Suppose, in California, enough signatures are gathered to put up a proposition saying that some guy named Bob can't wear a particular hawaiian shirt any more. Most people either don't know Bob, or do know him and think that the shirt is garish. Bob votes against it, because he likes his shirt, it's comfortable and reminds him of a fun vacation, but he has trouble even convincing his friends to vote his way. So the vote goes heavily in favor of this prop. Now it's California law, Bob can't wear that shirt any more, even though wearing it didn't harm anyone, and Bob is left wondering, why did the people get to vote on what shirt I wear?
Well, the people have spoken, and that's that. Even though most of them don't know Bob, wouldn't even recognize him if they rode a bus with him, they voted on his rights and now it's the law.
Yes, I realize this is ridiculous as far as analogies go. It's ridiculous for (at least) two reasons:
1. Californians don't get to vote on other people's fashion choices, although perhaps they should, because that would probably be considered too frivolous.
2. Homosexuality, unlike shirt selection, is not a choice that gets made every morning.
