I read that story, but the judge seemed to be more of an anal-retentive rules stickler than anything else. They phrased the law wrong, according to their own laws, combining two subjects into one, depriving the voters of the ability to vote yes for one thing and no for the other thing. The judge merely prevented the voters from being deprived of that right, as he should have done according to the law, and as the voters should expect him to do.

As for the issue itself, well, since I will never be involved in a gay marriage, I don't really see it as my business, but I'd probably vote to allow gay marriages. I mean, if gays get married, it isn't going to do me any harm, and if it makes 'em happy, that's cool with me.