In Defense of the Marriage

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

What you actually mean is, "how dare the courts interfere with my bigotry." I don`t think it is a case of the courts being out of touch with the people. The average man on the street bases their opinion on rhetoric force-fed to them by the media and religion. The court bases its opinion on a careful examination of the facts in hand. If you want to describe it as being "out of touch" that is your right, but personally I see that as a good thing if that means being "out of touch" with spoon-fed opinions.

That's democracy....

Originally Posted by dr wadd

What you actually mean is, "how dare the courts interfere with my bigotry." I don`t think it is a case of the courts being out of touch with the people. The average man on the street bases their opinion on rhetoric force-fed to them by the media and religion. The court bases its opinion on a careful examination of the facts in hand. If you want to describe it as being "out of touch" that is your right, but personally I see that as a good thing if that means being "out of touch" with spoon-fed opinions.

You may well have a point Doc - everyone remembers the Sun's post-election headline in 1992, 'It was the Sun wot won it' (or words to that effect). They made this claim after a narrow Tory victory, claiming their polling-day headline 'If Labour win tonight, will the last person out of Britain please switch off the lights', influenced the electorate enough to prevent a collapse in support for the Conservative Government.

People's opinions can be influenced. But we nevertheless live in a system in which the will of all the people is considered paramount. It's called democracy. And for that reason, the decisions taken in Hawaiii have to be respected. The will of the people is supreme.

In any case, I don't agree with your assessment that law courts are nearly so clinical in their analyses as you suggest. A person doesn't suddenly become immune to philosophy, opinion and their own past experience on the day they don a silly wig (or whatever they wear in Hawaii, or anywhere else for that matter). The legal profession is influenced by prevailing theories of criminology - which may be quite different to popular opinion - in the same way as the teaching profession is influenced by theories of education.

These professional theories may or may not be more valid than popular opinion, but that's not the point. If we choose to live in a democracy, we choose to accept that popular opinion is valued more highly than professionally held opinion.

Maybe I'll start a thread proposing that we abandon universal suffrage for a system in which voters must pass some kind of test before being allowed to mark a ballot paper ...

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Two men cannot have a child naturally, and two women can't have a child naturally. Therefore, a same-sex union is unnatural.

Interesting perspective ... do you recall a couple of PM's you sent me a while back? I won't post them here because you know what they said, and I'll gladly forward them back to you, but suffice to say, you need to make your mind up one way or another.

[Ramrod]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...998216,00.html

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by dr wadd

What you actually mean is, "how dare the courts interfere with my bigotry." I don`t think it is a case of the courts being out of touch with the people. The average man on the street bases their opinion on rhetoric force-fed to them by the media and religion. The court bases its opinion on a careful examination of the facts in hand. If you want to describe it as being "out of touch" that is your right, but personally I see that as a good thing if that means being "out of touch" with spoon-fed opinions.

If the majority of the people voted to amend the State Constitution, then clearly the courts are out-of-touch with reality. The courts are there to interpret the law, not make the law. We have a clear division of powers in the United States and Canada.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Bifta

Interesting perspective ... do you recall a couple of PM's you sent me a while back? I won't post them here because you know what they said, and I'll gladly forward them back to you, but suffice to say, you need to make your mind up one way or another.

Oh get real. I've made no secret of that fact. Being straight, gay, or bisexual does not mean you can't have an opinion.

It isn't natural for man and man to marry. And I stand with that. You'll be surprised how many gay people agree with it (and just don't care), and how many of them actually don't want same-sex marriages. I suggest you go to a gay bar and asking around a bit.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Oh get real. I've made no secret of that fact. Being straight, gay, or bisexual does not mean you can't have an opinion.

It isn't natural for man and man to marry. And I stand with that. You'll be surprised how many gay people agree with it (and just don't care), and how many of them actually don't want same-sex marriages. I suggest you go to a gay bar and asking around a bit.

You say it's not natural for same sex couples to marry, yet you believe that it's ok for them to copulate, yet surely people like yourself believe in no sex before marriage ... do you see a problem arising? Also, which bits of the bible are you ignoring this week?

[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.

[Stuartbe]

Originally Posted by Bifta

You say it's not natural for same sex couples to marry, yet you believe that it's ok for them to copulate, yet surely people like yourself believe in no sex before marriage ... do you see a problem arising? Also, which bits of the bible are you ignoring this week?

As my grandad used to say - God made adam and eve ..... Not adam and steve !!

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Bifta

yet surely people like yourself believe in no sex before marriage ... do you see a problem arising?

Yes, and I don't claim to have all the answers either. However my point stands. *marriage* is reserved for a man and a woman. I couldn't care less about civil unions. However, you should not be making asssumptions such as "surely people like yourself believe..." I don't think I've ever stated my opinion on sex before marriage, nor am I inclined to do so now. Suffice to say, sex with a woman before marriage is wrong according to the Bible.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

Suffice to say, sex with a woman before marriage is wrong according to the Bible.

Ah ok, but if you're male, sex with a male is ok? And I apologise for presuming you lived your life by the bible, perhaps it's an impression you give out.

[Jerrek]

Oh and, in terms of a civil union, corporations and employers should have the right to choose whether they recognize it, and whether benefits will be applied.

Originally Posted by Jerrek

If the majority of the people voted to amend the State Constitution, then clearly the courts are out-of-touch with reality. The courts are there to interpret the law, not make the law. We have a clear division of powers in the United States and Canada.

It ties in nicely to something that Towny said and something that my mother has been arguing for a long time, that democracy doesn`t work because the average citizen doesn`t have the intellect to wield their vote in a sensible and well reasoned manner. The majority of people may have voted against the amendment, that is their right, but at the end of the day they are using that vote to legitimise their own bigotry because that is easier than facing up to their prejudice.

You don`t have a clear division between the powers of the court in the USA, otherwise the Supreme Court wouldn`t have been able to rule against the sodomy laws in Texas.

[Jerrek]

Originally Posted by Bifta

And I apologise for presuming you lived your life by the bible, perhaps it's an impression you give out.

That was uncalled for.

[Bifta]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

That was uncalled for.

I don't think it was, I said "perhaps it's an impression you give out" which followed an apology for making an assumption.