Oh really?

Do you just repeat everything you receive from Obama, torrentprime? When are you going to learn that Obama’s black skin does not mean that he always tells the truth, as you believe?

He has recently had an important series of posts about the murder of a gay rights activist in Honduras. Unfortunately, in those posts he mischaracterizes last summer’s removal from office of Honduran President Zelaya a “coup”.

I submitted a comment to one of the earlier posts pointing out the long history of strong-man government in Honduras and throughout Latin America (caudillismo). In an attempt to counteract that legacy, Hondurans’ have constitutional provisions that not only impose presidential term limits, but prohibit public officials from advocating changing the term limit provision. Last spring Zelaya was openly advocating for a plebiscite to repeal the term limits – an open violation of the other constitutional provision.

Unfortunately, their Constitution does not specify any particular method by which a President is to be removed from office (our Constitution provides for Impeachment). The Honduran Supreme Court, Attorney General and Congress all agreed Zelaya violated the Constitution and had to be removed. They asked the military to remove him and it did.

After setting out the argument that what happened was, in fact, Constitutional Rule of Law, I suggested that labeling the removal a “coup” was akin to Yanqui imperialists telling Hondurans that we know how to run their country better than they do.

My post never appeared in his moderated comments, though other comments showed up in blog postings written after I submitted my comment. I resubmitted it a couple days later in case there had been a technical error. Still nothing. The comment was quite siimlar to this one. It simply set out a view of Honduran recent events that differed from the blog’s author’s view. There was absolutely no reason to filter it if he truly believes in “unfiltered community engagement” that blogs can uniquely provide.

They don’t want to include gay conservatives or gay Christians because they might end up with a marriage law that, rather than bringing in open relationships, multiple partners, and serial monogamy, actually requires some level of morality and loyalty. And who on the gay left wants that?