RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM spends six figures on North Carolina's Hagan/Tillis US Senate race » Idaho wedding venue can be discriminatory so long as it sticks to new business model » Sunday in Houston: Activists mad that churches were noted for their politicization head to a church—to politicize » Lisa Kudrow thinks my website title is modest, at best » Do you take this man to be your lawfully wedded mission of destruction? » MassResistance's hilarious fourteen-point plan for reinstating marriage discrimination: Get really, really nasty » Concerned Women For America finally learns to call out anti-gay rhetoric » 'Rivka Edelman' responds to me via one of the most bizarre comments I've ever read » Just going to another vendor isn't always easy, isn't good basis for sound policy » Pat Robertson: People who believe in fair nondiscrimination law are 'terrorists, radicals, and extremists'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

10/18/2010

'Why do you oppose judicial activism?' (*And by 'you' we mean only those who jibe with our preconceived narrative)

by Jeremy Hooper

A comment we tried to leave on the so-called "Iowa For Freedom" coalition's blog:

Screen Shot 2010-10-15 At 4.47.07 Pm
[SOURCE]

Three days later, not one comment has been approved.

But hey, we're only talking here about state Supreme Court justices careers, the role of the independent judiciary in civil rights matters, and gay people's very existences. Why should Iowa For Freedom, a self-appointed stable of (mostly) faith-based truth obfuscation, see a need to let fair discourse reign supreme, when their own novel version of "freedom" makes the day so much less complicated?

***

*UPDATE: Iowa For Freedom: Comment moderation perfect metaphor for campaign itself [G-A-Y]

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails