I think you're overstating the case...
One of the downsides in living in an organised and civilised society is that one cannot pick and choose the laws one wishes to obey today, because in order for laws to change, there *IS* a clear legislative and political process -- a process that is likely long, tedious and hard.
If one wants to circumvent that process, then one is effectively cutting the democratic process out of the loop. That's not grown-up politics and lawmaking, that's spitting one's dummy out and throwing a tantrum because one can't have what one wants.
We ignore two-year-olds who do that.
One the things about living in an organized and civilizied society is the one CAN pick and choose which laws one wishes to obey and disobey. However, one who decides to disobey the laws must realize the risks and possible penalities that they may face for breaking those laws. MLK and others broke numerous laws; they knew the risks they were taking and the possible punishments that they may have to face. However, they willingly took these risks and penalities for what they believed in.
Furthermore, such actions can not be considered to be cutting out the democratic process. The entire nature of a democracy is that these are the rules everyone agrees to. By that very nature, disagreeing with the law is a factor in democracy. In fact, is a very humanizing part of the lawmaking process and may be the ultimate in checks_n_balances: lawmakers can make whatever laws they want - but does it mean anything unless everyone agrees to follow them? Example: if Congress were to pass a maximum 25 mph speed limit, it would be law. But if the police do not enforce the law, courts refuse to hear cases on the law and people ignore the law, what real effect does the law have?