Equality Advocates Rally to Save Bina...

Equality Advocates Rally to Save Binational Gay Couple from Enforced Separation

There are 23 comments on the EDGE story from May 5, 2011, titled Equality Advocates Rally to Save Binational Gay Couple from Enforced Separation. In it, EDGE reports that:

A number of GLBT equality organizations have planned a May 6 rally in support of a gay binational couple facing enforced separation .

Join the discussion below, or Read more at EDGE.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Deo Vindice

Sacramento, CA

#1 May 6, 2011
There must be a legal reason - so it should be ENFORCED !

Why is it that homosexuals can have their own organizations, and heterosexuals are lawfully forbidden to group up?

Why is it a hate crime to injure a homosexual, and not a hate crime for a homosexual to inflict injury upon a heterosexual?
Rainbow Kid

Alpharetta, GA

#2 May 6, 2011
Deo Vindice wrote:
There must be a legal reason - so it should be ENFORCED !
Why is it that homosexuals can have their own organizations, and heterosexuals are lawfully forbidden to group up?
Why is it a hate crime to injure a homosexual, and not a hate crime for a homosexual to inflict injury upon a heterosexual?
Because we make love; not war
.
sugar

“i hope we can change this!”

Since: Aug 08

usa

#3 May 6, 2011
Deo Vindice wrote:
There must be a legal reason - so it should be ENFORCED !
Why is it that homosexuals can have their own organizations, and heterosexuals are lawfully forbidden to group up?
Why is it a hate crime to injure a homosexual, and not a hate crime for a homosexual to inflict injury upon a heterosexual?
that's the law obama said he didn't like. HE didn't think it was constitutional...so, he told the doj NOT to enforce it.

as for the rest of it, the above "georgia peach" not withstanding, it's all part of the package of "special" rights, designed solely for the 10% of the population that are not heterosexual...

thank a left wing loon...
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#5 May 6, 2011
NO immigration to the U.S., legal or illegal, for ANY reason.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#6 May 6, 2011
Deo Vindice wrote:
There must be a legal reason - so it should be ENFORCED !

1.
Why is it that homosexuals can have their own organizations, and heterosexuals are lawfully forbidden to group up?
2.
Why is it a hate crime to injure a homosexual, and not a hate crime for a homosexual to inflict injury upon a heterosexual?
Answers:

1. Heteros have the Republican Party, the Klu Klux Klan, churches, BSA, etc. They all seek to keep GLBTs from their organizations.

2. It is a hate crime for a GLBT to assualt a hetero under the Hate Crimes law, i.e. "Sexual Orientation". It just doesn't happen. Or, if it does, it is so seldom that you can't produce a bona fide case where it did.
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#7 May 6, 2011
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Answers:
1. Heteros have the Republican Party, the Klu Klux Klan, churches, BSA, etc. They all seek to keep GLBTs from their organizations.
2. It is a hate crime for a GLBT to assualt a hetero under the Hate Crimes law, i.e. "Sexual Orientation". It just doesn't happen. Or, if it does, it is so seldom that you can't produce a bona fide case where it did.
WRONG !

Back in 2007, there was a famous case which I distinctly remmber where a str8 guy was attacked by a "gang of lesbians". He was injured badly enough to be hospitalized for awhile.

The gang of 7 lesbians were found guilty of gang assault and went to prison.

http://gothamist.com/2007/04/19/lesbians_foun...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Greenwich_V...

I distinctly remember when this crime happened.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#8 May 6, 2011
Deo Vindice wrote:
There must be a legal reason - so it should be ENFORCED !
The legal "reason" in this case is the ironically named "Defense of Marriage Act". If this couple had been of the opposite sex rather than the same sex, in all likelihood, there would be no question as to the foreign partner's legal right to stay in this country. But since it is the law of the land to defend marriage by discriminating against some of them (in this case, a legal civil union), this man had been facing a forced deportation that wouldn't have otherwise happened.
Deo Vindice wrote:
Why is it that homosexuals can have their own organizations, and heterosexuals are lawfully forbidden to group up?
"Lawfully forbidden", Gracie? What law, pray tell, is that? I actually know of many such pro-heterosexual groups, who all take glee in promoting an anti-Gay agenda. How is it possible that you don't know about them
Deo Vindice wrote:
Why is it a hate crime to injure a homosexual, and not a hate crime for a homosexual to inflict injury upon a heterosexual?
Are you actually this ignorant of the law to imagine it says something this ridiculous, or are you just lying your ass off here? Either way, I hardly imagine even a God you have created in your own warped image will vindicate you on this one, no matter how many acts of contrition you offer up for your transgression of false witness. These laws say no such thing, fool. They address acts of violence motivated by a hatred of, in this case, a sexual orientation. It does not matter if either the perpetrator or the victim is homosexual, bisexual or even heterosexual for that matter, if the act of violence was motivated by perpetrator's hatred of the victim's sexual orientation, or what they imagined it to be, this charge can be added to the underlying act.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#9 May 6, 2011
carey529 wrote:
that's the law obama said he didn't like. HE didn't think it was constitutional...so, he told the doj NOT to enforce it.
Another one who doesn't let not knowing what in the f*ck he's talking about get in the way of contributing his incredibly over valued two cents worth. Or are you just lying in order to advance your anti-gay agenda? Either way, the truth contradicts you here. The President did not tell the DoJ to not enforce DOMA (he said just the opposite actually), he told them to no longer defend it. Even if you don't realize this, these are two very different concepts. In two cases before a federal trial court judge in Massachusetts, after raising the best possible arguments in defense of the constitutionality of section 3 of the act (the so-called federal definition of marriage), the DoJ pretty much had their head handed to them when the judge ruled the section unconstitutional in summary judgment (the cases never even made it to trial as a complete waste of the court's time). Based on the rulings in these cases and the potential loss in a slew of others filed by legally married same sex couples across the country who were denied federal recognition, Obama exercised a presidential authority that has been recognized since and used by every President since Reagan and ordered the DoJ to no longer defend the law against challenge to its rather obvious unconstitutionality.
carey529 wrote:
as for the rest of it, the above "georgia peach" not withstanding, it's all part of the package of "special" rights, designed solely for the 10% of the population that are not heterosexual...
thank a left wing loon...
As for the rest of it, either more complete and utter ignorance of the law or another outright lie. The law already exists as a "special right", as it is currently reserved as the domain of opposite sex married couples exclusively. For them, if an American citizen marries a citizen of another country, that foreign national is legally entitled to remain in this country while the system determines whether there is any attempt being made by the couple to violate it. For same sex couples, this is not the case, since the "defense of marriage" is to deny that their marriage exists at all, their situation is deportation because we can't ask the questions we would be asking if you merited this "special right" and were married to someone the opposite sex.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#10 May 6, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
WRONG !
Back in 2007, there was a famous case which I distinctly remmber where a str8 guy was attacked by a "gang of lesbians". He was injured badly enough to be hospitalized for awhile.
The gang of 7 lesbians were found guilty of gang assault and went to prison.
http://gothamist.com/2007/04/19/lesbians_foun...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Greenwich_V...
I distinctly remember when this crime happened.
I find it rather odd that you "distinctly" remember it differently than your own sources seem to. Three of the seven entered a guilty plea to assault and received just six months for their part. The other four were charged with "gang assault", a crime which in and of itself actually carries a much harsher penalty than if they had been charged with assault as a hate crime. They were found guilty and sentenced to 3 and a half to 11 years in prison. Two of the convictions have since been overturned and the other two are still on appeal. Given the information you have provided, it would have been difficult, if not completely impossible to charge the women with a hate crime, as there were such widely conflicting accounts as to what the motivation was.

Ralph was not wrong, gay people can and have been charged (and convicted) with hate crime violations. Maybe you "distinctly" remember this case too:
http://www.towleroad.com/2007/10/anthony-fort...

TomInElPaso

“Impeach the reality show actor”

Since: Dec 08

Seminole, FL

#11 May 6, 2011
Deo Vindice wrote:
There must be a legal reason - so it should be ENFORCED !
Why is it that homosexuals can have their own organizations, and heterosexuals are lawfully forbidden to group up?
Why is it a hate crime to injure a homosexual, and not a hate crime for a homosexual to inflict injury upon a heterosexual?
What Rick said, you know nothing, empty headed bigot. Or are you just stupid?
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#12 May 6, 2011
If this criminal (he DID violate our immigration laws) insists on living in the Americas, then let him go to one of the socialist "Worker's Paradises" called Cuba or Canada.

“ reality, what a concept”

Since: Nov 07

this one

#13 May 6, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
If this criminal (he DID violate our immigration laws) insists on living in the Americas, then let him go to one of the socialist "Worker's Paradises" called Cuba or Canada.
Dear, you've let that bizarre fantasy world you dwell in get in the way of reality again. If this had been an opposite sex couple, there would have been NO violation of our immigration laws in this case. Watching you act as a cheerleader for the persecution of your own people is pretty revolting. Put away your pom poms quisling.
WestCoaster

Los Angeles, CA

#14 May 6, 2011
ah-so wrote:
the gay/nambla agenda is a deviant movement globally ... except in china & the middle east where the muslims stone these gay perverts to death!!!
Then how do you account for the fact that Osamas' 3rd wife was only 15 years old when she was given to him as a gift??

“The Buybull is innerrrent.”

Since: Jun 08

Silver Spring, MD

#15 May 6, 2011
Deo Vindice wrote:
Why is it that homosexuals can have their own organizations, and heterosexuals are lawfully forbidden to group up?
Why is it a hate crime to injure a homosexual, and not a hate crime for a homosexual to inflict injury upon a heterosexual?
Because you're an apparently insane, evilgelical Birther who doesn't know the first fact about anything.

Praiz!
Frank Stanton

New York, NY

#16 May 6, 2011
writewingproxycontin wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you're an apparently insane, evilgelical Birther who doesn't know the first fact about anything.
Praiz!
Kettle, black.
Frank Stanton

Omaha, NE

#17 May 6, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
Kettle, black.
looser.

“RAINBOW POWER!”

Since: Oct 08

I Am What I Am.

#18 May 6, 2011
Deo Vindice wrote:
Why is it a hate crime to injure a homosexual, and not a hate crime for a homosexual to inflict injury upon a heterosexual?
If the reason for the assault is the victim's sexual orientation, it IS a hate crime. But gays don't go around beating up straights while yelling "Filthy breeder!". Furthermore, straights are not a historically unpopular minority group that suffers widespread discrimination for its sexual orientation, so it would be very difficult to get a hate crime charge against a gay assailant. In fact straights, and especially straight white males, enjoy a position of privilege in our society that most of them don't realize the full extent of. Now, if the victim is a racial minority, and the gay assailant is white, that's another matter.

“Equality First”

Since: Jan 09

Location hidden

#19 May 6, 2011
Rick in Kansas wrote:
<quoted text>I find it rather odd that you "distinctly" remember it differently than your own sources seem to. Three of the seven entered a guilty plea to assault and received just six months for their part. The other four were charged with "gang assault", a crime which in and of itself actually carries a much harsher penalty than if they had been charged with assault as a hate crime. They were found guilty and sentenced to 3 and a half to 11 years in prison. Two of the convictions have since been overturned and the other two are still on appeal. Given the information you have provided, it would have been difficult, if not completely impossible to charge the women with a hate crime, as there were such widely conflicting accounts as to what the motivation was.
Ralph was not wrong, gay people can and have been charged (and convicted) with hate crime violations. Maybe you "distinctly" remember this case too:
http://www.towleroad.com/2007/10/anthony-fort...
Thanks for answering that Rick. left and went fishing this morning after posting and just got back. You did a much better job of answering than I could have.

TomInElPaso

“Impeach the reality show actor”

Since: Dec 08

Seminole, FL

#20 May 6, 2011
Frank Stanton wrote:
<quoted text>
Kettle, black.
Take your hate elsewhere, just stay away from those teenage boys.

TomInElPaso

“Impeach the reality show actor”

Since: Dec 08

Seminole, FL

#21 May 6, 2011
RalphB wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks for answering that Rick. left and went fishing this morning after posting and just got back. You did a much better job of answering than I could have.
Fish fry at RalphBs tonight? Any kind of pan fish will do.

Assuming you're not one of those catch and release types! I prefer catch em, clean em, cook em and eat em kinda men. I've often said I was born with a fishing pole in one hand, a book in the other and a deck of cards in my mouth.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Princeton University Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Princeton researcher explores Southern Ocean pa... (Oct '13) Aug '17 Madison 6
News Freedom of homosexual expression (May '10) Jul '17 C Kersey 6
News UC Berkeley Named 'America's Best Value College... (Apr '17) May '17 Build the wall 2
News Affirmative action debate create rifts in ethni... (Apr '14) Apr '17 Hate discrimination 81
News A Physicist and Possible Adviser to Trump Descr... (Feb '17) Mar '17 Into The Night 28
News US citizenship applications surge following Tru... (Dec '16) Dec '16 Ridiculous 2
News Doubts raised about relocating American embassy... (Nov '16) Nov '16 Jeff Brightone 1
More from around the web