R-71, the gay marriage and senior partnerships measure, goes to the ballot. That's good, for several reasons.

First of all, it's just the sort of change that belongs on the ballot: something fundamental and also simple and understandable. The electorate is not smart enough, and not attentive enough, to understand some long, complicated thing about, say, industrial regulation or energy policy, but it can understand this. This is about gay marriage.

Yeah, I know, the measure says its "not marriage," but in fact that is what it is, so let's call it that.

Some gay activists are angry that this is on the ballot. They argue that this is about fundamental rights, and fundamental rights should never be put up to a public vote. I agree with the last sentiment: we don't put the First Amendment up to a public vote (nor the Second, either). But this is not a constitutional amendment; it is a simple statute, and it confers legal rights gays haven't had before. It's new. You may think it's a fundamental right, and 50 years from now maybe it will be, but right now it's a brand-new thing. So your "fundamental rights" argument against R-71 does not apply.

Second, I think it's good that R-71 goes to the ballot because I favor it, and I think it's going to win. And if it doesn't win, it's going to lose very, very narrowly, and the supporters are going to try again. And they will win--and when they do, their victory will have to be conceded by the other side. It will be a much better victory than if they had got it from the Washington Supreme Court, which they tried to do. Look at all the turmoil Roe v. Wade has brought in the past 35 years. Abortion should never have been decided by the Supreme Court. Constitutionally, it was a decision for state legislatures. Even if Congress had done it, it would have been better.

Third, I think the judge's decision on R-71 is good because it slaps down yet another effort to keep an initiative or referendum off the ballot. These lawsuits are becoming a regular tactic in Washington. On controversial issues, when one side collects enough signatures to get something on the ballot, the other side sues to keep it off. Most of these lawsuits fail, and that is good. But it would be nice (am I being utopian here?) if the Left and the Right would reach a gentlemen's agreement to stop trying to knock their opponents' measures off the ballot. If you want to challenge it as to constitutionality or some other reason, let the people vote on it and file a lawsuit afterward.