About 50 years ago, trash talk became an acceptable way to compete in both American sports and politics. Muhammad Ali introduced it during his boxing career, and Lyndon Johnson used a potent version in television ads to imply that his presidential opponent, Barry Goldwater, was so unstable that he would start a nuclear war. Today, political attack machines aren't limited to individual challengers; they have become well-financed and orchestrated campaigns to assault all opposing views.

For example, recognizing that state legislators are politicians and judges aren't, opponents to at least two emotionally charged issues — legal gay partnerships and abortion — are moving their culture war from the national judicial battlefield to a state legislative one.

Local and state government officials are more intimately accountable to their constituents than their brothers and sisters in Washington. If residents want to express themselves to state legislators, mayors, city and county commissioners or even public works employees, they usually are close enough to apply direct pressure.

The issue of legally joining gay men or women currently is working its way through the states. Voters in several states came out during the last national election to set the record straight: no gay marriages here. Other states have produced more tolerant legislation, including Hawaii, which passed a reciprocal benefits law, and Vermont, which allows civil unions.

Because the Supreme Court ruled on abortion and prayer in schools, arguing that these are states rights issues isn't enough to turn back the clock. So the trashing of America's legal system has begun. When you don't like the way judges rule, intimidate or impeach them. Don't like it when the minority disagrees with your selection of judges? Take away the minority's ability to filibuster so that the majority can steamroll every appointment, including U.S. Supreme Court justices who can, for example, overturn Roe vs. Wade.

Decisions about abortion, like gay marriages, will be thrown to the states, which opponents argue is proper because the decisions that are made there represent the popular will. Remember, justices aren't elected, represent no one and are not accountable for their actions.

Opponents are partially correct on the last point. The very reason why judges are not accountable to anyone, including lobbyists and pressure groups, is to balance the more political executive and legislative branches. Judges are accountable to the Constitution and to the judicial system, which by the way, has its own set of checks and balances, called the appellate system. Even Supreme Court decisions are subject to challenge as new cases are introduced to the court.

It is ironic that as our government works zealously toward policies of exclusion at home, it is pushing governments abroad to embrace policies of inclusion. Maybe if our global neighbors get it right, they could return the favor and spread a little democracy over here.