Today, the first state to offer its gay and lesbian residents civil unions has become the first to legalize gay and lesbian marriages through the legislative process. Massachusetts, Connecticut, Iowa and California legalized their gay and lesbian marriages through the court process. California's pro-gay marriage ruling was overturned by a constitutional amendments but efforts to overturn pro-gay rulings in Connecticut and Massachusetts ultimately failed.
Many gay marriage who oppose the union between one man and one man or one woman and one woman hide their anti-gay animus by objecting along procedural grounds. They accuse gay marriage proponents of circumventing the democratic process by pleading their case before some unelected justices. These decisions, many of them argue, should be made by their state legislators or by the public at large.
Ramesh Ponnuru a conservative who writes for The National Review, posted a threat on The Washington Post's discussion board denying the Iowa Supreme Court ruling's legitimacy but his argument doesn't apply where in Vermont, the democratically-elected legislature voted for gay marriage.
Those of us who support gay marriage were, shall we say, waiting to see how they would react now that Vermont's gay activists used the very method conservatives call for. Rod Dreher, though by no means supportive, at least acknowledged the vote's legitimacy. Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage, which opposes gay marriages, questioned the democratic validity of the legislative process altogether. He of course was neither challenged to nor offered willingly, a reason why some acts should be decided through the legislative process and while others should rest with the populace at large.
FRC President Tony Perkins went ballistic (yawn). He too apparently doesn't believe in our republican form of government (whereby legislators are elected to make decisions).