California looks like it could rectify the tyrany of the homophobic majority; we should all learn a lesson on the shortcomings of direct democracy

The Californian Attorney General has come out urging a repeal of proposition 8 banning same sex marriage that was passed by  a 52% majority during the federal elections in November.  He has come to the conclusion that the proposition violates the state's constitution, which under article 1 guarantees individual liberty including the right to marry.  

This case shows how incredibly dangerous referenda can be given the lack of information at the disposal of voters, variability in turn-out, a lack of  consideration of the full calculus and utility of policy across the full breadth of government, and the majority's (or even worse vocal and active minority's) propensity to disregard the rights of minorities.

In our country the recent referendum in Manchester that saw the congestion charge proposal emphatically rejected showed how policies that require some at first difficult behaviour change but will result in positive long-term results (in this case upholding the public's rights to clean, particulate free city centres) can be blocked by a vocal, energised minority. 

There is a reason that western democracies (barring the Swiss) are representative rather than direct.  Imagine if every government revenue raising proposal was put to a vote, what state would the government finances be in. 

Climate change policy is similarly unsuited to public decision making; witness the nimby caused delays to wind farm planning applications. If a government thinks a policy or measure is in our long-term interest it should implement it, if we think on balance it has got the majority of these decisions wrong we can vote it out at the next election.