RECENT  POSTS:  » Anti-gay clerks are going to have to do their jobs. Because of course they are. » Jeb really wants to remind voters of his anti-'same status' plan for gay couples » Maine: NOM finally forced to hand over its tiny, out-of-state, incestuous donor roll » This delusional primary: Huckabee claims 'same-sex marriage is not the law of the land' » The 'Yeah. Duh. Of course' phase of this fight » Trailer: 'Stonewall' » And now NOM is literally pleading with its (theoretical) supporters » Add 'professional advocate for anti-gay scouting' to list of bygone career choices » NOM to lasso the White House with a rosary. Or something. » NOM's new plan? To beat up its org-crushing loss until it becomes a win.  

« 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