Gay Activist Targeted and Beaten in G...

Gay Activist Targeted and Beaten in Grand Rapids

There are 410 comments on the WXMI-TV Grand Rapids story from Jul 28, 2011, titled Gay Activist Targeted and Beaten in Grand Rapids. In it, WXMI-TV Grand Rapids reports that:

A man from Grand Rapids feels he was attacked and targeted for being gay while returning from a gay equality event downtown.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at WXMI-TV Grand Rapids.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#369 Aug 27, 2011
Honest AbeL wrote:
They are not discriminating. It is not depriving anyone of anything but rather giving privileges to those who behave within the parameters designed by society. There is anderson v sims, Conaway v. Deane, Standhardt v. Superior Court etc.
<quoted text>
On 14 separate occasions, the supreme court has declared marriage to be a fundamental right. It is not a privilege but a basic civil right.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#370 Aug 27, 2011
Honest AbeL wrote:
Tax laws by no means pass constitutional muster.
<quoted text>
The Supreme Courts of past and present disagree with you.

Since: Jul 10

New Castle, DE

#371 Aug 27, 2011
Honest AbeL wrote:
There are many cases similar to this one right now
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Lesbian-...
<quoted text>
This does nothing to support your claim. The couple wasn’t even married. If they were, the one mom wouldn’t have been able to steal the children away from the other and be a harlot with the scumbag sperm donor, or at least it would have been much more difficult. If anything, this story shows that marriage equality needs to be put in place.

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#372 Aug 27, 2011
That is not what they said. You cannot simply take the words you like from a sentence and distort the intent
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
On 14 separate occasions, the supreme court has declared marriage to be a fundamental right. It is not a privilege but a basic civil right.

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#373 Aug 27, 2011
It certainly supports my claim. The FATHER is completely downgraded to the point that they try to dehumanize him even in this article and your post. We have many dead beat dads and this guy is the exact opposite and is getting abused. This is horrible for every parent in the US
K-O Ken wrote:
<quoted text>
This does nothing to support your claim. The couple wasn’t even married. If they were, the one mom wouldn’t have been able to steal the children away from the other and be a harlot with the scumbag sperm donor, or at least it would have been much more difficult. If anything, this story shows that marriage equality needs to be put in place.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#374 Aug 27, 2011
Honest AbeL wrote:
That is not what they said. You cannot simply take the words you like from a sentence and distort the intent
<quoted text>
Conservative constitutional lawyer and former United States Solicitor General under George W. Bush, Ted Olsen predicted prop 8 will be overturned. When first filed, he said in federal district court in San Francisco, discriminatory laws serve only to "label gay and lesbian persons as different, inferior, unequal and disfavored." He later told Towelroad he thinks they "have a bullet proof case" and when it gets to the Supreme court, "we can look those justices, every single one, in the eye and say: this is wrong. This is a stain on the American constitution and the American core values of liberty and equality and it must be erased." In their filing, attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies wrote: "Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.”

Based on the evidence presented, the court found that Proposition 8 violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Chittwurff

Belleville, MI

#375 Aug 27, 2011
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
To discriminate, the government must demonstrate a legitimate governmental interest. There is no legitimate governmental interest in denying to gay people the rights guaranteed to straight people. Neither you nor the lawyers supporting discrimination have been able to present any such legitimate governmental interest.
"Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be “drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.”
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985); see also Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982). Under our rational basis standard of review,“legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, supra, at 440; see also Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632—633 (1996); Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 11—12 (1992).
Laws such as economic or tax legislation that are scrutinized under rational basis review normally pass constitutional muster, since “the Constitution presumes that even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic processes.” Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, supra, at 440; see also Fitzgerald v. Racing Assn. of Central Iowa, ante, p.___; Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (1955). We have consistently held, however, that some objectives, such as “a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group,” are not legitimate state interests. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, supra, at 534. See also Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, supra, at 446—447; Romer v. Evans, supra, at 632. When a law exhibits such a desire to harm a politically unpopular group, we have applied a more searching form of rational basis review to strike down such laws under the Equal Protection Clause."
( Justice O'Connor in Lawrence)
Hmmm
Chittwurff

Belleville, MI

#376 Aug 27, 2011
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
To discriminate, the government must demonstrate a legitimate governmental interest. There is no legitimate governmental interest in denying to gay people the rights guaranteed to straight people. Neither you nor the lawyers supporting discrimination have been able to present any such legitimate governmental interest.
"Moral disapproval of a group cannot be a legitimate governmental interest under the Equal Protection Clause because legal classifications must not be “drawn for the purpose of disadvantaging the group burdened by the law.”
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment “is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike.” Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985); see also Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 216 (1982). Under our rational basis standard of review,“legislation is presumed to be valid and will be sustained if the classification drawn by the statute is rationally related to a legitimate state interest.” Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, supra, at 440; see also Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U.S. 528, 534 (1973); Romer v. Evans, 517 U.S. 620, 632—633 (1996); Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1, 11—12 (1992).
Laws such as economic or tax legislation that are scrutinized under rational basis review normally pass constitutional muster, since “the Constitution presumes that even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic processes.” Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, supra, at 440; see also Fitzgerald v. Racing Assn. of Central Iowa, ante, p.___; Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U.S. 483 (1955). We have consistently held, however, that some objectives, such as “a bare … desire to harm a politically unpopular group,” are not legitimate state interests. Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, supra, at 534. See also Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, supra, at 446—447; Romer v. Evans, supra, at 632. When a law exhibits such a desire to harm a politically unpopular group, we have applied a more searching form of rational basis review to strike down such laws under the Equal Protection Clause."
( Justice O'Connor in Lawrence)
I SAY ...

Hmmm

Thats a lot of writting huh?

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#377 Aug 27, 2011
Chittwurff wrote:
<quoted text>
I SAY ...
Hmmm
Thats a lot of writting huh?
Fortunately for me, most of it was done by Justice O'Conner. The part in the quotes is hers.

Since: Jul 10

New Castle, DE

#378 Aug 27, 2011
Honest AbeL wrote:
It certainly supports my claim. The FATHER is completely downgraded to the point that they try to dehumanize him even in this article and your post. We have many dead beat dads and this guy is the exact opposite and is getting abused. This is horrible for every parent in the US
<quoted text>
He simply provided sperm for the two mothers. He wasn't in the lives of the children in beginning, nor was he supposed to be. That's why most sperm banks mark the donors as anonymous. It takes more than genetics to be a father. If a heterosexual couple was broken apart by some sperm-giving home-wrecker it would be just as horrible. This man helped to rob a woman of her daughters and helped to break apart a family. He deserves nothing but discontent.

“Can't help being fabulous”

Since: Dec 10

Sparkle <3

#379 Aug 28, 2011
so what wrote:
<quoted text>
Your argument that everything is OK as long as consent is involved is stupid.
In terms of sexuality that "argument" is supported by the majority of the western world.

Children, animals, the dead etc etc etc can't consent, that's why those orientations are illegal to practise.

Same sex, opposite sex, multiple partners etc who are adults who can consent, is perfectly legal.

Can you see where the line is drawn now?:)
so what wrote:
<quoted text>
Incest could theoretically involve consenting adults, but you say "could give birth to a child with defects." Since you are a liberal, why should this matter to you? I'm sure you would just abort the child anyway, so this is not an issue, right?
I was giving an example of why incest is NOT legal or right moron.

Incest can't be justified because a child created by an incest-based relationship will have defects.

Also, abortion has nothing to do with this argument, what if the woman decides to keep the baby?

Incest can't be justified at present due to the fact that although the relationship is usually consent based, a child created by incest has genetic defects.
so what wrote:
<quoted text>
Also, two consenting gays could spread AIDS and other STDs, so isn't that an argument against homosexuality?
No it isn't.

Heterosexual couples can also get AIDS and other STDs, your argument is stupid, people with sense use contraception and methods of safe sex in order to avoid contracting STDs.

The only reason homosexuals had a higher incidence of AIDs and STDs was because without risk of pregnancy, and due to lack of education they felt there wasn't the need to worry.

People are now educated and know the risks involved.
so what wrote:
<quoted text>
Should they just continue to spread STDs, because to abstain from this behavior might infringe on their "reproductive freedom?"
Again - stupid argument.

Heterosexuals aren't immune from STDs, and there are just as many "loose" heterosexuals as there are homosexuals, although I personally do not approve of people being sexually "loose" it is their business and aslong as they are protected then it is none of my concern.
so what wrote:
<quoted text>
On the other hand, consenting adults in a completely monogamous lifetime marriage have a 0% rate of STDs.
Again - wrong.

Monogamous heterosexuals and homosexuals can contract an STD simply by having unprotected sex with a person who already has an STD.

For example genital herpes sometimes never "flares up" in some people, therefore a heterosexual / homosexual person could have herpes without realising.

Lets say if this was a heterosexual couple then they are trying for a baby or a homosexual couple and the condom breaks (therefore protection removed) the herpes can then be passed onto the monogamous heterosexual or homosexual partner.

Sweetie don't pull figures out of your bum if you have no way of supporting them.

“Come and get it! ”

Since: Jan 09

Traverse City

#380 Aug 28, 2011
Kesla15 wrote:
<quoted text>
Sweetie don't pull figures out of your bum if you have no way of supporting them.
Why do queers always incorporate inserting and removing objects from their rear-end into these arguments?

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#382 Aug 29, 2011
Rockford wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you support forcing the Catholic Church and other faiths that oppose gay marriage to perform such marriages? Do you consider such faiths a bunch of bigots? Or do you consider them to be people of conscience trying to do what they think is the right thing and with whom you respectfully disagree?
I don't think they should be forced to perform marriage if they don't think it's right; however, there are some churches that will do it and the other option is not to have clergy do it at all but have a justice of the peace or someone else who is ordained to do so.

I have no problem with people of conscience trying to do what they think is right, but it shouldn't prohibit others who think differently, especially when consent, and no harm, are factors in the issue. Bottom line, if someone thinks that gay marriage is wrong, they don't have to participate.

“Alley Cat Blues”

Since: Sep 08

Location hidden

#383 Aug 29, 2011
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do queers always incorporate inserting and removing objects from their rear-end into these arguments?
For your pleasure.

“Can't help being fabulous”

Since: Dec 10

Sparkle <3

#384 Aug 29, 2011
Sneaky Pete wrote:
<quoted text>
Why do queers always incorporate inserting and removing objects from their rear-end into these arguments?
Funny how you were unable to respond to the rest of my post, then again I suppose the homophobic argument was defeated.

Also, that's really funny coming from a supposedly "straight" "man" visiting a gay forum.

“lover”

Since: Feb 09

Dorr MI

#385 Aug 30, 2011

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#386 Aug 31, 2011
So you couldn't justify your own words and resort to plagiarism. Nice
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Conservative constitutional lawyer and former United States Solicitor General under George W. Bush, Ted Olsen predicted prop 8 will be overturned. When first filed, he said in federal district court in San Francisco, discriminatory laws serve only to "label gay and lesbian persons as different, inferior, unequal and disfavored." He later told Towelroad he thinks they "have a bullet proof case" and when it gets to the Supreme court, "we can look those justices, every single one, in the eye and say: this is wrong. This is a stain on the American constitution and the American core values of liberty and equality and it must be erased." In their filing, attorneys Theodore B. Olson and David Boies wrote: "Fourteen times the Supreme Court has stated that marriage is a fundamental right of all individuals. This case tests the proposition whether the gay and lesbian Americans among us should be counted as ‘persons’ under the 14th Amendment, or whether they constitute a permanent underclass ineligible for protection under that cornerstone of our Constitution.”
Based on the evidence presented, the court found that Proposition 8 violated the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Since: Jun 11

AOL

#387 Aug 31, 2011
Honest AbeL wrote:
So you couldn't justify your own words and resort to plagiarism. Nice
<quoted text>
Quoting others and crediting the source is the opposite of plagiarism. When someone else, especially a highly credible source, has already expressed the ideas you are presenting, citing a qualified source is highly appropriate. If you disagree with the information presented, how about addressing it rather than trying to discredit the information by resorting to a personal attack.

Since: Oct 09

Location hidden

#388 Aug 31, 2011
You did not credit the source as it is a simple copy and paste and you never bothered to support your original claim
Not Yet Equal wrote:
<quoted text>
Quoting others and crediting the source is the opposite of plagiarism. When someone else, especially a highly credible source, has already expressed the ideas you are presenting, citing a qualified source is highly appropriate. If you disagree with the information presented, how about addressing it rather than trying to discredit the information by resorting to a personal attack.
Fred

United States

#389 Aug 31, 2011
No one cares

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

Gay/Lesbian Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Thousands of people march during rally at Bosto... 8 min TomInElPaso 1,959
News LGBTQ Activist Cleve Jones: 'I'm Well Aware How... 13 min dan whites bromha... 10
News Colo. gay discrimination alleged over wedding cake (Jun '13) 29 min Poof1 42,790
News 'Free Kim Davis': This is just what gay rights ... (Sep '15) 1 hr TRUMP WINNERS 22,355
News Does federal law forbid workplace discriminatio... 1 hr Banster 7
News Walmart agrees to $7.5 million settlement in di... 1 hr Banster 5
Maybe god is gay! (Dec '09) 1 hr June VanDerMark 12,262
More from around the web