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.)

Is that a bird on top of the couch or a dog?

Figured I would give my 2 cents before the thread closed :

I voted for Kerry and am very disappointed that he lost. However, I am very glad it is over and we can go back to concentrating on what is important. Ultimately we are all Americans and just want the same things (eg health, happiness, safety, etc) We just have different ideas on how to accomplish these things.

Im really hoping that we can come together and do what is necessary to accomplish these things. The partisan crap needs to not get in the way. I will support Bush and hope that he has the American peoples (all americans) best interests at heart.

Jeremy

It was interesting reading the heated debates over the last month or so. I may not be as passionate about the issues as some. I can tell you that none of the arguments made by the "other" side swayed me on my vote. These things are cyclical. Republicans are in the majority "right" now. Bush received a high number of votes, that is true. He also received a high number of votes against him as well. It is still an almost 50/50 split in the country. 1995 showed the Dems with a 57-43 advantage in the Senate. Today Reps 51-48. Midterm Senate runs may change that yet again. The Reps hold on the house/senate/presidency depend on what they accomplish over the next 3 years, I don't say 4 because that year leading up to the next election is stump time.... I hope that Bush's decision to "liberate" Iraq goes down in history as a success and Iraq truely becomes a legitimate Democracy in the world. I would like to see education become affordable for everyone, because it's the great equalizer, I would Social Security to finally get resolved. We've heard these same debates for tooooo long. Is it fixable? I would like harder punishment for corporate fraud and crime. I'm all for giving someone a leg up and I hope that Bush can really become the "unifier/compassionate conservative" he claims to be. With such a divided/bitter country I unfortunately doubt there will be much progress made. Dems don't necessarily have to change what they stand for, but somehow need to win a few key southern states. Not an easy solution for that. But again, things are cyclical. Was a time the Reps couldn't win the south either.