This is yet another classic example of why judicial activism, the beloved liberal method of supposedly fast tracking social justice, is a terrible, counterproductive practice. I have no doubt that in the absence of court efforts to legalize gay marriage it would have been legalized (in California) within a few years. It's both a liberal and libertarian state, and younger people particularly tend to support gay marriage.
Instead, it was forced on California (repeatedly) and now it is becoming a polarizing issue. The gay activists waving disgusting signs like "Sharon Tate isn't the only one to have her last meal at El Coyote" (it actually was "Sharron [sic] Tate won't be the only one to have their [sic] last meal at El Coyote") not only don't help their cause, but seriously damage it.
I opposed Prop 8, but was confident that it would be reversed in another election or two. Now I'm not so sure.
(To be clear for Joel, I'm not suggesting that these activists have their free speech rights taken away. I'm saying that if they really want to help their cause, they should shut the hell up.)

• Your reference to Obama's win is nonsensical and illogical. ("Gosh, I was denied my rights, but a Democrat was elected president. Nevermind.")

My point here, Joel, is to wonder how angry these people might be if Obama lost, too. I'd say even angrier. It was not a main point.

• If Marjorie Christoffersen has become fearful, I am sorry for that. But her donation in support of Prop 8 was not a private act (like, say, a vote) but a public act -- speech, I believe is what you conservatives call it -- in support of Prop 8.

If? I think this is a safe assumption, based on the account of a gay marriage supporter's blog. I am also intrigued by your definition of "public act." Yes, when you donate to a political cause, that political cause is required to put your name on a federal register. Many people who donate to causes like Prop. 8 are not aware of this wrinkle in federal campaign finance law. In the clips above, it was clear that Ms. Christoffersen didn't think her donation would become public record. Now she's learned — the hard way.

But is donating a lousy C-note to Prop. 8 really an overtly public act — like, say, actually speaking out in public or writing about your views on a blog? I think not.

• It seems that part of what's frustrating you here, Z, is that the anti-Prop 8 protesters won't just accept their loss at the polls and shut the hell up. You suggest that's what conservatives would do if they'd lost. I disagree.

No, my assumption is not that conservatives would just shut the hell up if they lost. I'm suggesting that they wouldn't do the equivalent of what is happening now — protesting in front of gay clubs and hangouts, disrupting gay marriage ceremonies, hectoring and harassing gays on the street, etc. If it did happen, the backlash against those conservatives would be massive and come from all sides, including me. Indeed, if it did happen, the people doing it would be charged with hate crimes.

If a referendum was held in California saying you couldn't own guns or criticize President Obama, would you let it sit there?

Well, bit of a difference here. Owning a gun (Second Amendment) and criticizing the president (First Amendment) is actually in the U.S. Constitution. I'm presuming that you will argue that the right of gay marriage is to be found in the equal protection clause. Maybe so. Good luck outlawing polygamy and other alternative marriage arrangements once that door is opened.

But that doesn't buy you immunity from criticism -- even if that criticism is loud and hurtful, even if it's disproportionate. Unless, of course, you want the First Amendment to apply only to election winners.

C'mon, Joel. I never said that First Amendment rights should only apply to election winners. Yet you seem, here at the end, to have little trouble with the disproportionate part of this whole thing. And that is where we part company.

According to this LA Times article the No on 8 groups have now received $500 from El Coyote employees and $50 from another manager “to smooth things over”. Really?!?!?

How is No on 8 supposed to look good with this kind of coverage?

This El Coyote thing reminds me of a scuffle gay rights activists got into with Celestial Seasonings back in ’93 – what stuck was this “They said, 'You either pay, or we'll destroy you,'”. If memory serves me, I think once that quote was made public, gay rights groups backed off. That sort of talk sounded a little too much like extortion, I guess.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-elcoyote15-2008nov15,0,6294928.s...
http://www.businessweek.com/archives/1993/b330730.arc.htm

So is she gay this week or...?

Nobody is asking the gay community to just shut up and accept their defeat. As has been deftly explained in this thread already, they're going to win this battle. Demographics favor their cause. The tactical point that the gay community fails to get is that they're not going to be able to shame people into getting election results overturned. They're not doing themselves any favors by taking a heavy hand with some old lady who gave somebody $100, and in fact, are doing themselves more harm than good.

From a conservative's point of view, it's time to figure out exactly when and how this battle was lost, and accept that it is, in fact, lost. There will be gay marriages in the US, or at the very least civil unions, probably pretty soon.

Wow! I find the "logic" of these people unfathomable. That second video features an interview with a gay protester who says that Marjorie Christoffersen, the owner of the EL COYOTE restaurant, should GO TO HER MORMON CHURCH AND TELL THEM THAT THE MORMON THEOLOGY IS WRONG. That and ONLY that will satisfy him, he implies.

What planet are these people from?

Unlike your garden-variety American leftist non-practitioner of any religion, I have traveled beyond a 1,000 mile radius of my place of birth. Raised in 14 different countries on three continents by two parents from vastly different religious traditions, my siblings and I were required to learn the fundamentals of numerous religions in order to function and live happily within cultures where these religions are dominant and practiced. Today, neith I nor any of my siblings practice any faith, but we are conversant in the tenets and fundamentals of most of them. Hence, our rational perspectives on religion are NOT confrontational since we've the confidence that accompanies knowledge and familiarity with the currency at hand. This is NOT the case with these American homosexual advocates. THESE GAY ADVOCATES ARE FASCISTS - plain and simple! But like many generations who have been processed by the brainwash which passes for education these days, these people are incapable of research, synthesis, logic, reason or pragmatics. In brief, they seem to be short of the essentials - the ability to read, write and execute necessary "life skills" to maintain their independence. Rather, they function only as "pixels" - nameless dots od color in a larger picture being cyber-directed by somebody else.

The Liberal Left - rather like the "Muslim hordes" - pose a very minor threat from a military perspective. Rabidity and blind passion undermine discipline and focus. In the final analysis, when America finally does decide to do what must be done domestically and internationally, it will be like shooting fish in a barrel.