[xzins]

This isn’t really about gay marriage as much as it’s about whether voters can vote a particular definition of marriage and then have it overturned by a court.

Isn’t that the case they took up?

Seems to me that there are plenty of gay marriage votes in other states that Kennedy has not seen fit to challenge, so it really isn’t about whether those are constitutional.

Is it possible for a court to overturn a properly held vote of the people? Am I wrong on this....that this is not that case?

[Jacquerie]

This isn’t really about gay marriage as much as it’s about whether voters can vote a particular definition of marriage and then have it overturned by a court.

Correctamundo!

When courts substitute their social constructs for those passed by the people via their reps, the courts strike at the very foundation of our revolution and fifty republics. Meaning, no law can be legitimate without our consent. No d@mn court has proper power to impose that which 5,000 years of western civilization has regarded as perverse.

[OKRA2012]

“Is it possible for a court to overturn a properly held vote of the people?”

Yes, a court could overturn the vote of the people of Washington State and Maryland to grant same sex marriage rights to gays.

And, if the voters of Vermont elected to force everyone in the state to become a vegetarian and ban the sale and consumption of meat, a court could overturn that decision of the voters.

[Ransomed]

“This isn’t really about gay marriage as much as it’s about whether voters can vote a particular definition of marriage and then have it overturned by a court.”

Prop. 8 only passed by 52% in 2008. If our bosses in black robes deem to uphold it, I bet they just try to repeal it with another popular vote. I have my doubts that prop. 8 would pass today in Ca.

Freegards

[Fast Moving Angel]

Is it possible for a court to overturn a properly held vote of the people?

It happens in California all the time. When the voters pass a proposition that some affected group doesn't like (i.e. hispanics and Proposition 187), they'll go find some friendly judge and file a lawsuit and it will be overturned. That's what happened with Proposition 8. The California voters said no to gay marriage ... and here we are.

[highball]

This isn’t really about gay marriage as much as it’s about whether voters can vote a particular definition of marriage and then have it overturned by a court.

Isn’t that the case they took up?

Seems to me that there are plenty of gay marriage votes in other states that Kennedy has not seen fit to challenge, so it really isn’t about whether those are constitutional.

Is it possible for a court to overturn a properly held vote of the people? Am I wrong on this....that this is not that case?

You raise an interesting issue.

I wonder if the Supremes didn't take this one because of the history of gay marriage in California.

It was legalized in certain municipalities before later being outlawed by Prop 8. This created a peculiar situation where gay couples already married were allowed to stay married but new ones couldn't get married, and if those existing couples divorced the people couldn't enter into a new marriage.

I suspect that the Court might decide that a popular vote can't revoke a right already recognized without ruling on the larger issue. That would likely overturn Prop 8 but limit it's effect to California alone.