Voters ban judges from using international law

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

The marriage certificate argument is bogus - in the eyes of the court, it does not matter who performed the ceremony or the religion of the celebrants, only that the ceremony was completed by someone eligible to do so by state law.

I don't want to derail stuff, but this doesn't include same sex-marriage in many US states, so the marriage argument isn't bogus. If the marriage doesn't fit within the local laws, it isn't recognized.

yup, that's a derail and not applicable to the conversation at hand.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Reply To
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Preferably one where Sharia law was used to trump US law.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Well, of course... I mean, if you're going to set the bar, let's set it as high as possible.

Not setting the bar high, but isn't that what the concern is?

Rush. I read what that site (think it might be a little biased?) lists as the top 20 cases. In those cases I don't see where Sharia law is being used. In cases where judges have erred, the appeal process seems to have worked.

Funny enough when searching for "canon law in US courts" the top return is regarding Sharia Law.

Lastly, courts have upheld Halachic documents in the form of will and pre and post nuptial documents. Doesn't seem to be an uproar over that.

[Marinus 0]

Quote

yup, that's a derail and not applicable to the conversation at hand.

Oh, it surely derails your statement, but it's applicable to the discussion until someone (probably you) refutes it with proper arguments. Not that I've a lot of hope I'll ever see those arguments.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

yup, that's a derail and not applicable to the conversation at hand.

Oh, it surely derails your statement, but it's applicable to the discussion until someone (probably you) refutes it with proper arguments. Not that I've a lot of hope I'll ever see those arguments.

No, it doesn't and no, it's not applicable....unless, of course, you're claiming that sharia law allows marriage of homosexuals. Present your proof.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Marinus 0]

Quote

in the eyes of the court, it does not matter who performed the ceremony or the religion of the celebrants, only that the ceremony was completed by someone eligible to do so by state law.

You were talking about marriage in general. It's tragic if one doesn't understand the posts of others, but it's more tragic if one doesn't understand his own post. Other than that there's of course polygamy (well polygyny is more correct) which is condoned by (some versions of) shariah law, but isn't recognized in many US states. How about that?

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

in the eyes of the court, it does not matter who performed the ceremony or the religion of the celebrants, only that the ceremony was completed by someone eligible to do so by state law.

You were talking about marriage in general. It's tragic if one doesn't understand the posts of others, but it's more tragic if one doesn't understand his own post.

Lame attempt at a PA.

Quote

Other than that there's of course polygamy (well polygyny is more correct) which is condoned by (some versions of) shariah law, but isn't recognized in many US states. How about that?

Ask the Mormons, since they don't recognize it for them, either. Again, relevancy to topic fail.

Nice attempt to change the goalposts from the same-sex marriage thing, though.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,085]

>Ask the Mormons, since they don't recognize it for them, either.

How can that be? There is no law prohibiting judges from enforcing Mormon law, therefore polygamy must be legal.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Ask the Mormons, since they don't recognize it for them, either.

How can that be? There is no law prohibiting judges from enforcing Mormon law, therefore polygamy must be legal.

That's about as lame as his attempt at a PA. Nice strawman, though.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,085]

>That's about as lame . . . .

Uh oh! Mike is caught in a contradiction in his own premise! Look out, here come the irrelevant one liners!

Of course, the fact that judges do sometimes consider Mormonism when passing judgments on Mormons does not make polygamy legal - any more than a judge who considers Sharia law when passing judgments on some result of that law makes Sharia the law of the land.

[billvon 3,085]

>But might there might be an argumented position of intent between two
>people that practice whatever religion? Like a verbal or written contract that
>religious law would considered equivalent to. (contractual or civil law then,
>not criminal equivalent)

>I could see a judge doing that, and I'd consider that arguable and
>reasonable for him to do so.

Agreed. And were the law rewritten to allow such consideration - and references to specific religions removed - then I could see it both getting popular support _and_ surviving constitutional challenges.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>That's about as lame . . . .

Uh oh! Mike is caught in a contradiction in his own premise! Look out, here come the irrelevant one liners!

Uh oh! Bill has no argument *besides* irrelevant one liners!!

Quote

Of course, the fact that judges do sometimes consider Mormonism when passing judgments on Mormons does not make polygamy legal - any more than a judge who considers Sharia law when passing judgments on some result of that law makes Sharia the law of the land.

Got specific examples where the judges have allowed Mormon religious law to influence a decision? Lets see it.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,085]

>Got specific examples where the judges have allowed Mormon religious law
>to influence a decision?

No, because I never said it should (or could) INFLUENCE a decision. I said the religious law could be CONSIDERED.

Here's an easy example from a Supreme Court decisions in 1879 of where Mormonism was considered:

===========
Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void, and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society.… In the face of all this evidence, it is impossible to believe that the constitutional guaranty of religious freedom was intended to prohibit legislation in respect to this most important feature of social life. Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law.
===========

Can you imagine how that would have read if they had not been allowed to consider anything Mormon?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Sharia is to Islam as cannon is to Catholicism Armaments.

Funny analogy, but fixed it as best I could.

I would also have accepted

Sharia is to Islam as cannon is to Catholicism Cattholliccism.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Can you imagine how that would have read if they had not been allowed to consider anything Mormon?

Never would have come to court at all, had the Mormons not attempted to have their religious beliefs override the law.

Now, *where* have we seen something like that recently... I believe someone was talking about sharia marriage licenses and wills?

Way to shoot down your own argument.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[billvon 3,085]

>Never would have come to court at all, had the Mormons not attempted
>to have their religious beliefs override the law.

Exactly. Once it did, it was fortunate that the court was allowed to consider Mormonism in deciding the case.

>Now, *where* have we seen something like that recently... I
>believe someone was talking about sharia marriage licenses and wills?

Once again, exactly. One can imagine a judge saying "while the court considers a marriage performed under Sharia law legally valid in the US, it rejects the premise that a sister is entitled to her sister's husband's estate if said sister fails to wear a burka."

And once again, the court considers a religious law (and in the above case rejects some of it.)

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Never would have come to court at all, had the Mormons not attempted
>to have their religious beliefs override the law.

Exactly. Once it did, it was fortunate that the court was allowed to consider Mormonism in deciding the case.

Except they didn't.

Quote

>Now, *where* have we seen something like that recently... I
>believe someone was talking about sharia marriage licenses and wills?

Once again, exactly. One can imagine a judge saying "while the court considers a marriage performed under Sharia law legally valid in the US, it rejects the premise that a sister is entitled to her sister's husband's estate if said sister fails to wear a burka."

Yeah, still waiting on evidence of those 'sharia law marriages' you keep talking about as opposed to any other marriage.

Quote

And once again, the court considers a religious law (and in the above case rejects some of it.)

Except they didn't. They outright said that religious considerations do not trump civil law.

Quote

Thank you for demonstrating my point.

It didn't....but thanks for proving mine yet again.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Marinus 0]

Quote

Lame attempt at a PA.

Nope, but this ^ is a lame attempt to avoid the point I made. You were taking about marriage in general.

And I'm done with you again I think.

[billvon 3,085]

>Except they didn't.

From the decision of the court - "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people."

>Except they didn't. They outright said that religious considerations do not
>trump civil law.

Correct. They considered both sides (there's that word again) and rejected the argument.

Do you think courts should be allowed to consider religious law when coming to decisions about that law?

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

Have you ever argued with a small child, or an elderly person with dementia, or perhaps the White Queen? At least they can't help it. But the "Through the Looking Glass" effect is the same: it's tempting to get sucked in, until you realize that you'll only get jerked around. That's why most, once realizing this, don't even bother.

You are 100% right. I don't know why I bother getting involved with these guys.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Have you ever argued with a small child, or an elderly person with dementia, or perhaps the White Queen? At least they can't help it. But the "Through the Looking Glass" effect is the same: it's tempting to get sucked in, until you realize that you'll only get jerked around. That's why most, once realizing this, don't even bother.

You are 100% right. I don't know why I bother getting involved with these guys.

The race-carders?

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>Except they didn't.

From the decision of the court - "Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people."

>Except they didn't. They outright said that religious considerations do not
>trump civil law.

Correct. They considered both sides (there's that word again) and rejected the argument.

Yup, describing the practice as 'odious' is *certainly* taking it under consideration.

Quote

Do you think courts should be allowed to consider religious law when coming to decisions about that law?

As expansion on the reason the religious law was formed? Certainly. As a basis for the decision of the court? No.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[AndyBoyd 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Have you ever argued with a small child, or an elderly person with dementia, or perhaps the White Queen? At least they can't help it. But the "Through the Looking Glass" effect is the same: it's tempting to get sucked in, until you realize that you'll only get jerked around. That's why most, once realizing this, don't even bother.

You are 100% right. I don't know why I bother getting involved with these guys.

The race-carders?

No. People like you.

[billvon 3,085]

>>Do you think courts should be allowed to consider religious law when coming to
>>decisions about that law?

>As expansion on the reason the religious law was formed? Certainly. As a basis for the
>decision of the court? No.

Then we agree. Courts can consider religious laws during deliberations - and discuss them in their decisions - but must use local laws for the basis for their decisions. (And had the law said that, it would had a much better chance of not being overturned.)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You are 100% right. I don't know why I bother getting involved with these guys.

The race-carders?

No. People like you.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

>>Do you think courts should be allowed to consider religious law when coming to
>>decisions about that law?

>As expansion on the reason the religious law was formed? Certainly. As a basis for the
>decision of the court? No.

Then we agree. Courts can consider religious laws during deliberations - and discuss them in their decisions - but must use local laws for the basis for their decisions. (And had the law said that, it would had a much better chance of not being overturned.)

I've never claimed otherwise, and mentioned upthread that singling out sharia was a mistake.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706