RECENT  POSTS:  » Today in 'um, yeah, obviously': Stunt marriages not confined to opposite-sex partnerships » Video: Brian Brown's fellow panelist gives insight into Moscow panel's extreme views on homosexuality, marriage » Video: TN man condemns gays with Leviticus billboards; oddly allows local Red Lobsters to remain open » Video: 'Ex-gay' speaker at upcoming ERLC summit equates talking to gay people with talking to cancer patients » GLAAD: Mainstream media is catching on to NOM's broader agenda » FRC's Values Voter Summit puts anti-gay bakers on a marriage panel; so we won, basically » GOP front group NOM raising money for a GOP US Senate » Leave beloved children's author Beverly Cleary out of your dastardly agenda, NOM! » Video: Another hour, another anti-gay activist warning society of its impending, gay-initiated doom » Video: Target features gay dads in new ad #MadeToMatter  

« 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