So I went reading through the "civil" war articles and I found myself thinking - for some of those so called differences - "and you think that's a bad thing?"

What's really interesting to me is that it goes back to something my political science teacher said a long time ago. That the point of politics was all about maintaining the balance so that neither the right nor the left could form a tyranny - because - bottom line - they both would if they could. They both want to rule, but neither can, nor should they rule. They should only be guides to the broader path of centrist, daily living.

So, while the right is crowing about being "in charge," that doesn't mean that they are *right* about everything.

For instance, marriage has often had various permutations and to represent it as being only between a man and a woman for thousands of years is misleading and not historically accurate - heck, it's not even currently accurate. So, in this case, it is the "left," who is definitely right. It's not about judges deciding, however. It's about the most human freedom vs the most governmental security.

Again, the balance thing.

I tend to weigh in with the thought that we need the most human freedom possible, with the minimal of security. However, when a whole country is threatened, we need to boost security to a level that will break the chain of whatever is threatening it. Not because the government deserves protecting, but because the governed deserve protecting.

We should not ever, if we can avoid it, be over ruled - over lawed - forced into the molds that only automatons can fill. If law always comes before the person, then it is not justice. Man, after all, was not made for the law. The law was made for man. And if it ceases to serve it must be changed or discarded.

Thus the overturning of the rule in Texas about sodomy. Now folks on the right can hate that all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that it was the correct thing to do.

Balance.

It's not easily gained, but it is worth the effort.