That is my point. All of our representatives are sworn to serve us and they are all supposed to be working for the same goal, a better America. Elections have always and will always be contentious and bitter. The problem is that the bitterness and hatred carry over and never end. Our representatives wil spend a large portion of teh next 2 years trying to screw their opponents in the next election and not necessarily doing what is best for us.

I suppose a better term I could have used over bipartisanship is respect. We do not have to agree, but we should at a minimum try to understand and respect the oppositions opinions. If we see each other as enemies, how can we say that we are doing anything close to what is best for the country.

"Heather declares those who voted in favor of bans on government-approved gay marriage as racist bigots."

No, I declare them homophobic bigots who should worry about their own personal lives and leave the rest of us alone. I don't know if they are racists or not - I was merely comparing them to similarly bigotted individuals who years ago wanted it to deny people the right to choose a spouse of a different skin color.

Seriously, who the hell do they think they are to tell complete strangers who they can and cannot marry? I understand that some people have hangups about homosexuality, but does that give them the right to deny people their civil rights and their freedom to make their own choices? I'm sure there are plenty of things those voters do that I don't like or agree with, but I don't go around voting to ban them from making their own choices about their own personal lives.

We Americans pat ourselves on the back thinking we've come a long way since the days when we made African-Americans sit at the back of the bus, but these votes show that we haven't moved at all - all that has changed is that we are sending a different group of people to the back of the bus. We criticize the Taliban for denying women the freedom to pursue their own lives based on their gender, but then we vote to deny our fellow citizens the right to love and commit to another human being just because of their gender. I cannot shrug off the hypocracy, and I will not quietly accept treating gay people as second-class citizens.

You wrote: "It would be nice to believe that, with the election safely behind us, we could just get on with living."

Yes, that would be nice. Unfortunately, committed gay couples in 11 states cannot get on with living their lives as they see fit, because others have declared them not worthy of that right.

All day long I have alternated between rage and utter disgust. That idea about splitting the US into 2 countries sounds pretty good right about now.

p.s. I accept that Bush won the election, even though I was hoping he'd be fired.

At least Kerry conceded without a fight, "to maintain (or restore) America's faith in her system of government." I have to agree with that. At least it was a clear win.

Gay marriage: I think the people should be free to do as they please as long as it doesn't violate any tort law. It shouldn't be governed by the ethics of the populus. That's all I have to say about that.

Please read my blog (rehberg.blogspot.com) to hear the rest of what I have to say about Bush's victory.

I have to disagree with you Heather. I think it would be awful to split the country in two. Since I live in Mass., I get to keep many of the freedoms that Andrew likes about America and still marry a man should I choose to do so. (Well, I'd have to get a divorce first, but you get the point.) Federalism rules!

I agree with your larger point, but I am disappointed that this election turned out to be more about gay marriage than about the war on terror/Iraq/whathaveyou. And I was a bit stunned to see 11 anti-gay marriage initiatives pass. I tend to lean right, so sometimes I miss out on the prejudice that still exists on the right side. I'm sorry Andrew, but could you explain to me how I'm not supposed to view that as good old-fashioned bigotry against gays?

The media spin is that the gay marriage issue helped Bush win. Not sure this is true. Could be that the media, liberal as it is, just doesn't want to admit that there are millions of people who voted because of the need to keep the country safer and felt that Bush would be better at it than Kerry. I happen to be one of those.

The big problem some people have with gay 'marriage' is that it goes against 2000 years of tradition and religious teaching that marriage is only heterosexually based. It is somewhat difficult to change in a relatively short time period ingrained feelings that have existed for centuries.

Marriage in many cultures really had more to do with the contract and economic values than it currently is portrayed as being for love only. Maybe it is time to return to the older point of view.

Sexuality exists across a spectrum of views from the pure sex of the rest of the animal kingdom with no moral values attached to some really interesting procedures that only humans seem to have come up with. I'm in Andy's camp that what adults do together really doesn't concern the rest of us as long as it is kept private. But, society can and has always had some rights to keep some actions limited. We can't murder freely, at least not most of us. We also can't have sex at high noon on the Boston Common either as a couple or in groups. Children are supposed to be off-limits. The question then arises as to where the limits of society can be imposed in sexual matters. This will vary over time depending on who controls society. Polemics aren't apt to change things over the short term. If you want to change the law, you are going to have to move most people into your camp. Law is nothing more than a given societies view of what is unacceptable.

As long as most people in this country profess to be religious it is going to be very difficult to change sexual law. Most religions, especially the Catholics and Baptists, want to control the perceived sexual actions of their parishoners, and, if possible, everyone else. Not sure how you change society without changing the churches views first.

there are millions of people who voted because of the need to keep the country safer and felt that Bush would be better at it than Kerry.

Interesting that the areas of the country at greatest risk for acts of terrorism - NY, California, and DC, for example - voted overwhelmingly for Kerry.

A lot of the red states would be equally safe from terrorism whether Bush, Kerry, or Bart Simpson were in charge. People in East Cupcake Idaho have a lot less to worry about than the folks in Manhattan or downtown Washington DC.

While it's true that terrorism is exponentially less likely to strike outside New York and DC, the argument that somehow that makes Kerry a better candidate against terrorists doesn't follow. DC, first of all, would vote for a terrorist if he had a D after his name. And New York and California are both strongly Democratic states. The notion that their being at greater risk of terrorism somehow making them wiser about how to prevent it is fallacious.

BTW, if you could at least sign your name to your notes, it would make it easier to converse.