Petey, The gay marriage issue may have brought people to the the polls, but did not swing the election to Bush. Michigan and Oregon passed the ban, but still went for Kerry. Ohio was just Ohio; tradition over progressive, plain and simple.

I love to hear the liberal buzz phrase, "You can't legislate morality"! Assuming this to be true, the converse would also be true, i.e. "You can't legislate IMmorality" Ergo, the vast majority of Americans won't stand for gay "marriage", and virulently oppose it by HUGE margins, even in liberal states. Gays, for some reason unknown to me, seem to equate the new tolerance of their "lifestyle" with automatic acceptance/"equality" of same.

How does the gay agenda lunatic fringe address this dilemma? Why, they attempt the end run, with liberal, judicial revisionist activist judges, interpreting the Constitution as a "living, breathing document" open to broad interpretation, usurping legislative intent.

No doubt, they're correct in this. Why, I'm absolutely certain that when George Washington was crossing the Delaware he could not help but notice the cute, little tush of the helmsman in the boat with him. When Thomas Jefferson was writng the Declaration of Independance, I'm sure he secretly yearned for the scribe aiding him in his endeavor. :rolleyes: (And I don't even want to guess what the hell John Hancock was thinking! ) Ah, if only they could have enjoyed the fruits of wedded bliss! Dag nab racist, homophobic founding Fathers!

My lil' humorous seque aside, the reason I'm so pleased with a Bush 2nd term, is to put up roadblocks to this judicial revisionism, with the appointment of conservative, or, in the least, traditional moderates, to the Federal Appeals and Supreme Court. The Liberals made this bed for themselves with Heartland America; let them reap what they have sown.

(For the record, truth be told, you CAN legislate morality; Liberals attempt do it all the time. It's just that when they do it, it's referred to as "correcting past injustice", with laws against "hate" or "racist gunowners" or "quotas", all done on the ground that it is the MORAL thing to do!)

Addendum: The hub-bub about the 1st Amendment, which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Nothing in there about "seperation of church and state". That is an interpretative, not a definative.

(The origins of the 1st Amendment, regarding religion, are from New England. The Congregationalists, the predominant religion in colonial times, required a tithe to their church, from everyone, members and non-members alike. This "tax", while ended before the Revolution, was greatly resented. The fear of a state religion still resonated, so it was added to the 1st Amendment to ensure this problem would never be, again.)