Legitimizing an illegitimate process

Evan Wolfson of Freedom to Marry calls on the Calif. Supremes to do the right thing. Are we to be subject to mob rule? He adds that he was puzzled by the court's implication that its hands were tied by the outcome of the Nov. vote when the major question before the court was whether mob rule -- rejection of rights -- ties the hands of the justices.

That brings out another interesting discussion. As I noted just a few days ago there are two petitions circulating to put forms of the question back on the ballot. But isn't it supposed to be illegitimate (and immoral) to put people's rights up for a vote? Why would we want to legitimize an illegitimate process by using it to get our rights back? Relying on the ballot box to win (or re-win) our rights perpetuates the idea that we live under mob rule and there is no such thing as unalienable rights.

That, of course, prompted some feedback:
* Too late. We should have debated that 30 states ago. The precedent is already established.

* That idea is correct. We face the prospect (at least in Calif.) of dueling or see-saw ballot initiatives until one side or the other gives up (or can't get enough signatures).

* But what's our alternative given the way most state constitutions can be amended? Perhaps we should have a ballot initiative to make the constitution harder to amend (after the ban is tossed out). The proposition system in Calif. has made the state ungovernable by putting impossible restrictions on the legislature.

* A mob rule response to mob rule will open the way for a more deliberative response.

* What we need is a revolt. The gay community's tolerance for governmental abuse and bullying is stupefying.

* The Calif. Supremes are looking at the bigger picture -- they endorse mob rule (and save their jobs by avoiding recall) and bump the whole thing up to a federal court. The 9th Circuit Court is pretty liberal.