I am a democrat. However, the past few years the government has succeeded in taking some of our constitutional rights away from us; freedom of speech, religion, and full faith and credit have all become the targets of the political establishment in the past few years.

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) set a dangerous precedent in the restriction of freedom of speech. Although the goal of the CDA was to prevent children from coming across pornography on the internet, the definitions that the act established would have also prevented the free exchange of ideas, news stories on abortion, sexuality, teen pregnancy, birth control, and AIDS which were acceptable in traditional journalistic mediums would have been illegal on the internet. Works of art which grace many museums would have also been able to fall under the act, due to the vague nature of the definitions. While the CDA was passed, and signed into law, it was defeated by a federal judge, whom had the common sense to realize that there were plenty of ways for objectionable content from falling into the hands of those who choose not to view it. Software exists which filters out material which is deemed inappropriate for specific audiences.

The Defense of Marriages Act (DoMA) set two dangerous precedents, in the restriction of freedom of religion, and full faith and credit. DoMA established that a marriage is the union of a man and a woman in order to evade the constitutions guarantee that a right given in one state must be honored in another state. This is a pro-active strike against a possible Hawaii decision to allow same-sex marriages.
Here is the exact digest as introduced in H.R. 3396 A bill to define and protect the institution of marriage Defense of Marriage Act

Amends the Federal judicial code to provide that no State, territory, or possession of the United States or Indian tribe shall be required to give effect to any marriage between persons of the same sex under the laws of any other such jurisdiction or to any right or claim arising from such relationship.

Establishes a Federal definition of: (1) "marriage" as only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife; and (2) "spouse" as only a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or wife.

Library of Congress

While the full faith and credit violation is obvious, the freedom of religion violation is more obscure. By defining the term of marriage, the government is preventing those of religions other than fundimentalist christian beliefs from the freedom to practice their religion as they seem fit.

What is truly amazing is that the same administration which passed this law into the books, also is trying to pass the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), which bars the discrimination against, lesbian, gays, and bisexuals based on their sexual orientation.
In a speech to the Human Rights Campaign, an organization which actively promotes equal rights for lesbian, gays, and bisexuals, President Clinton spoke about how no one who is able to work, should be denied the opportunity to work based solely on their sexual orientation.
However it is no other than President Clinton who signed DoMA into law. Of course the government sees no connection between the discriminate denial of work based on sexual orientation, and the denial of marriage rights based on sexual orientation.

I believe that the declaration of Independence's guarantees of life liberty, and persuit of happiness, guarantees that all American's are entitled to determine the quality of life which they should live, without the government intruding into the decision of a person, made with discussions with their physician. If medicine offers no chance of improvements in their quality of life, why should the government force someone to remain alive.

However, the above also applies to the issue of abortion. One should have the ability to do with their own bodies as they wish without the government attempting to force them to do their will. Abortions for cases of rape, incest, medical necessity, and other quality of life reasons, is an essential freedom which can not be denied. Until the fetus is sufficient for life outside of the mother, it is the mother's legal right to decide what is in her best interests.

The Election of 2000 debacle, and the illegitimate presidency which resulted from it, is a prime example of a political supreme court, ruling based on their own partisan political goals, instead of based on the constitution.  The supreme court ruling made one very critical error, the election code which creates the unequal protection is not the state election statutes of Florida, but the federal election statute.  In order to ensure equal protection, there needs to be a federal election code, which requires all precincts in all states to utilize the exact same equipment, in the exact same manner.  The country can never be certain of  the legitimacy of the presidency unless the election for the president is determined beyond a reasonable doubt, and in the case of a statistical dead heat, where there is any one accounting method which will result in a different result, a run-off election, and not a recount is necessary.