Some additional thoughts. Prop 22 had the effect of changing a statute. Statutes are ranked lower (sorry for the lazy terminology, but I'm trying not to do "lawyer speak") than the Constitution. So when the recent California Supreme Court case on gay marriage came out, the Court essentially said: "This statute conflicts with the equal rights provision of the state constitution. Where a statute conflicts with the constitution, the statute loses." What Prop 8 is trying to do is rewrite the state constitution. If Prop 8 passes, then the recent case is no longer valid (but I think the interim marriages will be). Does that make sense?
So I know you're against judges making big decisions and all (paraphrasing), but the remedy to that is to change the thing (statute or constitution) that was the subject of the decision. So while I don't agree with the Yes on 8 folks, their choice of remedy is correct.
To take another example, the US Supreme Court recently interpreted an equal pay law that requires the effected person to file their claim within 6 (I think) months of the pay disparity. I don't know how often you compare your salary to your coworkers, but a lot of people don't. Some people believed that the 6 months should run from the time you
find out about the pay disparity. What's the solution (if you think the Court was wrong)? Get Congress to change the law.
My point is, while some people believe that judges are
dictators in black robes, people still do retain the power to change the rules they live by.