And, even if he does, what can we do about it? The insurgencies in Iraq and Afghanistan have us so occupied that countries like Iran and North Korea are emboldened to take steps they might not have taken had we not committed ourselves to a senseless and open-ended war.

The worst part is that had we stayed out of Iraq, it wouldn’t be providing such a ripe breeding ground for terrorism. Yes, George, you’re really winning that “war on terror.”

Dear President Bush,

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God’s Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination…end of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God’s Laws and how to follow them.

1.Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev.15: 19-24). The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9). The problem is, my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don’t agree. Can you settle this? Are there ‘degrees’ of abomination?

7. Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them (Lev. 24:10-16)? Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people
who sleep with their in-laws (Lev. 20:14)?

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I am confident you can help.

Thank you again for reminding us that God’s word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

Mr. Bush,

As an American citizen, I was dismayed by the attempt earlier this year to pass the Federal Marriage Amendment. At best it was an attempt to further divide the country during election season and at worst it was an attempt to write discrimination into our Constitution.

You recently were quoted in the press as saying, “To make this nation stronger and better, I will need your support and I will work to earn it. I will do all I can do to deserve your trust. A new term is a new opportunity to reach out to the whole nation. We have one country, one constitution, and one future that binds us. And when we come together and work together, there is no limit to the greatness of America.”

Yet, from my perspective, Karl Rove’s recent statements on Fox News show no signs of your intending to reach out to the millions of gay and lesbian Americans. If you really wish to heal the wounds of the last four years, I urge you to withdraw your support from this mendment.

There are many reasons why this amendment is both unnecessary and wrong for America.

In the debates you were asked if you thought that gay people chose to be homosexual or if they were simply born. You answered that you didn’t know. If that was an honest answer then I commend you on your honesty though I would hope that you would take the time to learn the answers before forming a policy. The truth is that most people don’t get to choose their sexuality. Mr. Kerry was right in his response that you should ask Mary Cheney though he took media heat for it. Few people would choose a path that would subject them to violent hate from a small, but vocal part of the population. Discriminating against people because of their differences – especially when those differences are through no fault of their own – isn’t something that should exist in law, much less in our most cherished of guiding documents, the Constitution.

I believe that I’ve heard you quoted in the media as saying that “the institution of marriage must be protected.” I’m not sure what that means. Protected from what? From whom? How does the marriage of two people of the same sex hurt or even slightly diminish the marriage of two heterosexual people?

Marriage, particularly in the last century has really consisted of two different ideas. There is religious marriage and civil marriage. Religious marriage is obviously administered by the various churches and religious bodies throughout the country. Civil marriage is administered by the state. The two, while related, are different. They are related because the state grants authority to some members of the clergy to perform civil marriage. They are different because one can obtain a civil marriage without religious marriage.

This is clear in existing practice. For example, many Roman Catholics are married in the Church and then subsequently divorce. If they choose to marry again in the future they may not do so in the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church does not recognize the dissolution of the original marriage, yet the state does recognize the ending of the civil marriage, allowing the possibility of the subsequent civil marriage.

I do not dispute the right of any religious body to conduct religious marriage ceremonies for whomever they choose. That marriage ceremony, while important in one’s spiritual life, has no meaning to the state. Nor should it because of the separation of church and state fundamental to our democracy. Religious marriage is not threatened in any way the state granting civil marriage to any couple. If that were true then the example above (and others like it) would show that harm, but religious marriage is thriving and not harmed in the slightest.

Several countries have begun granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples or granting civil unions with the same legal benefits as marriage. I am not aware of how these marriages have harmed any other marriage.

The claim has also been made that marriage is for procreation. While most couples do have children, I am aware of many married couples that do not have children either because they do not desire them or because they have been unable to have children. Does the lack of a child lessen their marriage in the eyes of the state?

Others have claimed that to grant allow same-sex marriage would hurt families. Again, I fail to see how. If it is through some fear that this will make homosexuality more popular then it is a misguided fear. Gay people do not choose to be gay. They simply recognize that they are. While recognition of same-sex marriages might make it easier for some to live their lives openly and without fear it would not hurt the family at all. Quite the opposite would be true. Gays and lesbian Americans have families also and the granting of marriage licenses would allow all families to be protected instead of just some.

You have been heard to use the phrase “activist judges” and Mr. Rove was also heard to use the phrase on Fox News. It appears to me that you have used this phrase whenever any judge rules against your position. It is the responsibility of the judicial branch to interpret our laws. Sometimes our laws are contradictory and the judge must untangle this as recently happened in Massachusetts. While you may disagree with the decision, using emotion-laden terms such as “activist judge” does nothing but try to cast our judicial system in an unfavorable light. If our legislative branch did its job properly and thought through the implications of the laws it passes then our judicial system would have less untangling to do.

Finally, gays and lesbians aren’t asking for something new. Couples have been living together since the beginning of human history. For lesbian and gay couples this has been marriage in all but name. Until the last roughly 100 years it didn’t matter because it has only been in that time that the state has begun granting significant rights to those that are married. From the perspective of the gay and lesbian population – perhaps 10% of the population – the federal marriage amendment would be to turn us into second class citizens. The federal government would be sending a clear message that our relationships aren’t held to be as real and as meaningful as heterosexual relationships. There are over 1,000 rights and protections that are implicitly granted to a married couple. Lesbian and gay couples can only create the protections of some of a small subset of these through the legal system. Denying these rights solely because same-sex relationships are atypical is discrimination. No other word describes the situation.

Many – though by no means all – clergy believe homosexuality is wrong, they also believe that divorce is wrong. Yet the government recognizes divorce. Why does the government take the view that divorce is to be allowed if it is wrong on religious grounds? The truth is that matters of religion are best left to religious institutions. Medical science has determined that homosexuality is not a disease. There is nothing medically or psychologically wrong with the millions of Americans that were born homosexual. For the government to deny them the right to protect their families can only be seen as discrimination.

To support the Federal Marriage Amendment would be not just promoting discrimination but it would be to put hate speech against our own people into our Constitution. Could any true American want this to happen? This document has been the foundation of our democracy. It has been the document that guarantees Americans rights and freedoms envied the world over. The last time we tried to take away rights with the Constitution was Prohibition and thankfully we recognized that this was a bad idea and repealed it. Let us not make the same mistake twice.

If you truly want to bring the country together after the bitterness of the campaign, then withdrawing your support for the Federal Marriage Amendment would be a good first step. A second step would be to support legislation that would grant the benefits of marriage to same-sex couples. These steps would only strengthen our nation.

This might be a politically unpopular move but you say that you are a president that is not afraid to take an unpopular stand if it is the right thing to do. If you truly want to be a president for all Americans then it will be clear that what I have suggested is the right thing to do.

Thank you for your time and consideration and I hope and pray to hear that you will see that discrimination is not the right path for America.

Sincerely,
Linda Thomas

CC: Mr. Cheney

I am in shock.

My worst possible fears have come to pass. Not only does Bush appear to be headed back to the White House, but with a clear victory in the popular vote as well as a seeming victory in the electoral college. I truly thought that after four years of him, the majority of Americans would be more than ready to give him his walking papers. How could I be so wrong?

I’m optimistic by nature – though I don’t feel that way right now. It seemed so obvious that Bush had been not just a bad president but a terrible one that everyone could see it. That a majority of the population didn’t see it has me wondering if it was my perceptions that were so bad. Yet, as I reflect on the last four years, I don’t think so.

My greatest fear is what will happen to the Supreme Court. I know I’m depressed and prone to seeing the worst right now, but I fear this is going to set civil rights back 100 years.

It was less surprising but no less disheartening that the anti-same-sex marriage amendments passed in all eleven states where it was on the ballot. For the life of me I can’t see this as anything but discrimination being alive and thriving in this country. These amendments do nothing to protect heterosexual marriage and serve only one purpose: to discriminate against gay and lesbian Americans.

Note that I don’t look at this as a democrat vs. republican thing. My own personal views is that political parties in general and the iron grip that those two parties exert on American political life have been a terrible thing for America. When only two viable choices are permitted then no other option than extreme polarization is permitted. We’re all the losers when that happens.

There isn’t much left to say. My own efforts at trying to convince Bush supporters that they should reconsider appears to have been an utter failure. Every person I spoke with that supported Bush appeared to have a completely closed mind and to have made a decision based mostly on emotion. I’ve no real evidence that I reached any undecided voters either. My short career in political activism will not go down among the highlights of 2004.

Yes, this is pessimism speaking. Yes, I’m feeling depressed. But, yes, this how I truly feel today: God help us because as a nation we’ve proven
incapable of helping ourselves. I pray I’m wrong but the last four years make me believe otherwise. If ever we needed a miracle, now would
be a good time for one

How could so many Americans buy into the rhetoric that Bush has been feeding us?

God help what us given what this man is likely to do to the country in the next four years. And the sad part is that collectively we asked for it.

Now, as anyone who knows me or has read any of my blog entries realizes, I’m strongly anti-Bush and support Kerry. I’ve seen exactly what the article describes happen.

How can Bush supporters believe that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction despite all the evidence to the contrary? Mostly, it would seem, because Bush said so.

Now, I’m not so naive as to believe something in the media just because I see it in print (or bits or video), but these people seem to have a real disconnect from the world.

Bush supporters seem to think that because 9/11 happened on his watch this makes him the anti-terrorism president and makes him qualified to protect the nation. Why? I’m not sure.

Read the article, especially if you support Bush. No, the article doesn’t try to convince you to vote for Kerry. But it might make you think about why you hold some of the positions you do.

As Americans we have the right to vote. We also have the responsibility to make informed decisions and we should always be questioning ourselves and those who represent us. To do otherwise is to forfeit our responsibility. Don’t vote based on emotion. Vote based on reason whomever you vote for.

The outrage seems to be on the order of those [expletive deleted] Brits should stay out of our politics. Think about it, though. What happens here in our country has profound implications for the rest of the world. Why shouldn’t they try to influence us in our decision-making process. Just because they don’t get a vote? That doesn’t seem like a reason not to care.

I think I’d take the same stance even if the letters were pro-Bush. I wouldn’t be happy about it, but then it’s hard to be happy when perfectly good humans make extraordinarily stupid decisions.

To make matters worse, the Fox network expressed outrage at the letter-writing campaign. This from a network that needs to look up what the actual definition of the word “journalism” actually means.

Keep those letters coming! Just because you aren’t an American doesn’t mean that actions in America don’t affect you. Just ask the civilians in Iraq that are dying every day.

No weapons or means to produce them have been found yet Bush still insists that Iraq was a real threat. His statement about Iraq sponsoring  terrorism is, to my knowledge, still without any supporting evidence. Indeed, terrorism seems to be a worse threat today than it was before we went to Iraq.

Don’t get me wrong, Saddam Hussein wasn’t a nice man but he appeared to be a contained threat. Instead we have traded a contained and easily identifiable threat for chaos and disorder.

How is this an improvement?

George Bush’s Iraq War was a mistake and it will be a mistake that we and our children pay for for a long, long time. Think about that when going to the polls next month.