For news and political junkies – even recovering ones like myself – this time of year can get pretty exciting.

No, it’s not the ramping up of next year’s presidential race – which is already shaping up to take a run at “The Amazing Race” for next year’s reality-show Emmy – or even time running out on the state Legislature still-budgetless special session.

In the next few weeks, we should get the remainder of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decisions for this term and whether we agree with them, this is where the rubber meets the road. This is where the real Deciders (sorry President Bush) get to weigh in.

Coming up in the next week or so will be many decisions, but the high-profile ones we are all still waiting on include decision on the Affordable Care Act (“Obamacare”), a weird case about making threats-that-might-be-rap-lyrics-but-seem-more-like-straight-threats toward an ex on Facebook and a case about whether homosexuals have the same right to marry as straight couples.

A few weeks back, our question of the week was “Should the U.S. Supreme Court allow gay marriage?” I have to admit, I was a little surprised to see that 52 percent of respondents to the poll said “no.”

Our polls, of course, are in no way scientific and should not be used as a gauge of the community as a whole, since we have no way of knowing what the sample of respondents looks like. But it still surprised me a bit.

We asked because of this term’s Supreme Court case, but as I typed the question into our website a few days after the print edition went to press, I realized we actually asked it wrong and the answers we received may have been influenced by the way we asked.

What we should have asked was not “should they allow” but “Should the U.S. Supreme Court allow state governments to outlaw gay marriage?”

Because the simple fact is that if it is not expressly illegal, then it’s legal in America. (Remember a few years back when there was that bestiality incident in Enumclaw, but since there was no law against it at the time, no one could be prosecuted?) So the Supreme Court does not have to “allow” gay marriage but decide if it will “allow” governments to prevent it.

And asking “should the government be allowed to prevent” is going to get you different answers, especially from folks on the right.

Personally, I have never understood conservative opposition to allowing gays to marry. First, who cares? Why is it your business? Or the government’s?

It’s always been my understanding that conservatives want a small, unobtrusive government that does not affect the personal liberties of individuals. And there is no way you can be for that and against allowing someone the liberty to live their life as they please.

Besides – and this is always my key argument – marriage, in the eyes of the government, is simply a contract that must be enforced. Marriage is a matter of contract law. Period.

Sure, there are religious overtones and marriages factor in very heavily to many religions and their beliefs; but to the government it is simply a contract.

I know that first-hand as I have signed the document as an officiant, a witness (best man) and as a spouse. It is a legal document that must be filed with the county. Because it is an enforceable contract and that is it.

And if you disagree, I encourage you to try and get OUT of a marriage with just your religious leaders and not a lawyer…

(And for the record if anyone else’s marriage – gay or straight – is a threat to your marriage or your beliefs or your religion, you are probably doing it wrong.)

The case in front of the Court this term will decide just this very question: Can states can prevent homosexuals from marrying? In other words, is there a Constitutional right for gays to marry?

I say if not a “constitutional right,” it sure seems something the government should be out of. What does it matter who signs what contracts? Let any two legal adults sign whatever contracts they see fit. The government’s job is not to judge the contract but to enforce it.

So while I am pretty sure I know exactly how this SHOULD go, the real question for me is how will it go? And I know that Justice Kennedy is considered the “swing vote” on this one, but to me, the most interesting opinion will (as always) be Justice Antonin Scalia’s.

Scalia is a self-proclaimed “originalist” and a conservative. But he is also a Republican, which is a completely different thing.

And while “conservatives” shouldn’t care what someone else does with their life, Republicans tend to care a lot. So I look forward to seeing the knots that Justice Scalia ties himself in trying to be both in this case.

Hopefully, the Court will come down on the side of liberty for all, but I suppose we’ll see.

And in the future, I will try to be a little more careful in exactly how we ask certain questions, either during interviews or simply in polls.