The point I was trying to make to make about gay marriage – that advocates should take their case to the people, not the courts – can also be made about other issues, like abortion. Consider this sage comment by Hugh Hewitt:

I understand that Senator Specter voted against Robert Bork, and that Senator Specter is not a friend of the pro-life movement. But genuine progress in the fight to return American public opinion to an affirmation of life before birth cannot be made through strong-armed tactics and almost certainly will not be lasting if it is accomplished through a putsch. Institutions that are destabilized for expediency’s sake do not regain stability after a convenient alteration. That was the lesson of the Roman Revolution, where a series of departures from settled precedent in the name of urgent expediency eventually brought down the entire structure.

Exactly. In addition to the narrow procedural point that Hewitt is making, I would add the broader point that pro-lifers aren’t doing themselves any favours by focussing on the legislative and judicial side of the issue at the expense of winning public opinion. And unfortunately, the more zealous supporters of the pro-life movement have given abortion opponents in general a bad name with their violent protests outside abortion clinics, and other such lunacy. The pro-life movement would be best served by making a patient, well-reasoned appeal to the public. (And I’m willing to take the patient approach, even though this is every bit as much an issue of fundamental rights – the right to life, in this case – as gay marriage.)