A big concern about the outcome of the U.S. Presidential election is that many voters stated that their number one issue was "moral values." I ask, whose morality do they want to impose on us? I always thought that "moral values" were a private matter of conscience, yet the rhetoric of the last few election cycles suggests a serious blurring of the line separating the roles of church and state.
Either way, a Kerry win would have been a big disappointment for kinksters expecting greater tolerance. ... He opposes gay marriage, grudgingly tolerates civil unions, and recently took that infamous shot at social gambling and sexual services, equating both with international terrorism.
Kerry wouldn't have worked very hard to protect non-mainstream lifestyles, according to this verbatim excerpt from
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/09/30/us_election_and_it/ :
"Kerry has voted to ban Internet gambling, and voted in favor of mandatory Internet filtering in schools and libraries.
"He voted for the Communications Decency Act, which the US Supreme Court later ruled unconstitutional. He later supported legislation to exempt from the Internet tax moratorium any online business that offers content deemed 'harmful to minors,' so that they might be targeted with punitive tax audits. This amendment later merged with House legislation to morph into the Child's Online Protection Act (COPA), which the US Supreme Court has since ruled unconstitutional.
"So Kerry has positioned himself as an opponent of free expression and online fun. He clearly has a prudish streak, although it pales in comparison with Bush Administration fanaticism."
