Hold on, you need to take the same-sex marriage in California debate back before Proposition 8. The elected officials, who were supposed to represent the majority opinion and, yes, protect the rights and livelihoods of all citizens, made it legal for same-sex couples to marry, but Proposition 8 demonstrated that they were wrong in doing so, in that the majority of the voting population of California did not support this change to the law. Yes, you’re right that the issue with Prop 8 was whether it was constitutional, but Judge Walker, in my opinion, did not adequately demonstrate that it was unconstitutional because his judgement was clouded by his apparent personal agenda.

Proposition 8 sought to clarify the definition of marriage in the law, and clarification is always a good thing, isn’t it? No, judges don’t have a right to go against the will of the people; there’s is to interpret and to apply the law. If the law needs clarification, then they force the issue, which is a good thing. Proposition 8 clarified the issue, yet Judge Walker tried to tell the people that they were wrong. I can’t abide by that.

In the end, this debate will force an amendment to the federal constitution of the US; that is their democratic process. But that amendment will come through the elected representatives, not the non-elected judges.

You say that same-sex couples don’t have the right to marry, but that beg’s the question. The definition of marriage doesn’t allow them that right because Prop. 8 said so. But the question is whether Prop. 8 is constitutional. In the absence of Prop. 8, they do have the right to marry – that was the legal situation before Prop. 8 was instituted.

Similarly black children didn’t have the right to attend interracial schools until after Brown v. Board of Education, but the court found that, constitutionally, they should have. The law was wrong, and the judge overturned it.

You can argue that Judge Walker’s legal decision is incorrect, I think that’s a reasonable position to take (I don’t agree, but it really does come to down to opinion). But your argument is that a judge should not go against the will of the people, even if he determines that their will is unconstitutional. I completely reject that view.

Judge Walker concluded that Prop. 8 is unconstitutional, so he threw it out. That is exactly the right thing for him to do, and our democratic society depends on his ability to do that.

I’m happy to debate whether Prop 8. really is unconstitutional, but I can’t accept that a Supreme Court Judge should allow the people to institute a proposition that he considers to be unconstitutional.

If I’ve generalised inappropriately, I apologise. However, I still stand with my opinion against the ability of non-elected judges to circumvent a legitimate democratic process. Let’s be careful what court/constitutional decisions we are comparing. I can’t speak to the Brown v. Board of Education case, although I can say that I’m indeed happy with the outcome, if the outcome was an overturning of segregation.

As for the religious persecution issue, the comparison is not fair as Christians are not being protected from discrimination and violence under the law of those countries. Now, as for the so-called anti-bikie laws, those laws, under the guise of controlling the violence and criminal activities of alleged gangs, set-up the trampling upon of the rights of all Australian citizens. The motorcycle clubs are legitimately opposing those laws in the public forum and in the courts.

Similarly, Proposition 8 was legitimately established through a public referendum. Even though the elected officials personally support same-sex marriage, as elected officials they are to represent the majority of their constituents. Judges do not have that obligation. Proposition 8 demonstrated that the elected officials were not representing the majority opinion when they permitted same-sex marriage in the first place.

In this case, who is being oppressed? Who is not being afforded their rights? Same-sex couple do not have a “right” to marriage because the definition of marriage does not afford them that right. Marriage is not an inalienable right as it is, at its heart, a religious institution. Insofar as the state takes over that institution, then the definition of marriage is open to democratic processes, which is exactly what happened legitimately in California.

If read the article, to which I referred, it very ably, as far as I can tell, challenges the rationale employed by Judge Walker in support of same-sex marriage. I, like the author, certainly challenge his rationale. He, in my opinion, does not adequately defend the “right” of same-sex couples to marry. I will concede that having judges interpret and apply the law, as a ‘check and balance’ to law-making of politicians, is a good thing. But Judge Walker is not protecting the law in this case, but stretching it far beyond it’s legitimate boundaries to further his own agenda.

I don’t put much stock in polls, as they really depend on the pollster and the subsequent interpretation of the results by the media. If the major parties are not representing the majority opinion by defending the current definition of marriage, then the case should be put to a referendum and/or the opinion of those parties should be changed by overthrowing the leadership of those parties through stacking the membership. That is the democratic process that proponents of either side of the debate on the the definition of marriage have available to them.

Since I can’t agree that same-sex have a right to marriage and I believe that Judge Walker manipulated the political-legal process in overturning the ban of Proposition 8, then I have to stand by my original opinion that a travesty of law and justice has been perpetrated in the US in this case. However, I will concede that this is not a simple case and I too dislike the diatribe from both sides, especially the so-called Christian constituency.

It is entirely the place of the courts to overturn decisions when a majority oppresses a minority, as Judge Walker felt was the case here. Democracy most certainly does not mean that the majority rules to the exclusion of the rights of the minorities.

The “judges are not elected” argument is a crock. It is because they are not elected that they play an important role. They are there to interpret the law – including the constitution and any common law principles – and render judgements without feeling compelled to follow the opinion on the mob.

And in the California case, the elected officials did support gay marriage – the effect of Judge Walker’s decision is to state that a small majority (less than 53%) do not get to change the constitution to prevent such laws from being passed.

If you really believe in the will of be majority, then polls indicate that the majority of Australians support gay marriage. Why then, in this democracy, are the major parties opposing them? Because a minority (in marginal electorates) oppose them. Democracy is lot more complex than “whatever most people want”.

Regardless of your view on gay marriage, I really don’t think you want to be argue that judges should not overturn laws that they find to be discriminatory and unconstitutional.

I found your entry interesting do I’ve added a Trackback to it on my weblog …

If I were to make any biblical argument for or against a gender identification for the Holy Spirit, I guess that I would highlight the fact that the Hebrew word for “spirit” is a feminine noun and the Greek word for “spirit” is a neuter noun —although, it must be said, the Greek language uses grammatical gender and not natural gender, as does English. Notwithstanding, we will rightly adopt the social convention of using masculine personal pronouns when gender is not certain or not exclusive.

The better argument for using a feminine personal pronoun for the Holy Spirit is that, as far as I can tell, the Bible tends to speak of the Holy Spirit in figurative terms more often than literal. Where God is given a proper name of “The Father”, the Holy Spirit is not given a corresponding proper name. Yet, the images used when speaking of the Spirit are often feminine. Take Genesis 1:1-2, for instance, where “the Spirit of God hovers over the waters”. This image is reminiscent of a mother bird caring for and nurturing creation. It would seem this image is used again of the Holy Spirit at Jesus’ baptism.

But these are just images, meant to reveal something about the Holy Spirit’s qualities and character. Ultimately, I believe, it comes does to personal preference. I like to refer to the Holy Spirit as “she” only because to do so reminds me that God is both beyond and inclusive of both genders, and that I would do well to allow the Holy Spirit to reveal her/himself to me as he/she sees fit.