How should leadership function?

Earlier this week the courts in California upheld proposition 8 - the proposition that strips the rights of homosexual couples to obtain a marriage license in the state of California. While I mourn with those whose rights have been taken away and I celebrate with those 18,000 couples whose marriages were upheld, I am torn about whether or not to be angry with the courts for their decision.

What is leadership? Is leadership speaking for the voice of the people who have voted you into the leadership position? Or is leadership about making decisions that may go against the populace but be in the best interest of the populace?

As someone who is often like Goldilocks - not in breaking into houses but in liking things "just right", I believe that leadership is both. The question then is when should the leadership choose to lead by popular opinion and when should they lead by "best interest"?

Of course, maybe the irony of this is that the leaders that spring to my mind who led by "best interest" were not elected officials - Martin Luther King Jr. (though he did seem to be "elected" by his peers as their leader) and Jesus. These two men led by example, an example that was counter to the rules and beliefs of the greater populace of their times.

The other irony is the question, "What determines whether the "best interest" form of leadership was actually in the best interest of the populace?" While racism unfortunately still exists in the world, most people would agree that racism is inherently hurtful/harmful to the betterment of the world. However it seems obvious that during MLK Jr's time that his leadership was not in line with what the greater populace believed. Therefore from my 21st century viewpoint I can see that MLK Jr stood for what was right even in the face of a majority who believed otherwise. However, that is the advantage of hindsight. Is there a way to determine what is "right" without hindsight?

At this point, it's probably obvious that I am trying to convince you, the reader, AND myself that the courts should have found a way to lead by "best interest". The problem, for me, is that I really like voting. I'm a new California resident and I am loving voting every few months. Now, it's frustrating that more people don't vote identical tickets to myself - half the votes at least have not gone my direction. Doesn't matter for my enjoyment though. I love it! I like having the right to vote and make decisions about this state at the ballot box. In this weeks court decision, the judges ruled that reversing Prop 8 would negate this right. I appreciate their apprehension here. What would be the point of voting if the courts were to overturn the vote?

Where does this leave me? I'm still pondering. At this point, I can only hope I get to vote again and again until the majority of the population is in line with my understanding of love and homosexuality. The "majority" in this last vote was ~ 52% to 48%. That is a majority but it's not an overwhelming majority. And, of course, if the vote does sway my direction I do not want the courts overturning THAT decision. Maybe I know where I stand after all . . .