2004 Revisited
California Supreme Court Overturns Gay Marriage Ban

Map of 2004 General Election

From the New York Times, May 16th: The ban on same-sex marriage that was imposed by a state ballot initiative in 2002 was overturned by the California Supreme Court, in a decision not unlike that made in Massachusetts. The difference is that the people in Massachusetts were not allowed by their legislature, to vote on a ban. Would a people’s vote on a ban make any difference – apparently not?

In 2004 the hot topic in several key battleground states was the placement on the ballot of initiatives to keep the term marriage limited to those couples that were male and female. In those states that placed that question on the ballot, George W. Bush won handily.

The Washington Post article notes that “A nationwide Gallup Poll taken last week shows opposition to same-sex unions has not eased, and the voters most likely to say it could affect their vote are almost all opposed to gay marriage.”
The fact that the term marriage carries religious connotations brings up constitutional questions. Is there not a separation of church and state? Would it not be better to acknowledge a “domestic partnership” as opposed to using the term marriage, when these partnerships would hold the same legal privileges?

In 2004 John Kerry first supported the actions of his states supreme court and later re-thought his position, but to no avail. Activist judges are seen by many in this country as tied to the Democratic party.

Laws are, of course, subject to debate and reform, but those that are touched by the constitution, specifically when religion is at the core of a subject, should not have been brought before or acted upon by any state supreme court, and these rulings should be brought before the Federal Supreme court and overturned.

Mike Huckabee – The Message: Stick to One’s Principles

(Nice Guys Finish First – How Refreshing Would That Be?)

Former Arkansas Governor and 2008 Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee, has defended Hillary Clinton’s decision to stay in the race for the DNC nomination, (Log Cabin Democrat) in spite of pressure from those within her party. For those of us who have supported Mike Huckabee, it is their personal message and governing or legislative expertise and experience they bring to the campaign, which keeps supporters engaged until the bitter end, and or in the case of Mike Huckabee, past the point where the candidate has ended their quest for the White House.



It is the people’s right to vote their conscious and send a clear message to the particular party that their candidate of choice has positions that are vitally important to millions of American’s. The effect may be looked upon as a nuisance (Politico – Nuisance Vote Eludes McCain) by some, however, 23-27% of the voters in both Indiana and North Carolina sent the message that they wanted a chance to choose a candidate as well as a political position. Isn’t this what the process is all about? When the nation became a two-party system, the RNC and the DNC backed by big business and special interests, little room was left for the “masses” to make an impact on this Republic. It is in the process of the election that there is still a chance for “we the people” to have a voice, albeit a small one.



Mike Huckabee understands of the process and the need for both the candidate and the people to have a choice is to be applauded. He is now working to bring conservative factions together in support of the eventual Republican nominee, John McCain. It should also be noted, that McCain and Huckabee were the two candidates in the entire field of candidates (both sides of the aisle) who have run campaigns that were civil, citing their differences and pushing a message. It is civility, combined with experience and a clear message that will bring McCain, with the help of Mike Huckabee, to the White House in 2008. It should also be noted that Mike’s understanding of Hillary Clinton’s position to stay in the race, despite a barrage of attacks from the media, special interests, and the party elite, is spot on. She has a duty to her supporters and to her country to stand firm until there is a clear nominee. Those American’s in states that have yet to cast a vote, should have an option to voice their opinion.

McCain’s V.P. picks – Monday Morning Speculations

An ABC Political News Blog theorizes that Condi Rice may by lobbying (funny choice of words when talking about McCain’s VP choices), for the VP slot, although she has patently denied an interest in pursuing politics in every interview given in the past 4 years.

Fox News is reporting that conservative groups are lobbying against a possible Romney pick as V.P., which, why would they bother?

If McCain is smart his choice would come from the south – possibly Florida.

Does it matter in the grand scheme of things? Not really.

Our choices are limited, at best.

Hillary Clinton’s Schedule Released – To Wit – Big Deal

Under pressure from the media, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has released her White House calendar from the time she spent there as First Lady. The dates that are of most interest, according to an article by Brian Ross of ABC, among other outlets, are those in 2000 that coincide with visits between Monica Lewinsky and then President Bill Clinton. What is of import? Mrs. Clinton’s presence in the same, huge abode, while these visits occurred. Are there no depths to which the press will sink? Apparently not. The accompanying graphics - a photograph of Hillary Clinton, one of Monica Lewnsky and one of the “blue dress”, headline the article and are as malicious as its contents. What boggles the mind further is the insistence by ABC “News” that Brian Ross is pat of its Investigative Unit. Have they no shame? When will the news organizations in this country begin to cover this election cycle with articles that outline difference in policy between the candidates? There seems to be no end to the articles written in favor of (or seriously about) Obama or McCain - outlining how presidential one looks, or how the other has visited a place of import. Granted, Obama has had some negative coverage over his association with a racist Pastor, that for all purposes is not particularly relevant given the Bill of Rights that are so often referred to by this same press. Overall, the coverage given to these two candidates has been valid. Surely, Hillary Clinton has made important visits, given speeches and has policy differences that could be reported upon and analyzed; yet, the press chooses to focus on her role as a wife, during a time when her husband was having an affair? When will they lay off on commenting about her looks, her dress, her hairstyle, her husband (reminder to the press, he’s not running) and focus instead on the facts? It has becoming increasingly difficult to tell the difference between ABC News and the Globe, Sun or National Enquirer.

As a conservative feminist, I feel that Mrs. Clinton does not deserve this type of “good old boy” treatment from the press, rather, all things being equal (who am I kidding), I long for articles that outline her policies, perhaps her voting record while in the Senate, and possibly what experience she might have gained as First Lady (rather than the drivel reported by ABC). Although, as a conservative I might not agree with 80% of Mrs. Clinton’s politics; when reviewing the garbage the media dishes up, I find myself identifying with this candidate on a personal level. This article, among others, is possibly the worst expression of gender bias I have personally witnessed in my lifetime. Will it never end?