SHARIA LAW COMES TO TEXAS.....

If participation is voluntary (plaintiff and defendant), and non-binding, then I don't have a problem.

But our courts/administrative state shouldn't recognize any decision handed down....for example a divorce, child custody, property rights, etc.

What say you?


http://therightscoop.com/sharia-trib...-trojan-horse/

^Let me ask you this. Aren't you part of the same Klan that argues that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Well, isn't that based on biblical law? Last time I checked the bible was formed somewhere in the middle east. Doesn't that make it a form of FOREIGN law?

The paranoia among your Klan is hilarious.

You make no sense........and I support civil unions for gays.......same rights, just different language.

^Let me ask you this. Aren't you part of the same Klan that argues that gays shouldn't be allowed to marry?

Well, isn't that based on biblical law? Last time I checked the bible was formed somewhere in the middle east. Doesn't that make it a form of FOREIGN law?

The paranoia among your Klan is hilarious. Originally Posted by shanm

You make no sense......... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Rocks don't.

If participation is voluntary (plaintiff and defendant), and non-binding, then I don't have a problem.

But our courts/administrative state shouldn't recognize any decision handed down....for example a divorce, child custody, property rights, etc.

What say you?


http://therightscoop.com/sharia-trib...-trojan-horse/ Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Treat it like voluntary arbitration

If participation is voluntary (plaintiff and defendant), and non-binding, then I don't have a problem.

But our courts/administrative state shouldn't recognize any decision handed down....for example a divorce, child custody, property rights, etc. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The approach is to explain that a dissolution of the marriage, whether in this country or formalized in their home country (which is often the case at some point), should be finalized in this country with a document signed by a Judge here who has the authority to do so, and that document recognizes and documents the children of that marriage AND the property of the parties located here in the U.S., but not property over there in there country of origin.

Then once the local process is complete they can go forward (or even simultaneously .... it doesn't matter) with whatever process to resolve or dissolve the marital relationship back "home" ... and I have seen contracts for which an agreed amount of money is to be paid by the husband for releasing him from the marriage back home .. which in effect can be reimbursement for the "dower" paid by her family .. to his for marrying their daughter. A "dissolution" agreement is signed by the Parties and approved by the appropriate religious authority back home ... the formalities and informalities may vary somewhat and the "processing fees" will vary based on the "people" involved.

It has been my understanding that the female has little, if any, say in the process, but the "proper" thing to do to save her grief is for the guy to accept "responsibility" and "blame" for the breakup ... which keeps her from "shaming" her family back home. Reprisals can take place back home, so many are reluctant to take the 2nd step in the process, but the parties remain in the U.S. with the U.S. divorce, which is not published at home.

If that is "accepting" laws of another country (as well as their cultural standards of appropriateness) then I don't have a problem with it, any more than I would have a problem with adapting the process in Texas to a California marriage, or even more common one formalized South of our border. A problem often is explaining the differences in the laws as related to ownership of property and issues involving the children. The concept of "equality" between the two genders is an issue often, although I think the growth of television and then the internet has made some strides in that area.

Treat it like voluntary arbitration Originally Posted by DSK

Depending on what it is and the documentation that can have repercussions and consequences the Parties may not fully understand. If it's "nonbinding" it's basically a waste of time, and if it is binding, it must be a sufficiently specific award to be enforceable in State courts and be in compliance with State law.

Also, after watching the video, all it says is that they are allowed to practice their law without separating it from constitutional law. Therefore constitutional law is still in effect and no "law" has been broken.

Example: "AFTER she goes to get a divorce from the civil courts, she must be allowed to obtain a religious divorce according to her customs." Applies only to the ones who practice those customs. They can give each other upside down blowjobs for all I care.

I say let them. It would be hilarious to see LLIdiots Klan trip over themselves!

Exactly. I am sure the same kinds of "internal courts" go on within the Amish community, as well as other religious sects.

I have no problem with it; as long as our courts are refrained from recognizing it.

Treat it like voluntary arbitration Originally Posted by DSK

Exactly. I am sure the same kinds of "internal courts" go on within the Amish community, as well as other religious sects. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Two issues in play: (1) at the moment in Texas I know of no statute or rule that requires a Texas Judge to take judicial notice of and enforce a decision by a religious group's "tribunal" (non-American Indian .. which would be more "treaty" and Federal statute than religion) and (2) a "contractual" agreement between the Parties could be ignored by the Texas Judge on the basis of the "agreements" of the Parties were against the public policies of the State of Texas.

Recent Texas Supreme Court decisions may come into play, if the "agreement" of the Parties contains the special, specific language contained in the Texas Family Code and approved by the Texas Supreme Court as being BINDING upon the Texas Judge. All the Texas Judge can do in that case is enter a Judgment that does not vary the terms and conditions of the BINDING agreement.... again ... terms "against public policy" may offer the Texas Judge an out, but I would imagine the violation of "public policy" would have to be of a serious and compelling nature, along the lines of being offensive to the senses..... e.g. mutilation and the like practiced in some countries.

Thanks for a good summary.

Ok,,,so you saying the Texas legal system is set up to handle this?

I don't see any downside...............why not allow it.

Two issues in play: (1) at the moment in Texas I know of no statute or rule that requires a Texas Judge to take judicial notice of and enforce a decision by a religious group's "tribunal" (non-American Indian .. which would be more "treaty" and Federal statute than religion) and (2) a "contractual" agreement between the Parties could be ignored by the Texas Judge on the basis of the "agreements" of the Parties were against the public policies of the State of Texas.

Recent Texas Supreme Court decisions may come into play, if the "agreement" of the Parties contains the special, specific language contained in the Texas Family Code and approved by the Texas Supreme Court as being BINDING upon the Texas Judge. All the Texas Judge can do in that case is enter a Judgment that does not vary the terms and conditions of the BINDING agreement.... again ... terms "against public policy" may offer the Texas Judge an out, but I would imagine the violation of "public policy" would have to be of a serious and compelling nature, along the lines of being offensive to the senses..... e.g. mutilation and the like practiced in some countries. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Ok,,,so you saying the Texas legal system is set up to handle this?

I don't see any downside...............why not allow it. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

The Texas Legislature can "regulate" it and in effect legislate "public policy."

But the "system' is in place, because it effectively does the same thing with "foreign judgments" sought to be enforced and/or embraced by Texas Courts, so long as they are consistent with the principles of "full faith and credit," which is, again, limited to "public policy" restrictions.

As Texas has varying regions in the State, from which different attitudes and mores (standards of what is "acceptable" and "appropriate" ) one may see different Judges in different parts of the State come down differently as to what each will "accept" or "reject" in such a decision/contract, with appellate courts to sort it out (if the parties can afford the appeal). In steps the legislature, which doesn't meet annually. There is already "forum shopping" ongoing in the State, and with a 90 day waiting period in a county for a divorce, for instance, that can be workable.

Where there may be differences and you may find it objectionable, when issues of religion and practices enter the picture, as well as gender distinctions as far as disparate treatment is concerned, then the U.S. Constitution (and the Texas Constitution) may void any such provisions or void the entire "agreement" or decision unless there is a severance clause in it.

The "down side" is the case of a "mixed" couple ... different faiths or a rejection of specific practices of a faith, and the "faithful" Party seeks to compel or impose the "offending" provisions on the opposite Party (OR THE PARTIES' CHILDREN!!!!). I would add that the "CURRENT EVENTS" ongoing at present may well impact on the decision making as to what is allowed and not allowed by Texas Judges, who are elected. Like it or not, the PR is not good for the Muslim faithful.

One gets a "customary" scowl or stern frown from a Judge who is told he or she can't do that!

As long stoning the ex-wife is still on the table...

It's all good till women get their clits cut off.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/shariatexas.asp