RECENT  POSTS:  » No, you really don't seem to know what tyranny is, Jerry Cox » Vatican's #Humanum event meant to paint gay families as 'evil' and 'obscene,' admits invited guest » Read: Federal judge calls MS's marriage ban what it is: discriminatory » Yet another federal judge accurately notes crude discrimination within Arkansas' marriage ban » Prominent conservative outlet equates LGBT activists with Nazi paramilitary » New pledge: Conservative pastors choose to separate selves from civil marriage » Read: ADF creates fake 'victim' superbook; misapplies business matters to churches » P&G reaches out to pro-discrimination activist, learns it made right choice » In prep for Pope's 2015 visit, World Meeting of Families readies gay stigma, exclusion » Today in ambition: NOM cofounder vows to fight marriage equality for 100 years  

« 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