[applemac_g4]

>Yet, I am reminded of people - conservatives, who don't want
>to vote for Bush because he isn't conservative enough. A vote
>for a third party candidate, or sitting out the election,
>only harms the conservative cause, increasing the possibility
>of Kerry or which jackass the Democraps pick, will win. At
>least with Bush, the behemoth may start turning around.

Bush supports civil unions for homosexuals and lesbians. In what way is that turning anything around? If we pass a constitutional amendment which defines marraige as being reserved for a man and a woman, and turn around and give away the same benefits to the gay lobby under the name of "civil unions" all we've done is play a semantic game.

No gay marriage.
No civil unions.

Why our beloved governator doesn't have the national guard out in the streets putting a stop to the lawlessness in San Francisco, I don't know. And no, that's not too harsh a reaction. That's the reaction you'd have if suddenly one day a university president broke the law and wouldn't admit black students...

[little jeremiah]

Can you cite Bush's statement that he supports civil unions? From what I've read, he's kind of skirted the issue. But what with all the ruckus the "gay" activists and their minions are creating, Bush better clarify his position, and I hope to God he stand against civil unions as well as "gay" marriage.

It will be interesting to see what happens on Tuesday, when the courts are open. Have you read or heard that Schwartzeneger has said anything - anything at all?

I thank divine providence that I don't live in SF. Throughout the last umpteen years, I've put in my time in the bay area, but left more than a decade ago, swearing never to return.

But, if someone organizes any big ralleys or protests about this crap, I think I'll drive down and freep!