There were many FR topics at the time of the ruling -here is one:
Why the Prop 8 ruling scares religious conservatives
(RNS) When U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker struck down California’s Proposition 8 on Wednesday (Aug. 4), he said voters’ motivation for outlawing gay marriage was clear.“The evidence shows conclusively that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples,” Walker wrote in his sweeping, 136-page decision.
“These interests do not provide a rational basis for supporting Proposition 8.”
Religion, in Walker’s reasoning, amounts to a “private moral view,” which should not infringe upon the constitutional rights of others.
While some legal scholars say Walker’s decision lands on firm legal ground—a law must advance a secular purpose to pass constitutional muster—some religious leaders accuse the judge of trying to scrub faith from the public square.
“Judge Walker claimed to read the minds of California’s voters, arguing that the majority voted for Proposition 8 based on religious opposition to homosexuality, which he then rejected as an illegitimate state interest,” R. Albert Mohler, president of a leading Southern Baptist seminary in Kentucky, wrote in an online column.
As I mentioned before, this ruling seemed to go unnoticed by the Libertarians. I as well suggested that unalienable rights from our Creator could as well be deemed irrational using the same logic...
You defined "consensus" as one aspect of the definition of what is considered rational -I tend to agree although there could be exceptions e.g. that which violates the unalienable or natural law. Anyway, do you see what concerns those that believe religion is just as valid a reason for opinion or belief as any other and that the government deeming religious discourse irrelevant would set a dangerous precedent?
From that premise, what's your take on the situation in Minnesota, where a judge ruled against an initiative to ban the courts from using Sharia law as a consideration in their decisions?
My take is that the judge wishes the courts latitude to ignore precedent -the laws local or regional or national as written or commonly observed in the United States and instead wishes judges have wide latitude to pull from the air agreement with what the judges may want the laws to be... We see the potential for a consensus of one rogue judge using a religion to make law the judge wishes over that that the people observe or have written as a result of the free moral market of ideas...
I feel it would be quite okay IF the people through consensus and voting etcetera determine that an aspect of sharia law becomes a US law; however, a rogue judge imposing sharia law is not government by the people and the rule of law it is tyranny by the state...
This is basically an exercise in casting personal opinion as constitutional principle. You can deem anything you want to be whatever you wish using that logic, because it's not logic, it's dogma. The judge can't even grasp the basic idea that this is not an issue the federal government was granted any authority over, which makes it an issue for the citizens of the state to decide.
You defined "consensus" as one aspect of the definition of what is considered rational -I tend to agree although there could be exceptions e.g. that which violates the unalienable or natural law. Anyway, do you see what concerns those that believe religion is just as valid a reason for opinion or belief as any other and that the government deeming religious discourse irrelevant would set a dangerous precedent?
I have concerns about any judge that sets himself up as the standard of rationality, against the consent of the governed.