“Whoa! Wait a second! FMA collapses because of lack of REPUBLICAN support, and you label the Republican Party as exclusionary? Yes, some in the party supported it because of a heartfelt conviction that it was the right thing to do. The FMA went to honest debate within the party, and guess what? It lost. Seems to me the Republican Party is not the scary, neo-fascist entity you make it out to be. I consider myself to be pretty conservative, and a “right wing” Christian – one of your favorite whipping boys – but I did not support FMA on grounds of Federalism, and because, quite frankly, I thought it unnecessarily hostile. That being said, however, there is room for reasonable debate, and the only place where that debate could take place is the non-monolithic Republican Party. And as far as the consequences for W: Conservative Christians are not going to abandon him since, after all, he supported the amendment. He has maintained his good will with them. And I suspect that most of us out here following the debate have the intellectual integrity to understand that the point is debatable. The debate having been joined, it appears that your side won. So lighten up. Now that the light has faded from this sideshow, let’s get back to where this election should be fought – who will best prosecute the war on terror. Hint: It ain’t John Kerry.” – more feedback on the Letters Page.