I don't understand why homosexuals prefer getting married during election years.

In 2004, more gay people rushed to their nuptials, forcing politicians in that year's race to discuss the issue. Now they're doing it again, with the general election just a few months away.

More illegal immigrants seem to be coming from Mexico, too, giving politicians another hot topic to talk about.

The worst is when gay illegals come into the U.S. to get married and sing the National Anthem, not only in Spanish but also in some weird Broadway style.

If I cared enough to learn the Mexican anthem, I wouldn't sing it in American because I choose to respect other cultures.

Gay marriages and illegal immigrants weren't problems just a few years ago. I know this because election years allow us to gauge pressing issues. The country's biggest quandaries, for some reason, tend to surface during even-numbered years.

In 1992, 1996 and 2000, for instance, people were killing people, although guns were not killing people. It's not all bad news, though. By 2004, global warming had gone away. It was a hoax, it turns out. I'm not certain who is responsible for the trick, but I blame the Russians and Al Gore.

Now that we don't have to worry about "greenhouse emissions" -- I find the term amusing now -- we must find more oil to burn, another issue of great importance facing voters this year.

Most of the world's oil, apparently, is in the Canadian province of Alaska -- more specifically under a place called ANWR. Few illegal Canadians attempt to enter the U.S. because they have all that oil. If we can capture Iraq's oil, I don't see why we can't do the same with Canada's.

This also is the year of school prayer. In a campaign commercial, Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., informs us children should be voluntarily praying in school and learning the power of prayer.

Before seeing the television spot, I was ignorant, linking education system flaws to kids not being able to perform simple math or understand the difference between Vietnam and the Civil War. Now I understand these kids should be saying prayers, even if their prayers aren't grammatically correct. Grammar and "good test scores," after all, might get you into college, but they won't get you into Heaven.

Meanwhile, Byrd's Republican challenger, John Raese, used print ads to bear arms. What are we to think of Raese holding a gun? Have guns started killing people, or are people still killing people? And if the latter is true, is John Raese killing people? And if so, is he using that gun to kill people? It's a "chicken and egg" kind of thing.

I used to agree with Republicans and the National Rifle Association about the safety of assault weapons and killing machines, but I began having doubts last year when Vice President Dick Cheney shot his friend's face after mistaking it for a quail. What, I wondered, might Raese mistake for a quail? My family, perhaps?

I usually don't like thinking too much about "policies" and "issues" during election years, but I decided to look up the Constitution on Google to find out more about my right to bear arms and what Raese might be planning with that gun.

After a lot of mumbo jumbo that reminded me of the "beget" section in the Bible, I finally got to the Bill of Rights. I read the First Amendment, which made me feel OK about this column, then continued on to the Second Amendment, which I'm told should apply to any sort of weapon even though the authors were acquainted only with guns that required, like, four hours to load.

And being a disciple of Supreme Court Justice Antoine Scalia, I don't buy into the "living Constitution" concept, which would allow for changes to the Constitution as our country evolves. One might point out many of the Constitution's authors believed the document would change with time, but I would point out many of those same forefathers would hate what the U.S. government has become -- so can we really trust them?

Anywho, I decided to dismiss about a quarter of the Second Amendment and concluded John Raese and I have the right to bear just about any weapons we want.

So, dear reader, you might presume I'm voting for Raese. But wait! My intellectual reasoning didn't end there.

If I were to avoid "interpretation," "relativity" and "cerebral reasoning" -- activities associated with the living Constitution concept -- I would dismiss separation of church and state. That line of thinking seems to jive with Byrd's commercial. It also is why I feel we should tax churches, creating a source of money with which we could build a wall along the Mexican border, build a wall around Vermont and invade Alaska for its precious, black gold.

Before any of that happens, though, I have a choice to make -- Byrd or Raese? Prayers or guns? "Praise the Lord" or "Pass the Ammunition?"

When I go to the voting booth Nov. 10 -- presuming someone from Mingo County doesn't offer to buy my vote -- I'm going to ask myself, "Would I rather pray with Byrd or hunt with Raese?"

I'm sorry, Mr. Raese, but I think you know the answer ... unless we're hunting illegals.

Danny Forinash is a copy editor and writer for The State Journal. His e-mail address is dforinash@statejournal.com.