Two thoughts keep rattling around in my little otterish brain as I contemplate the election... an election which was, in many ways, as historic as any we've yet had.

First thought: George W. Bush has finally created for himself that glorious legacy he's long bragged about. Few presidents have been so openly covetous of a 'legacy' as good ol' W. He's been talking it up pretty much since he took office, and especially since 9/11... he's a 'war president', he's a 'deciderer', he's a uniter, not a divider, etc etc. 'Fraid not, at least on those three counts. Let's face it, his tenure as a war commander has been defined largely by all the things his administration could have gotten right, but didn't (we're bogged down in Iraq, there were no WMDs to be found, we didn't get Bin Laden, al-Qaida is alive and well, we're in debt to the tune of hundreds of billions, we failed to stabilize the middle east... at this point it reads like an anti-greatest hits list).

As a 'deciderer', Bush Jr. has displayed time and again that he's perfectly comfortable making decisions, but much less so changing his mind, or being flexible, or knowing much about what he's 'decidering' on. And finally, as for being a uniter rather than a divider... well, sorry, but the aggravated partisanship that's come to define American politics more than speaks for itself. Not that I blame W. entirely, but really, he was always more than happy to draw a line in the sand when it seemed to suit him (memories of his "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude still linger long after it's become apparent that that kind of bull in a china shop approach doesn't really work too good. Freedom fries, anyone?)

No, Bush Jr.'s legacy (and I do hope he appreciates this) is simple: after eight years of running this country into the dirt, our nation rose up and elected a black Democrat to take his place. Kudos, Dubya... it's one for the history books.

The second thought I'm chewing on has to do with Prop. 8, that notorious little buggaboo having to do with making sure that gay folks don't start thinking they're as good as regular folks. By now most of the nation is familiar with at least the general stuff - Prop 8 essentially said, 'Marriage is for men and women only... homos need not apply, now or ever.' The rationale for this was considerably convoluted. If you live in California, you doubtless saw what seemed like hundreds of commercials demonstrating that keeping marriage away from queers had nothing whatsoever to do with discrimination, or with not liking gays, or anything like that. No, it was about protecting the children, that favorite chestnut of the moral majority. See, 'cause homosexual agents were going to invade schools and... you know... make your kids be gay (it's awfully hard to pray the gay away if your kids grow up with tolerance and acceptance in their hearts. For shame!) Also, it was about protecting churches, because the government would doubtless step in and firebomb your local church if they failed to promote the homosexualist agenda. Oh yeah, and straight people are more deserving of marriage because it's traditional.

The fallout of Prop. 8 has been as predictable as its passage... foes of it are pissed and heartbroken, while proponents are strutting around crowing about how society has finally put the last nail in the coffin of this whole 'gay' thing. Typical letters to the editor written by those goodly folks who voted 'yay' instead of 'nay' have been something along the lines of, "All you uppity homos need to stop whining and accept the fact that society definitively said that marriage just isn't for the likes of you. Get over it."

Prop. 8's proponents seem to be having a hell of a time understanding why gay people are upset that it passed. To them, it was a simple matter of a political issue being decided at the polls, no different than a sales tax increase or a measure to extend public transit. That's because many of them also cannot conceive of a gay couple being legitimately in love... in their minds, being queer is some kind of misguided lifestyle choice that could be easily undone if only the homos would come to their senses and start being straight like they should. Read between the lines of all the commercials and rhetoric, and you come away with a pretty clear sense of what Prop. 8 was truly a referendum on: Are you comfortable with 'the gays', or are you not?

Here's the thing to consider, though. Sure, Prop. 8 passed... by a fairly narrow margin. Compared to Prop. 22 (same idea), which passed in 2000 by 60-some percent of the vote, Prop. 8 won by only about 52 percent. In eight years, the 'moral majority' has lost quite a bit of its punch. If folks think that the issue has at long last been put to rest, well, they're in for as much of a disappointment as gay couples were the day after the election. Just as surely as you can't legislate homosexuality into societal oblivion, neither can you legislate intolerance so easily into the state's constitution. It'll go to the courts, of course, where 'activist judges' will doubtless chew it over and either overturn it, or at the very least leave it de-fanged... and the homophobes can go on feeling sorry for themselves, as though they're the victims.

Some things do change, though, sometimes slowly (Prop. 8) and sometimes in a burst of lightning (Obama) - but they do change. And considering the last eight years, that's not a bad thing.