Kerry concedes defeat

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

John Kerry called the President to concede defeat. He said that drawing out the Ohio votes would be divisive to the country, so there will be no repeat of the 2000 election.

He will make a statement at 1:00 PM.

Bush will make his victory speech at 3:00 PM.

[NikiH]

I am glad. I did not want to see it go on forever. I was more worried about the stock market then who won in this situation though.

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

For a man criticized for his "stolen honor", Kerry did the honorable thing in not letting the courts determine the winner, despite his campaign's claims to "count every vote".

Doing so restores faith in our electoral system, which was completely shattered in 2000.

[redskindave]

Yes, And Im glad its over, Kerry did the right thing by conceding ans not draging it out

[Irn-Bru]

The math for a possible recount wasn't nearly as close this year, but I do agree that Kerry did the respectable thing. I think that this election showed in several ways that the country isn't as divided as it's been portrayed by many. I'm happy to see that Kerry did what he did out of concern for the nation's unity.

[JPFair]

Yes, Bush has won. The people have spoken, and it's time to move on. Kerry did the classy thing by conceding before letting this whole thing embarrass this great country of ours like it did in 2000.

[redskincity]

Yeah Kerry did right, but now Bush that back is at the helm, he needs to do right and turn our economy around.

[cvillehog]

Well, the GOP is in control of everything, so it's their country to guide with very little opposition. They've been given enough rope, let's hope for all of our sakes that they don't end up hanging themselves with it.

Kerry did the right thing, even if votes in Ohio were closer than they "seemed" without the provisional ballots, he'd still have an uphill battle to win, whereas Bush could win without Ohio anyway.

Definitely glad to see this didn't drag out.

Though, I'm a little concerned that the issue that seemed to drive people to the polls (if you believe the wonks) was an issue of bigotry.

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

...the issue that seemed to drive people to the polls...was an issue of bigotry.

Yeah, moral values....how bigoted.

[NikiH]

The issue that drove people to the poles is their business. I was hoping no one around here would come out with excuses. I guess not everyone can be as gracious a loser as Kerry was today.

[cvillehog]

The issue that drove people to the poles is their business. I was hoping no one around here would come out with excuses. I guess not everyone can be as gracious a loser as Kerry was today.

It's not an excuse.

I said if you believe the wonks, the gay marriage bans drove people to the polls.

If that's not bigoted, what is?

[Texas Hog]

People are bigots, because they don't believe in gay marriage? I don't think so.

[cvillehog]

People are bigots, because they don't believe in gay marriage? I don't think so.

You think it's ok to discriminate against gays? I suppose you don't care that a gay couple has no right to be at eachothers' bed side to hear their dying words.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

[NikiH]

Bigot One who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ

I am a Republican and I agree with gay marriage. If it had been part of my election I would have voted for it and for Bush. Bigotted issue? Not at all. I know alot of Republicans that are for gay marriage. And lots of people against gay marriage that are democrats and probably voted for Kerry. It was a nice attempt at trying to belittle the results of this election. I should expect nothing else by now.

Putting this in the election gives the people the right to vote. ANYONE who feels strongly about it would have shown up to vote, not just those who feel strongly against it. Guess what? Kerry is also against gay marriage. So does that make him a bigot as well?

[cvillehog]

"Moral values" and "tradition" were the same excuses used to defend slavery, to defend segregation, to deny women's right to vote, interacial dating/marriage was going to destroy the American family, etc., etc. It's what those in power use to keep things the way they like them. History will decide if they are right or not. I think in 20 years, it will be looked at as somewhat unbelieveable that gays were not given the same basic rights as everyone else.

[NikiH]

I agree with you on that 100% except for the fact that the American people on a whole, from the vote yesterday do not agree with us. If it was overwelmingly in the other direction I'd say 20 years. Better make it 50 to be safe.

[die cowboys die]

there can be no doubt that this will be looked back at the same way we look back, aghast and appalled, at "colored" and "white" signs over public bathrooms and water fountains. no, people who vote against gay marriage are not any better or different than racists. yes, they are bigots.

as for "morals", we can all agree that morals are extremely important- after all, who would want to live in a world without morality? however, the only sensible measure of whether something is "good" or "bad" is the effect it has on people. Arbitrary rules about what is good and bad do not help anybody, and they oppress many people. Two consenting adult homosexuals who find happiness with each other gain a great deal of "good" out of that relationship, and it does not affect anybody else. it is nobody else's business, they aren't making anyone else be gay.

on the other hand, oppressing these people in the name of "morality" is completely antithetical to what morals are for. it is hurtful to them, it causes them harm that they don't deserve. they did not choose to be gay, just as most of you did not choose to be straight, you simply are straight. i know some gay people who wished nothing more than to be straight, they were agonized by coming to terms with being gay. this was not a choice.

another factor to consider about morality is that much of it is quite dynamic, continually evolving. for example, racism may have been adaptive at one point in ancient human history, because small groups and tribes were in steady competition for a limited supply of natural resources. the advent of modern technology has given us the ability to much better utilize our resources, and has thus eliminated the need for competition between ethnic groups. racism is now a maladaptive and primitive "moral" which is oppressive to many people's well-being.

the same holds true for outdated gender roles. for a long time in history, if the woman shirked her household duties, the family would absolutely collapse, and this could well have a negative impact on the whole community/village, who were heavily interdependent. this is no longer true in today's society, so this is another archaic and oppressive "moral".

perhaps you don't agree with me about any of this, but at least i've taken the time to think about it for myself and decide what is moral or not, instead of being handed a list of arbitrary rules (which i confess i used to abide by but became disillusioned with). my hope is that we will all do the same.

[cvillehog]

Another fact I would like to point out is, the entire constitutional gay marriage ban movement flies in the face of the traditional conservative dogma of states' rights.

[doroshjt]

It disgusts me that so many people voted against gay rights. It makes me sad that I live is a country that claims to be for freedom and the pursuit of happiness, but the homophobic beliefs of the christian right override this. The country is very divided, and bush's belief that he has a mandate from the people is laughable. The guy is a bigger idiot then I thought. There are two countries right now with very differnt beliefs, the northeast and the west coast being one and the middle america the other. Say good bye to our civil rights, a senator was elected that said gays and single unwed mothers shouldn't be teachers!!! People use to get thrown off the ballot for such stupidity, now they get elected.

[NikiH]

First of all cville Bush and his administration had to do something about the gay marriage thing. There were states who were having major conflict within certain states.

And doro are you kidding?? Bush was elected by the majority, I'm sorry if you don't like that but basically tough luck. As far as people being elected after stupid activity, Kerry got POW's tortured, and he was almost elected.

[REDEEMEDSKIN]

Another fact I would like to point out is, the entire constitutional gay marriage ban movement flies in the face of the traditional conservative dogma of states' rights.

I'm confused...did not the people of each state where the Marriage Protection Ammendment was on the ballot vote overwhelmnigly FOR it?? How were states rights violated? If it were up to the courts in each state to determine what's "good" for the population of their states, a lot of people, evidently, would be left out in the cold without having their votes count.

Plus, if I do recall, Oregon is on the West Coast, and the people voted in favor of the Marriage Protection Ammendment.

[cvillehog]

Another fact I would like to point out is, the entire constitutional gay marriage ban movement flies in the face of the traditional conservative dogma of states' rights.

I'm confused...did not the people of each state where the Marriage Protection Ammendment was on the ballot vote overwhelmnigly FOR it?? How were states rights violated? If it were up to the courts in each state to determine what's "good" for the population of their states, a lot of people, evidently, would be left out in the cold without having their votes count.

Plus, if I do recall, Oregon is on the West Coast, and the people voted in favor of the Marriage Protection Ammendment.

What part of "constitutional ban" did you not understand?

[JansenFan]

Actually, these states were voting to amend their state constitutions, so it doesn't violate states rights, only human rights.

[NikiH]

Cville don't attack Redeemed, constitutional is not a term reserved for federal rights. Each state has a constitution. So it could very well be that you were refering to the states indivual rights that were on the ballot on Tuesday.

[cvillehog]

You guys are spliting hairs here!

What did the president (and the GOP in their party platform) come out in support of: A BAN in the U.S. CONSTITUTION against same-sex marriage. This position is contradictory to the traditional party platform of states rights.