[Labyrinthos]

The people of California have already deliberated on this issue. They've made a decision.

The Court has written a law, based on the Court's preferences, WHICH THEY HAVE NO RIGHT TO DO.

Suppose the people of California voted to approve a law that allows involuntary servitude? Does that mean that the law is beyond judicial review simply because it was approved by the voters?

[Jim Noble]

Suppose the people of California voted to approve a law that allows involuntary servitude?

Suppose the moon were made of green cheese?

[Mr. Silverback]

Suppose the people of California voted to approve a law that allows involuntary servitude? Does that mean that the law is beyond judicial review simply because it was approved by the voters?

I doubt it, but as Jim Noble said, what if the moon were made of green cheese? A freedom-loving people is not going to pass a slavery law, but a freedom-loving people DID pass a preservation of marriage law.

If 61% of Californians voted that a man can't marry his sister, should that be overturned? If 61% of Californians voted that a man can't marry two women, should that be overturned? If 61% of Californians voted that a man can't marry his dog, or a 12 year old, should that be overturned? If not, why not?

[MirrorField]

Suppose the people of California voted to approve a law that allows involuntary servitude?

Specifically banned on federal level via appropriate procedure. See Thirteenth Amendment.

IMHO, voter-approved initiatives should be valued higher than regular legislation...