The issues are closely decided statewide and as a result, we can expect the pendulum to keep swinging back and forth with minor changes in public opinion.

Schwarenegger famous said "I think same-sex marriage is something that should be between a man and a woman."

While he has a good record on gay rights, this is one area where he is not supportive.

I do think given the fact that there is a ballot initiative on record, and a legislature that seems to be of a differing opinion that maybe taking the initiative back to the people for a revote is in order, a lot may have changed in the last 7 years, and it is possible the people of California are fine with the proposed legislation, but this kind of catch 22 is what ballot initiatives create.

I would just rather see people elect state representatives and senators and let their representatives represent them-if they don't like a proposed action-then lobby the state congress member.

Additionally, Bob Holden (a Democrat) was governor when the Republican legislature passed the law over his veto, and the Missouri Stem Cell amendment was conducted in 2006, seven years after the conceal and carry initiative (so they weren't in the same election cycle, and there's really no comparison between the politics in each).

All this nitpicking notwithstanding, your points are correct. If the voters truly don't like what their representatives are doing, they can vote them out. Presumably, the legislators know that this won't happen, or else they simply don't care.

One of the keys here is the ease of getting an initiative on the ballot for voter approval. The more difficult it is the less likely you will see trivial issues put before the voters.

Generally I would expect elected officials to respect the will of the voters as expressed through referendum and initiative. The legislative body should at most only refer the question back to voters one time for another confirming vote after the effects are realized.

Nothing untoward here, unless, of course, you want to posit that what yours is yours and what's mine is always up for grabs. For intellectual consistency, compare and contrast the politics of the Stem Cell initiative with that of the Concealed Carry initiative that was conducted in the same election cycle. Or is one vote one time the law of the land. Imagine if we had never been able to repeal Prohibition!

Then vote against whoever opposes redrawing the districts ... hm, can they redraw those via one of their Proposition thingies?

If one has had a vote of the population on record on a given issue, does a legislative body have a legitimate right to override that vote without again asking the question of the voters?

Ask the Missouri legislature, regarding conceal and carry laws. A referendum to the contrary didn't stop them from overriding the will of the electorate (and a gubenatorial veto) in 2003. It also didn't stop the Republican Party from retaining power in the legislature thereafter.

As such, majority sentiment may not match up to the legislature's.

Of course that raises questions of whether that is a good thing or a bad thing in terms of democratic governance.

does a legislative body have a legitimate right to override that vote without again asking the question of the voters?

Only if you agree with it

I don't think it's a question of "right." Representative government is premised in part upon the deliberators' arguably being wiser and better informed.

The legislators are free to vote for gay marriage, and their constituents are free to vote them out. Assuming that the CA legislature isn't packed with fire-eyed idealists, I'm guessing they have some basis for believing that the voters won't really care much. Incumbents rarely vote themselves out of office.