[Sociable]

Interesting article Ramrod and much in line with what I anticipated in one of my earlier posts in this thread.

I see the debate has moved on a bit to the individual roles that the various branches of government play in all of this and the inevitable impact that the separation of powers has on how each branch acts to provide checks and balances in the process.

The Courts role is often the most easy to comprehend as they are charged with what at first sight is the easier to define i.e. upholding the Law itself.

They are not charged with being "just" they are charged with applying the law in a "just" way. If a law was passed saying people over six feet tall had to pay a special tax and an individual failed to comply the courts would have no option but to convict if this was proven to have happened. This would be the case regardless of whether the lawyers or judges actually agreed with that law itself as that is not their role. Above all they do not take into account either public opinion or political pressure and long may that continue.

Where their role becomes more confusing, however, is when it comes to constitutional law, not least as the UK has little or no clearly defined constitutional law. One exception to this is the newly incorporated Human Rights legislation.

It is this more than anything else which may, in time, lead to challenges to any legislation which can be seen to conflict with the rights guaranteed by the convention of Human Rights in much the same way as the Supreme Court in the US often rules State Laws unlawful in the US because they conflict with the Constitution.

Next we come to the Law makers themselves and I find it somewhat quaint that some still believe the way they operate is †œdemocraticÃƚ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚à ‚ÂÂ�. Many decisions by parliament have little to do with reflecting the views of the majority and in fact there are some very valid reasons for this.

The first is that MPâ₠¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢s are charged with making decisions based on the detailed knowledge they have of the often complex issues involved. Part of their role is also standing up for the minority against the will of the majority when this is seen to be both fair and just.

So what of the will of the majority?

Well, over time, they do have an impact on the law makers but only when the different parties offer different policies on the specific area under discussion or when the issue is the subject of a completely free vote in parliament. A good example of how, even in this latter case, this does not always lead to the majority public opinion holding sway over parliament is the various votes on Capital Punishment.

So how does all of this feed back into the current debate on Gay Marriage?

As can be seen, from the article provided by Ramrod, even the church is now softening its stance on gay marriage. This combined with the growing awareness of the need for the law to reflect the need for fairness and equality under the law will eventually, IMHO, lead to changes in the law to ensure fairness for all.

The compromise which may well evolve, at least in the UK, will be some form of civil †œcontractÃÂà ‚¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ƚÂÂ� recognised for all statutory purposes as †œmarriageÃÂà ‚¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ã‚¬Ã‚ƚÂÂ� and available to all without discrimination on the basis of gender or sexual orientation. This will still be restricted by rules based on age and existing family relationships to prevent incest and the abuse of the young.

The churches will retain the right to choose to restrict their specific requirements and qualifications as to who can and canââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t marry according to their specific faith, but many will adopt some form of blessing which will be available to those that do not meet those specific requirements.