Gay marriage opponents get their signatures in: good.

Look, I'm not a fan of gay marriage, or multiple marriage, or sibling marriage or animal marriage or any kind of marriage except for the one that matters.

My perspective isn't emotional or religious; the gay marriage fans' position is typical of the fringe-liberal mind set where they go by how they "feel" instead of reality.

For example, there are multiple definitions to the terms "liberal" and "conservative."

A liberal looks at a problem (even when it's not a problem) sighs, and exclaims, "we have to fix that!"

A conservative looks at the problem, decides if, in fact, it IS a problem, and asks "How are we going to pay to fix that?"

The increase in liberal sway plays a large part in why we have the debt problem we have.  It's not unlike a teenager with her mom's credit card; not a thought about how the debt gets paid; just an innate ability to spend mom into bankruptcy.

Same with gay marriage specifically and so-called "gay rights" generally.

We find out today that those, like me, opposed to gay marriage have submitted enough signatures to get the question on the ballot... where it should have been put in the first place.

I say that for two reasons: the left has no problem engaging in the tyranny of the majority when it suits them and, ultimately, I don't believe they have a legal claim of discrimination.

No, we don't allow the same gender to marry.

We also don't allow siblings or multiple people or adults and children to marry.

We also don't allow 14 year olds to drive, or to vote.  We don't allow women to be drafted, or even to register for the draft.

We don't allow fat people, overly skinny people, short people, too tall people, amputees, single parents with children, people with too bad a case of acne or a large number of other qualification issues to enlist in the military

That's just the way it is.

Gays in the military, gay marriage... those are NOT civil rights issues: they are, instead, political issues where these people are useful tools for the so-called "progressive" coat holders to get their way while they keep their respective skirts clean.

The fact is, boiled down to it's essence, that we do not discriminate in the question of marriage.

As a male, I cannot marry another male.  As a gay male, you cannot marry another male.

It's absolutely an even playing field.

I can marry someone of the opposite gender; gays can marry someone of the opposite gender.

Where it would be discriminatory is if I were allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender and gays were NOT allowed to marry someone of the opposite gender.

That they don't WANT to marry someone of the opposite gender is meaningless and irrelevant.

The result: while it may be something, whatever that something is does not equate to discrimination or violation of a non-existent civil right.

"Civil rights," you see, are not "civil rights" merely because we say they are, or they're not.

My right to free speech is enumerated, thus that right cannot be taken away from me.

There is no such right to gay marriage enumerated.

But then, everyone knows that... right?

Will the ban remain in effect?

Hard to say.  But I will be voting to keep it there.

The fringe nutter's auto response (That I'm a bigot, or ignorant, or a bible-thumper or any of that crap) makes no difference and, of course, has no merit.

I'm sticking to my understanding of the law.  The rest of it, as I pointed out, is irrelevant.  Is it fair?  Maybe not.  But much of the law is unfair.  And the question of "fairness" in gay marriage holds no more sway over me than it does in, say, child support laws.

So, I look forward to leftist dollars being diverted from the democrats to this issue, no matter how it turns out.

The upside is that one dollar spent by these people on this is going to be one dollar they can't spend protecting democrat seats.

Shades of Wisconsin.