1. California's legislature passed legislation that would have opened marriage up to same-sex couples. Twice. And who chose those legislators? That's right, California voters -- i.e., the people.

   But the Republican governor didn't like the people's decision, so he vetoed it. And if anyone actually looks like an overlord, it's him.

2. A new Field Poll out today shows that the Californian citizens favor same-sex marriage by a simple majority (h/t Devilstower):

   For the first time ever, a statewide survey reports a majority of California voters favor gay marriage - a finding that pollsters describe as a milestone driven by younger people.

   The Field Poll result, released today, shows the highest level of support in more than three decades of polling Californians on the hot-button issue of same-sex marriage laws. The poll found 51 percent of registered voters favor the idea of allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed, while 42 percent disapprove.

   51-42? That's better than the spread GWB won by in 2004, and much better than the spread he lost by in 2000.

   Oh, and Poblano's calculations show that Field Poll has been the 6th most accurate polling outfit of the 32 he's followed this season. Don't mess with Field Poll.

3. Those judges are part of a liberal over-reach conspiracy? Well, apparently it's Republicans who are over-reaching to let the gays and dogs and box turtles marry:

   Since 6 of the 7 Justices are Republicans, appointed by Republican governors--including 3 of the 4 in the majority, this is either ignorant or just demagoguery. What is the partisan agenda of the Republican Chief Justice Ronal George who wrote the court's decision and who was appointed by Republican Pete Wilson? Or that of Kathryn Werdegar, another registered Republican, also appointed by Wilson? Or that Republican Justice Joyce Kennard, appointed by that Republican Governor George Deukmejian?

4. The Court didn't just type away, they interpreted the Constitution, which bans discrimination and which has long been interpreted as including a fundamental right to marry. The Constitution is law that was approved by the people, wasn't it? And if they didn't want a fundamental right to marry or a ban on discrimination, then why didn't the people of California lead a drive to amend their constitution?

It doesn't matter, though, since democracy arguments are usually empty. It's "Let the people vote!" if someone thinks that they can win in that venue, but it's "Don't let people vote!" if they think they can't.

Consider this from the same article:

The fact is, the California Supreme Court has indulged here in the purest form of judicial activism -- operating not from a desire to interpret the law as written, but to force the result it wanted from the beginning, regardless of whether it was correct (or whether it violated the will of the people).

So which standard should be used, Ms. Hagelin? The will of the people? The law as written?

Who gets to interpret the law as written? How do we know what the will of the people is? The specifics within each of those questions are huge, let alone deciding which one to follow, and the best answer to each question falls on the side of allowing same-sex marriage.

Not that it matters, since the Court's decisions aren't supposed to be about the "will of the people." That's why they don't hand out little voting remote controls to the gallery before they make a decision. And the Court already interpreted the law. So it seems like Hagelin's favored democratic process is "Whichever questions, interpretations, or rules give me the answer I want."