Saturday was a brisk, cold day around most of the United States. As the meeting of O.U.T.R.A.G.E. rebels convened, the glare of the LED sign filled the TV screens in airports, restaurants, gymnasiums, and myraid other sites across the nation. Results of yesterday's vote were overwhelming:

ARTICLE XX. RESOLUTION: LEGALIZE DRUGS
TOTAL NUMBER OF VOTES CAST: 1,688,456
NUMBER OF "YEA" VOTES: 1,561,821
NUMBER OF "NAY" VOTES: 126,635

Clearly, the issues being introduced as non-binding resolutions were important to the American people, more important than most U.S. senators and representatives might have realized, only because they never addressed these topics with any clarity or seriousness. Their levity over such issues important to the voters were overshadowed by subjects brought forward only as a result of powerful lobbying efforts, generous campaign contributions, or political expediency to help solidify a selected voter base. Emotional issues, such as abortion and flag-burning, were all-too-often the only ones carted out before the people in a MilqueToast effort to give the impression that the thoughts of the electorate were of any value to politicians.

Approaching the main camera with obvious hesitancy, two women named Charlotte and Charlene announced that they wished to introduce today's resolution. "We believe the federal government has no right to tell any citizen what they can or cannot do in their private lives, as long as there is no threat to public safety and such acts are committed between consenting adults capable of making rational personal decisions." With that brief statement, the resolution was introduced.

ARTICLE XXI. RESOLUTION: FREEDOM OF CONSENT

"The United States Constitution specifically outlawed the establishment of a state religion. That was why many 'Brits' left their homeland in the first place; they did not want to be forced to worship as members of the Church of England. While it is understood that government must have a role in maintaining moral order among the populace, we do not believe the government has any right to dictate morality because of the influence of so-called 'moral majority'. This is a difficult line to walk, yet our government has crossed the line at times, and this resolution provides for a temperament of federal authority.
Before being submitted as a formal piece of legislation to be voted into law by the constituency of the country, this resolution will require extensive modification by a panel of 'common' citizens. This, therefore, is considered only as a 'rough draft' and we respectfully ask that you view it as such. Vote only for the concept at this time.

The United States government shall have no authority to ban - or endorse - activities predicated on sexual preference;
Gay or 'same-sex' marriage must not be anything in which the federal government concerns itself;
There shall be no tax penalties or legal restrictions imposed upon those whose lifestyles may be considered 'unconventional';

Today's tax codes penalize certain groups of people; in some cases, even legally married couples are penalized for what the majority of our population considers "conventional" lifestyles. The military imposes a 'don't ask, don't tell' policy on soldiers, yet it is common knowledge that there is still a bias that often results in unfair advantage or selective persecution at times.
Gay couples have different legal rights when it comes to adoption and/or child custodies. The United States has effectively - for the most part - diminished the impact of inter-racial marriages and the co-habitation of unmarried couples. But the 'gay marriage' issue remains as an issue that seems to distress the Christian right-wing, and has been a focus of the Bush administration for several years. Frankly, we believe the government has nothing in this but its nose....and it should keep its nose out of this business. The Bush administration has tried to make this a Constitutional amendment, if for no other reason than to pacify its Christian political base. This is a matter in which the U.S. government should have to authority. If individual states wish to address such issues in their Constitutions, that's the prerogative of each state's voting public. But there is no room for such discrimanatory legislation within the federal government. We ask for your vote. Thank you."

For the first time, there was a sense that a resolution had not been given much thought before being presented for a vote.

It was a very brief telecast. The camera focused on the familiar two-line message, then went dark. The next meeting would be scheduled for 4;55 P.M. EST on Sunday, February 17, 2008.