The truth is non-partisan

The tragedy of 2004 was that the election was won and lost on one issue: gay marriage. To many Americans the war in Iraq, terrorism and the economy were less important. (See Donna Britt. "Gay Unions Put Kerry Campaign Asunder." Washington Post, November 4, 2004.)

The Bush campaign and the Republicans understood how important gay marriage was as an issue. In February Bush proposed a consitutional amendment against gay marriages, knowing full well it couldn't pass. (Constitutional amendments require two thirds support in the two Houses of Congress and of the states.) In July House Republicans passed the Marriage Protection Act, restricting judges from ruling in gay marriage cases, knowing the legislation was unconstitutional and couldn't pass the Senate. (Kerry was against gay marriage but said this was a states' issue.)

Bush will likely not resurrect his gay marriage amendment, because it is a dead issue federally and the states are dealing with gay marriage through amendments and legislation. On election day eleven states passed referenda supporting gay marriage amendments. This was the one issue on the Ohio ballot which may have swayed the state to Bush over Kerry. In Oregon gay activists put $3 million into the election in an unsuccessful effort to defeat the referendum. (This process started in August in Missouri when voters supported a consitutional amendment banning gay marriage. The process will probably continue.)

Republican use of the gay marriage issue to get elected showed a number of things. First, they are better strategists than the Democrats. Also, they understand that what you say is more important than whether you follow through. Finally, they continue to be the party of segregation. Today, the United States is much more divided. And it is very unlikely that President Bush will do anything to bring the divergent parties together and heal the nation's wounds. In this case, talk may be louder than actions.

For a better understanding of the problems of the Marriage Protection Act, see Travis Reed. "Barr criticizes House gay marriage ban." Talahassee Democrat, July 22, 2004. Retrieved November 6, 2004 from http://www.tallahassee.com/mld/tallahassee/news/local/9219345.htm

A reporter came to the university today to find out what motivated students to vote the way they did. Exit interviews, he said, indicated that people voted more based on moral values than concerns about the war in Iraq, taxes, and social security. President Bush was judged the more moral. Bush was against stem cell research, abortion and gay marriage. He prays and reads the Bible. Obviously, a man of great moral values, he sees the war on terror as a crusade of good against evil.

John Kerry in the last months of the campaign also tried to portray himself as a man of great religious values. But not enough to get him elected.

I sincerely wonder about Bush's moral values. Although he knew his claims were exaggerated, he took America to war in Iraq, killing thousands of people on both sides. Bush either doesn't know or ignores the Ten Commandments, including "thou shalt not bear false witness" and "thou shalt not kill." He panders to the special interests of big business and the wealthy, while the poor, the aged, and the middle class suffer. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" applies only to a special class of Americans. President Bush claims to be a Christain with great moral values, but his actions speak louder than his words. His actions, in fact, condemn him.

For a better understanding of Bush's ethics, read Peter Singer, The President of Good and Evil (New York: Penguin Books, 2004).

Dear Mr. Kerry,

Your concilation speech was very gentlemanly. Nice tone.

You said: "We are required now to work together for the good of our country. In the days ahead, we must find common cause. We must join in common effort without remorse or recrimination, without anger or rancor. America is in need of unity and longing for a larger measure of compassion."

"I hope President Bush will advance those values in the coming years. I pledge to do my part to try to bridge the partisan divide. I know this is a difficult time for my supporters, but I ask them, all of you, to join me in doing that."

However, it was the "wrong speech, at the wrong place, at the wrong time." Your speech showed you fail to understad the role of an opposition in a democracy.

You should have said: "Mr. President. You did not receive a mandate for your policies on November 2. Your policies of uncalled for war and disrespect for the dignity of people are wrong. And we will let the American people know they are wrong. We will oppose you at every step. We will oppose your ineptness in handling the war on terror and expose your corruption and pandering to the military industrial cartel. We will oppose your tax breaks to the rich and support policies that bnng back dignity to the middle class and poor in our country. We will oppose your plans to destroy social security and medicare and we will fight for healthcare for all Americans. We will oppose your policies that destroy the freedom of Americans and erode the constitution in the name of fear. We will oppose your policies that segregate and create fear. We will put forward a vision of a better America that opposes everything that is wrong about your presidency. Mr. President, in the next four years we will expose you and oppose you so that America will be a better place where Americans live in dignity with equality and with opportunities to provide for themselves and their loved ones."

Mr. Kerry, the Democrats lost this election, not because you lacked a better plan. You lost the election, because you failed to show that Mr. Bush had no plan and his government of reaction is not working. Don't concede your principles now. You have the obligation to oppose Mr. Bush and work for a better America.

Yours truly, John Fisher