RECENT  POSTS:  » Video: Ad for blemish remover/ tourist spot for our new, bettered America » Whether justified or Kim Davis-ed, individualistic rage rarely outplays broader truths » Kim Davis: The almost too perfect coda to the marriage discrimination fight » 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  

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


'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

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