Jonathan Capehart writes about Hawaii governor Linda Lingle’s decision to veto a civil-unions bill:

And then Lingle did the unthinkable. She advocated putting the rights of a minority up for a popular vote. . . . Putting the rights of the minority up for a popular vote is an abdication of leadership. Making “[d]ecisions of this magnitude” is what the people who troop to voting booths elect their representatives to do. And we’ve seen what happens when marriage equality is on the ballot. Californians have a reputation for being a liberal live-and-let-live crew. But in 2008, they approved a state constitutional amendment that defined and recognized marriage as between one man and one woman in the Golden State.

Agree or disagree with Lingle’s decision, it seems weird to suggest that holding a popular vote on an issue, where the law allows one to be held, is “unthinkable.” Why is putting what one group of people regard as a “right” up to a vote of the people “unthinkable” while it is fine to put it up to a vote of legislators or judges? Yes, it is true that a popular vote might not come out the way Capehart wants it to, but that is hardly an argument that should sway anyone who does not already believe that any other outcome is illegitimate.