with the seeming lack of concern for the chronic disease and the mental wellness statistics. clownfish, 2 things: the debunking of anti-gay myths don't adequately address many of the chronic disease and mental wellness issues. the rebuttal addresses general issues such as 'not a mental illness' and dismiss addictions etc as such: It is true that LGBT people suffer higher rates of anxiety, depression, and depression-related illnesses and behaviors like alcohol and drug abuse than the general population. But studies done during the past 15 years have determined that it is the stress of being a member of a minority group in an often-hostile society — and not LGBT identity itself — that accounts for the higher levels of mental illness and drug use. such a dismissal supported by little more than advocacy, high hopes and little more. finally, clownfish, if my doctor was right half the time i'd quit him.. but your retort is a misfire. i didn't propose that these stats are half right. my premise was 'what if even HALF of these statistics are correct?" seems to me that on this reply board, people are a whole lot more concerned with advocating for a LIFETSYLE than they are advocating for PERSONS who practice the lifestyle.


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 1:02 p.m.

If your physician was right 1/2 the time, would you continue as his/her patient? How about if your mechanic fixed your car correctly 1/2 the time you took it in?


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 12:46 p.m.

10 Anti-Gay Myths Debunked Did you know that "straight" people make up the vast majority of felons, divorce's, adulterers and deadbeat parents? Does that mean we should outlaw heterosexuality because of the grave harm caused to society?


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 10:46 a.m.

@Jaime- Whether or not that particular statistics is credible or not depends on the population and the time that the study was conducted. There was a time when the AIDS epidemic was starting that the San Francisco "bath houses" were part of the lifestyle for a segment of the gay population. In that lifestyle, men may have had many partners in one night. One of the main collections of blood samples that was used to study the AIDS epidemic was actually collected to study hepatitis in the San Francisco gay population because there was an epidemic of hepatitis in that population. So it is quite likely that there is a credible scientific source for the statistic but it is being stated out of context and that "lifestyle" for the most part no longer exists. There was also an era of "free love" in the heterosexual population of the 1960's after the birth control pill became available but that "lifestyle" has also gone out of fashion. Thus, your argument of logical fallacy is unsupported and would be better stated as an argument about context.

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 6:18 a.m.

How does "One study reports that the average homosexual has between 20 and 106 partners per year (6)." appear to be credible? Do the math. 106 partners a year would be 8.8 partners a month, or 2.2 partners a week. Such numbers bare no resemblance to reality. Anyone with an academic background can see the fallacy in what was posted, including the antiquity, misrepresentation and bias of the sources. It's interesting to note that such a large portion of that document obsessively focus on sexual practices. In other words, I don't doubt that you read the link several times. However, probably not for reasons that you realize.


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 5:46 a.m.

The problem is there's no corroborating evidence to support the quackery Mr. Agema reposted. What is the rationale behind assuming a possibility of half the statistics being true? You're trying to promote discredited science in order to take the attention of Mr. Agema's intolerance. Yes, I used the word "quackery." On purpose, too.

Nicholas Urfe

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:08 a.m.

Don't be Agem'an.


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 2:49 a.m.

Why is it news that one hate monger supports another hate monger? Hate breeds more hate.


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 2:31 a.m.

The sooner people start focusing on real societal problems and not getting all bent out of shape because two people of the same sex kissing looks icky to them the better we'll all be. It won't happen though, it may get better once everybody currently over the age of 55 die off, but until the education in this country is improved the Bible arguments will persist. It's a vicious cycle in this country that in all truth won't ever change.


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:39 p.m.

Thank you, BPinAA. I am really tired of being lumped in with every loony-toon right-wing nut job because I'm not 30 years old. There are all kinds of bigotry, Justin, and I think you just showed that you're pretty familiar with one of them: ageism.


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 2:30 p.m.

Excuse me, but not everyone over the age of 55 is against rights for lesbians and gays! I'm 58 and I believe strongly that they should have the same rights as straight people do!

Jaime Magiera

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 5:40 a.m.

The interesting thing about the Bible argument is that in recent surveys a majority of Catholics actually support gay rights, including gay marriage. Even amongst Christians, it's going to be painfully obvious in the next few years how outdated these homophobes are. I'm not particularly religious, though I was raised Catholic. It pains me to see a small minority of emotionally twisted people completely misrepresent the core messages attributed to Jesus (compassion, equality, service, etc)


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 2:16 a.m.

Remember my friends, many of those who openly oppose gay rights are or were closeted homosexuals. Ted Haggard George Rekers Larry Craig Eddie Long Mark Foley

Jack Gladney

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:28 a.m.

You forgot to mention Barack Obama (until last summer).

David Briegel

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 3:11 a.m.

Self Loathing!


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 2:35 a.m.

Exactly. Shirvell's support for Agema is just his way of flirting.


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 1:28 a.m.

And in other news, water is wet. NEXT


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 12:36 a.m.

I am sure Dave Agema is turning cartwheels over the Shirvell show of support.


Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 11:49 p.m.

I don't want to hear either name again until it's the wedding announcement for the Shirvell-Agema nuptials. Me thinks they do protest too much.


Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 11:09 p.m.

Homophobes and Biggots stick together just like scum does.

Colorado Sun

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 10:08 p.m.

Mr. Shirvell got the personal protection order against him dismissed. Mr. Shirvell beat U-M on the trespass issue. Mr. Shirvell's defense of the defamation case continues in the federal circuit court of appeals. Mr. Shirvell is appealing his dismissal from the Department of Attorney General. Mr.Shirvell is still a member of the Michigan Bar. Looks like Mr. Shirvell is not doing too badly. The "uncontrolled hatred and death threats" is what is clearly appalling. I applaud Mr. Shirvell for standing up for the First Amendment.

Colorado Sun

Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 11:29 p.m.

@Upper Decker: Armstrong was a public figure and was asked by a police detective if he wanted the detective to report to Mr. Shirvell that his conduct was unwanted and Armstrong replied no. Should Andrew Shirvell be fired for misusing Attorney General resources. NO! I look forward to Mr. Shirvell's exoneration in the court system.


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:09 p.m.

Hey The Shirv can have his beliefs and what not (even though they are wrong) but he was harassing and practically stalking someone as a result of his beliefs. He is a bigot and should get zero media attention because he is a waste of time.


Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 11:04 p.m.

Homophobes need not apply.


Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 10:36 p.m.

"Looks like Mr. Shirvell is not doing too badly." ??? "Mr. Shirvell's defense of the defamation case continues in the federal circuit court of appeals." That's a funny way of saying that he is appealing the $4.5 million verdict against him. "Mr. Shirvell is appealing his dismissal from the Department of Attorney General." That's a funny way of saying that he is out of a job, and (I think I infer correctly) no one will hire him.

Rick Stevens

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 10:32 p.m.

OK, if you say so... Is Mr. Shirvell employed as a lawyer anywhere?

Colorado Sun

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 9:41 p.m.

Andrew Leo Shirvell is still listed as an active member of the Michigan Bar in the current annual directory with a P.O. Box address in North Babylon, New York. He has an unlisted number. I take it Deborah Gordon's attempt to have his law license revoked has not borne any fruit, at least as of yet. I also expect that the judgment in federal court against Shirvell likely has not been collected at all. The key reason for his dismissal from the Department of Attorney General was unauthorized use of state resources - which is clear. To equate Shirvell with the GOP at large is erroneous and ridiculous - however I am sure that he may relate to Dave Agema.


Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 9:38 p.m.

Andrew Shirvell is just as irrelevant now as he was a couple of years ago.


Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 9:31 p.m.

Enough already.


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 12:39 p.m.

Why? Don't you want these guys out telling the world how to live? Would you feel better if the "liberal media" stopped covering GOP politics?

Tim Hornton

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 9:17 p.m.

I was wondering when I woke up this morning what Andrew Shirvell was thinking about what Dave Agema wrote on his facebook page on gay sex. Thank You MLib and AAlibnews for answering this important question.

An Arborigine

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 9:11 p.m.

Wow, there's a shocker!


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 4:06 p.m.

^ A joke nobody would have understood 3 weeks ago.

John of Saline

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 10:26 p.m.

He went to Wichita State?

tom swift jr.

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 8:59 p.m.

This isn't much of a surprise, is it? And, really, why are you giving this guy more exposure?

Rod Johnson

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 10:57 p.m.

Because it's hilarious?


Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 9:48 p.m.

When I said just let him keep exposing himself, I of course meant exposing himself as anti-gay. I didn't mean literally exposing himself. But as long as it is OK with Mr. Agema for Mr. Shirvell to stand behind him while exposing himself like that who am I to judge?


Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 8:48 p.m.

I'd be interested to know if Agema knows of (more interestingly - wants) Shirvell's support.

Rod Johnson

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 10:56 p.m.

...based on Agema unerring political instincts?


Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 9:21 p.m.

This seems to be self serving on Shirvell's part. I would Agema wants little or nothing to do with him.


Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 8:48 p.m.

Will AA.Com be writing a piece every time Andrew Shirvell exercises his first amendment right?


Thu, Apr 4, 2013 : 2:24 p.m.

@ Tim Hornton. You are wrong, marriage equality is the hot topic. Of course, straight people on the far right side of the spectrum can't seem to differentiate between sex and marriage. Nor are they able to separate homosexuality from pedophilia. Luckily, educated people in this country recognize the difference.

Tim Hornton

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 9:19 p.m.

Gay man sex is the hottest topic in the U.S. right now, so your answer is Yes!


Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 8:34 p.m.

Oh gee, I wonder what Andrew Shirvell thinks, said nobody ever! (except apparently MLive and

David Briegel

Wed, Apr 3, 2013 : 8:21 p.m.

They both belong to the right party.