With the election all done and wrapped up, it would seem that there is nothing left to talk about. Oh sure, I could ask when the oceans will actually start receding, if we being counting from the moment of election or if oceanic recession doesn't begin until The One actually takes office, but that would be too easy.

Instead, let's discuss the thing that has seemed to create the most ripples across the board, more so then even even the presidential election. Of course I'm talking about the passing by significant margin of California's Proposition 8.

The road to Prop. 8 was a bumpy one. A few years ago, a proposition to define marriage as man and woman was brought before the state of California and was passed by a significant margin, over sixty percent yes. In May of this year, the California Supreme Court overturned the vote by a 4-3 margin saying that, and I'm paraphrasing, that everyone deserves equal rights under the law to marry whom they choose.

So, the sixty percent, though beaten and bloodied, refused to give up and drafted a constitutional amendment that would define marriage as one man and one woman and began petitioning to get it put on the ballot for this last November. That done, the people of California voted for the amendment that would define marriage as one man and one woman only, not allowing for homosexual or same-sex marriages.

Notice something. I said that prop. 8 would not allow for homosexual marriages, but I said nothing about homosexual unions.

Why is this such an important distinction? Because California Family Code 297.5 says, and I quote, “Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules, government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.”

Let me sum that up: Under California law, as of June 30, 2005, same sex unions have The Exact Same Rights that heterosexual marriages have by the definition of the law. There is no question of equality. There is no 'right' that his being removed. The argument that Prop. 8 takes away the rights of same-sex couples is completely and utterly wrong. It's wrong by the definition set up within California law which grants those rights without question.

This is not discrimination, this is delineation. It's making the clear the difference between these two things.

Let me be clear – I'm not saying in this column that same-sex couples cannot feel love, nor am I saying that they aren't as satisfying or share the same closeness as heterosexual couples, but what I am saying is that there is a prima fasci (def: On the face of it) difference between a homosexual union and a heterosexual marriage that needs to be defined in the law. History tell us and that the basis for any civilization is the family – father, mother, kids (multiple) and it is through this medium that the values of a civilization are passed from one generation to another, ensuring the continuation of that civilization.

Finally, let me point out that since the election, conservatives have been expected to accept the outcome of the Presidential race (and rightly so) and the outcome of the abortion ban here in South Dakota (also, rightly so), but we are not seeing, at all, any call for homosexual activists to do the same in regards to this vote. Ladies and gentlemen, when one group is expected to shut up and fall into line while the other is given free reign to scream, shout, defame religions, disrupt services, act in crude and

lascivious ways deliberately, and threaten to get their way or no way, you really need to wonder – do they really mean 'equality for all' or are they really looking to give 'equality' to those who think exactly like them?

Is that really equality?

Conservative Election Debrief

First, let me just say, we did the best we could with what we had, and we didn’t really have all that much to go on. John McCain has angered center-right members of the conservative base, of which I’m a part of, for years by supporting bills and agreements that would go directly against both conservatism and what this country, at its essence, stands for (see: McCain-Feingold and McCain-Lieberman) but, and this is a HUGE but, he was the best we had, or rather, he was what the people chose, so we ran with it. This principle, work with what you have, not what you want, is one of the things I love about this party.

The one ray of sunshine in this whole election was the plucky Sarah Palin who lit up the stage of the Republican National Convention and excited the base for the first time. We see life in the party again and have a rallying point for those of us who look for a return to the values of conservatism that have slowly been lost over the past few years.

So, what do we do? We have no marching orders and the RNC is strangely quiet, besides the infighting over Sara Palin. I would humbly suggest a few things to those conservatives out there that are reading this and wondering what to do next.

First, take a break. You read that right and yes, I’m being serious. After a loss like this it’s important to take some time and decompress from what’s happened. So, my advice to those who haven’t already is to take a few days off of politics completely. Don’t go to Drudge, don’t listen to talk radio or turn on the news. Don’t even talk about it. You’re not running away, you’re regrouping, though it wouldn’t hurt to have a snappy comeback or two ready for the snide and those who think themselves witty.

This time off will allow you to gather your thoughts, take a breath, evaluate what you did and what went wrong with what, and how best to get back on the horse. 

That is point two then – get back on the horse. Yea, we lost, but that does not mean that we are excused from making our case. Losing an election does not invalidate our points.  In other words, just because we lost doesn’t mean we’re wrong. President elect Barack Obama still spent twenty years in a racist church, still is friends with an unrepentant terrorist, still took money from a now prosecuted slumlord and still holds the most liberal voting record in congress. As commentator Jonah Goldberg said the night of the elections, ‘This election proves that Americans judge you by neither the color of your skin OR the content of your character.’

Fancy rhetoric aside, there will be many times when we disagree with President Obama over the course of the next four years, that goes without saying, but it is our job, our Right, to disagree when we see fit. Don’t be afraid to stand up and be counted among the dissenters, I know I’m not and I’ll stand proudly next to you, taking the gloves off and getting ready for the bare-knuckled brawl that’s ahead of us.

Finally, and I’m tempted to say ‘most importantly’, don’t be tempted to go to ad hominem (personal attacks) in regards to the President elect. The temptation is going to come when we begin to think about what liberals have been saying for the past 8 years. The whole, he’s-not-my-president-because-I-didn’t-vote-for-him shtick that has been playing over and over and over and over again, which is not, and never was, a valid attack for them, and it will never be a valid attack for us. We know how this system works – everybody votes, but there’s only one winner for everyone. Barack Obama IS my president – I didn’t vote for him, but because he won, he’s my president too, and I’ll be there hounding him every time he says something crazy or goes all radical lefty on us because it’s my right to criticize the leadership at every opportunity, not because of who he is but because of what he does.

No, that’s not something you’d ever hear from the left regarding George W. Bush and I can say, quite proudly in fact, that it’s one of the reasons I, and people like me, are not and can never be, liberals.