Many anti-gay conservatives, including radio host Mark Levin, have stressed that the courts should not weigh in on the gay marriage issue because it is not their jurisdiction to decide and that the courts taking on this issue is unprecedented, even 'tyrannical' because only the people should be allowed to redefine (or more like extend) marriage.
I call bullshit.
First, if gay marriage cannot be decided by the courts and the courts handling gay marriage is 'tyrannical' then why even cite Baker v. Nelson as a defense against gay marriage? Here the courts weighed in on gay marriage, yet they never seemed to have a problem with that particular judicial intervention. Could it be that maybe they ruled in way these conservatives liked? That could be it.
Secondly, conservatives are fools if they do not realize how many times the courts have actually intervened to 'redefine' marriage many times to include mixed-race couples, handicapped, and even prisoners. And checking our republic's history I find no other time when voters weighed in to define marriage. Ever. Only when gay marriage became 'the' issue is when some of these conservatives start peddling these theories and forcing this issue on the electorate.
So logically being that we have never put marriage up to vote - ever - one can argue that putting it up for a vote is therefore 'unprecedented' and tyrannical. Because if we take the conservative talking point seriously, (if you want) then deciding on gay marriage itself is 'tyrannical' by having one judge decide, and since the voters are now acting as judges themselves, (and are actually more of them) all we are doing is transferring the tyranny from one pair of hands to the many pair of hands, and logic would say since there are more hands the tyranny is even worse. This would be the same if a legislature (who has every right to redefine marriage at will) decides instead.
And what about if the voters say yes to gay marriage?
Then most likely the conservative narrative will change and a new light will fall upon this earth. They could simply say that voters are being tyrannical since they are 'going against god and nature.'
What it really is is a bunch of angry, frustrated people who are so opposed to gay marriage that they have convinced some useful idiots that by slapping the word 'tyranny' to it you basically win the argument. But since their definition of tyranny keeps being redefined any reasonable person will have a tough time believing them.