I can't wait for the yard signs

Well, kids, now that the second session of the Wisconsin Legislature has passed the "traditional marriage amendment," it now goes to a voter referendum on the November ballot.

So mark the date and turn out to keep those gays from marrying–we wouldn't want our fine state going down the same path as Massachusetts, which plunged into eternal hellfire when it legalized gay marriage several years ago. Remember, there was all that wailing and gnashing of teeth?

Sorry to disappoint activists on either side, but this amendment is neither about upholding values nor writing discrimination, bigotry and hatred into the constitution–those considerations are mobilizing accessories to the underlying and much more mundane political maneuvering. Besides, the discrimination is already codified in state law.

Mike Prentiss, spokesman for the pillar of honesty that is state Sen. Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau (whose brother and fellow legislator Rep. Jeff, R-Beaver Dam, certainly never stiffed my poor single mother out of a bill for an illustration she did of one of their family's fine estates–he must have just mistaken it for a campaign contribution or a gift for being such a swell guy), told the Daily Cardinal:

"When this idea came forward it was not designed first and foremost to affect the 2006 race for governor," Prentiss said. "It was designed to put in place, in the constitution, protection of the definition of marriage that Wisconsin voters want and has been on the books statutorily in Wisconsin for years."

So, it's designed to reiterate existing laws, meaning it pretty much serves no practical purpose. (Lawmakers are saying it won't impact domestic partner benefits, either, though others disagree.) But its inclusion on the November ballot–which also just happens to offer a chance to oust Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle, whose veto pen is about the only thing thwarting one-party rule at state level–also isn't a political move. Right.

Its proponents are basically admitting this proposed amendment has no substance. Therefore, rational voters who are not socially conservative ideologues who actually give a crap about enshrining "traditional marriage values" into the constitution have no policy-oriented reason to show up and vote for it.

Instead, in the true spirit of democracy, they will have to show up to make a socially liberal statement, feel good about themselves (or maintain being able to live with themselves) and cancel out the corresponding gubernatorial votes of the morons who want to turn our blue state red.

Seriously, when can we move to rule by enlightened philosopher kings?