Where the Supreme Court of the state ruled constitutional

Where the Supreme Court of the state ruled constitutional the joining in matrimony any two adults who consent, whether it is man/man, woman/woman or man/woman, the conservative bigots in the state have found issue with and drafted legislation to ban such marriages that are other than man/woman.

This issue is not one of 'majority' decision and should not lie in the hands of the voters. This is an example of the explicit reasoning considered when drafting state and federal constitutions, that the "inalienable" rights of the few will not be trampled upon by the many. There is nothing inherently 'wrong' with gay marriage and the sole opposition appears to lie in an uncomfortable bigotry against 'gayness', whether it be from religious doctrine or another learned prejudice. A secular state government cannot endorse the former and should fight against the latter.

Because same sex relationships are not a particular individual's preference, does not mean we should be allowed to force that preference upon others. The divisive, bigoted and hateful speech from those who support such measures to limit the freedom of choice regarding a spouse, hearkens back to a time when similar measures were proposed for interracial marriage.

So, when brought into the light and examined for its merits, the ballot measure to ban gay marriage is an example of an effort to impede the rights of the few with the will of the many, and constitutionally... that is just wrong!