Likewise with the states, the Supreme Court of California recognized the right of the people to amend their constitution, because that is a right reserved to the people in their constitution, not a right granted by the government or the courts.

Do you seriously maintain that the people of the states do not have the power to amend their constitutions? Yet the No on 8 forces, desperate to suppress democracy, argued just that in trying to keep Proposition 8 off the ballot. The San Francisco-based, pro-gay marriage California Supreme Court held that the people could indeed amendment own constitution. To declare otherwise would violate rights reserved to the people and clearly spelled out in their constitution.

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Whenever a government deliberately repudiates that principle, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, as stated in the Declaration of Independence. My forefathers sacrificed to bring forth and maintain this country on such principles, against all opposition, foreign or domestic. I will not surrender those sacred rights to anyone, nor let them go without a war in which I would pledge my life, my fortune, and my honor.

The constitution states that powers not explicitly given to the federal government are reserved to the states or to the people.

NOM has not, to my knowledge, ever called for a direct national vote on marriage. It has called for state referenda, which most states allow, and properly so. That is a distinction you are willfully ignoring. Moreover, the calls for referenda are usually in the context of the people exercising a check on an otherwise unrestrained and unchecked judiciary.

Federal amendments can be proposed the by democratically elected congress or by democratically elected state legislatures and ratified by states, which could be by direct state votes of the state so chooses.

It is simply unwise, unjust, tyrannical, and dictatorial to find ways to permanently thwart or bypass the will of the people. The left used to shout “power to the people.” Progressives used to champion initial, referendum, and recall to check the power of well-financed special interests. Both the left and the right traditionally encouraged democracy overseas. We fought World War I to “make the world safe for democracy.” But the left no longer believes in democracy for, say, Iowa.

Meanwhile Publius is glossing over the fact that the Bill of Rights was never subjected to a popular vote. It was ratified by elected representatives, in Congress and in the state legislatures. This is true of all amendments to the U.S. Constitution, which is why it's amusing to see NOM always crying "let the people vote" while at the same time supporting a "federal marriage amendment" to write a ban on same-sex marriage into the Constitution.

Democracy is the surest bulwark we have against tyranny. No country with a dictatorship has or tolerates democracy, but virtually every dictatorship has courts. Many a dictatorship calls itself a “democratic republic,” but real democracies can govern justly only with the consent of the sovereign people. The will of the people may be tempered by constitutional balances and requirements of due deliberation to prevent mob rule, but it should never be discounted or disparaged. Here the people rule. (See http://www.amazon.com/Here-People-Rule-Constitutional-Manifesto/dp/0735102562)

A republican form of government is not incompatible with the initiative, referendum, and recall provisions that are in many state constitutions, provisions that became popular during the progressive era. Are you really saying these provisions are unconstitutional? Seriously?

No government that I am aware of ever threatened Starbucks. Some in the gay lobby did cheer on the dubious government efforts of the cities of Chicago, New York, and Boston to block Chick-fil-A franchises.

In any event, I don't represent the NOM, and I am happy to see every consumer make their own choices.

"What is inconsistent is for NOM to call for a boycott of Starcucks and General Mills for taking a position on SSM that it doesn't like (on the grounds that corporations shouldn't be involved in social issues) and then to laud Chick-fil-A for taking a position on SSM that it does like."

Everyone is free to voice their opinion and to patronize or not patronize businesses they like or don’t like. That is free speech and free enterprise. It was when city officials in Boston and Chicago indicated they would block Chick-fil-A franchises from opening in that a red line was crossed. No city official threatened Starbucks at the behest of the NOM. That is the big difference that you are willfully ignoring.

Sorry; I forgot that free-speech rights only apply to those opposed to SSM . . .