May 5, 2011 | Posted by: roboblogger
A number of GLBT equality organizations have planned a May 6 rally in support of a gay binational couple facing enforced separation .
Email me Princeton University news.
Learn more
Comments
|
Judged:
3
3
2 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? |
|
|
Judged:
2
2
1 Because we make love; not war . sugar |
|
|
“the left is lost” Since: Aug 08
usa |
Judged:
1
1
1 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... |
|
Judged:
1
1
1 |
|
|
“Equality First” Since: Jan 09
|
Judged:
2
1
1 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. |
|
Judged:
1
1
1 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. |
|
|
“Does not play well ” Since: Nov 07
|
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. "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 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. |
|
“Does not play well ” Since: Nov 07
|
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. 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. |
|
“Does not play well ” Since: Nov 07
|
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... |
|
Since: Dec 08
|
What Rick said, you know nothing, empty headed bigot. Or are you just stupid? |
|
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.
|
|
|
“Does not play well ” Since: Nov 07
|
Judged:
1
1
1 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. |
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
|
Because you're an apparently insane, evilgelical Birther who doesn't know the first fact about anything. Praiz! |
Kettle, black. |
|
|
Judged:
1 looser. |
|
|
“QUEER POWER!” Since: Oct 08
Location hidden |
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
|
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. |
|
Since: Dec 08
|
Judged:
1
1 Take your hate elsewhere, just stay away from those teenage boys. |
|
Since: Dec 08
|
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: |
|
Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.
Search the Princeton University Forum:
| Topic | Updated | Last By | Comments |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Canadian Premiere of 'The Face of the Ghetto - ...
|
May 4 | fyi | 1 |
|
Muslims want sharia, but divided on application
|
May 1 | Marie-Luise_J | 4 |
|
Ancient Macedonians - Modern Historians write a...
(Aug '10)
|
May 1 | Istor | 16 |
|
Confronting Justice Scalia on gay rights
|
Apr '13 | snyper | 1 |
|
On the Muslim Question?
|
Apr '13 | Joe DeCaro | 11 |
|
Dead star warps its partner's light, astronomer...
|
Apr '13 | Adrian Godsafe MSc | 1 |
|
During Argonne Lab visit, Princeton prof declar...
|
Apr '13 | SpaceBlues | 15 |
CancerLove could catch you by surprise today. You might be strongly attracted to someone who isn't your usual type at all but who makes your knees go weak all the same, or you could get caught up in an illicit relationship that's exciting because it has to be kept a secret. If you're already involved with someone they'll need plenty of freedom and won't appreciate feeling emotionally tied down. You need to let them off the leash for a short while!
Copyright ©2013 Topix LLC
