Oklahoma SQ 755 would forbid Okla. judges from using Sharia law — Islamic law

[Glocktogo]

The real question is are you willing to give up freedom of negotiating contracts internationally or choosing to have a wedding in an exotic location for the perceived security from religious laws?

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't an international contract still be valid regardless of what Oklahoma judicial rules said? It wouldn't be a violation of the law to enter into an international contract. It might have some bearing on where a contract dispute was heard, but if the jurisdiction was decided as Oklahoma, wouldn't it be in the best interests of an Oklahoman entering into an international contract (including the state) to have the protections of U.S. and Oklahoma law in a dispute?

As for exotic wedding locations, do you mean like Hawaii? lol

Seriously, would it be so bad to come back to OK and get a justice of the peace wedding to back up the international wedding certificate? That is if this SQ invalidated intenational marriage certificates (which I haven't seen proof of yet). You could still show the international certificate to non-state entities.

This is just me playing devil's advocate because I think this particullar SQ is a waste of time. I just don't see the boogeyman that you and JB see in it.

 

[Glocktogo]

And we don't need to pass laws about it.

My problem with this is the fact it is being used to appeal to the worst in us.

For all the disdain about "sheeple" around here, some folks sure let themselves be led.

So you're saying that our social expectations of others in our midst is one of the worst parts of us? Should we be so open minded that we tolerate the rape that you referred to earlier, just because somewhere on this planet some throwback tribe in a jungle somewhere practices it?

If a group of people insist on following their native customs to the point that they come to your community and practice it in direct contravention of your societal norms, then you absolutely pass a law making it illegal. That's exactly what we've been doing in this country since we told the British Empire to sod off!

As a practicioner of the dark arts, I'd expect you of all people to remember that!

 

[Rajder]

Let me get this straight. We have a state question that possibly won't do anything except hurt Oklahoman's and current or future Oklahoma businesses that do international business. Or at the best case scenario it is a complete waste of taxpayer time and money and not much else. But, it is packaged as a measure against possible future sharia law (which is already done by the COTUS and previous supreme court rulings) and is obviously only intended to bring out republican voters by appealing to the general fear of islam. And you guys still are going to vote yes!!!!!!

Man, the bigotry must be strong when it even overules common sense.

A little trickery if you want to call it that, isn't all bad if the result is good policy, carefully construed and carried out.

So what you're saying is the ends justify the means. But only if the ends is the result that the right / conservative agrees with. I wonder if the Dems were doing this same thing if everyone here would be so nonchalant about the methods being used?

 

[JB Books]

What???

I agree that we should expect people who come to our vountry to conform to our values and accept the social compact. If their native customs contradict our law, then our law should trump.

My problem is that the motivation of this state question is to whip up anti Muslim sentiment in an effort to manipulate the voting public. It proposes an unrealsitic scenario, then calls for a law. It is simply silly, and dangerous to the degree that it further alienates a group of Americans.


Our legislature does not think out the consequences too much any more, they just do whatever polls well. When are they going to address issues like health, education and jobs?

So you're saying that our social expectations of others in our midst is one of the worst parts of us? Should we be so open minded that we tolerate the rape that you referred to earlier, just because somewhere on this planet some throwback tribe in a jungle somewhere practices it?

If a group of people insist on following their native customs to the point that they come to your community and practice it in direct contravention of your societal norms, then you absolutely pass a law making it illegal. That's exactly what we've been doing in this country since we told the British Empire to sod off!

As a practicioner of the dark arts, I'd expect you of all people to remember that!

 

[vvvvvvv]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't an international contract still be valid regardless of what Oklahoma judicial rules said? It wouldn't be a violation of the law to enter into an international contract. It might have some bearing on where a contract dispute was heard, but if the jurisdiction was decided as Oklahoma, wouldn't it be in the best interests of an Oklahoman entering into an international contract (including the state) to have the protections of U.S. and Oklahoma law in a dispute?

In a perfect world, you're right that it would be in the best interest of Oklahomans to have the protections of U.S. and Oklahoma law in a dispute. But that is not always the case.

When negotiating a contract, there are two key points of contention that are sometimes traded: choice of venue and choice of law. Let's say that I want to contract with a graphics design company out of Australia. Obviously, a venue of Oklahoma for be very inconvenient for them, while a venue in Australia would be very inconvenient for me. In this case, the applicable Australian laws might be more beneficial to both of us.

So now that we have decided to us Australian law for the contract, leaving the next point of contention as the choice of venue. There are two things that would go into this decision: "fair" tradeoff, and jurisdiction. If they perceive me as a higher risk of breaching the contract than themselves, then they might prefer to have Oklahoma defined as the venue as this would allow them to actually collect on a judgement. I would also probably prefer Oklahoma as a convenient venue because the contract is being done under laws that my legal team may not be as familiar with as theirs.

Most courts of other countries allow their courts to reference international law, for better or worse. If I were to sue the Australian company for breach of contract in Oklahoma, obviously Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction. However, the Australian courts would likely consider the Oklahoma ruling that referenced Australian law when I go through their legal system to collect on the judgement.

As for exotic wedding locations, do you mean like Hawaii? lol

Seriously, would it be so bad to come back to OK and get a justice of the peace wedding to back up the international wedding certificate? That is if this SQ invalidated intenational marriage certificates (which I haven't seen proof of yet). You could still show the international certificate to non-state entities.

This is just me playing devil's advocate because I think this particullar SQ is a waste of time. I just don't see the boogeyman that you and JB see in it.

This is a valid point (and I think you know that I don't mean Hawaii). But how many couples would go through that process? How many would not find out about that requirement until divorce proceedings? I'm willing to bet that if they didn't find out until they tried to get a divorce, someone would definitely have a huge advantage since they would not be considered to be legally married.

What about married immigrants who go through the citizenship process? When they move to Oklahoma, should they be required to have a justice of the peace wedding?

 

[Glocktogo]

Let me get this straight. We have a state question that possibly won't do anything except hurt Oklahoman's and current or future Oklahoma businesses that do international business. Or at the best case scenario it is a complete waste of taxpayer time and money and not much else. But, it is packaged as a measure against possible future sharia law (which is already done by the COTUS and previous supreme court rulings) and is obviously only intended to bring out republican voters by appealing to the general fear of islam. And you guys still are going to vote yes!!!!!!

Man, the bigotry must be strong when it even overules common sense.



So what you're saying is the ends justify the means. But only if the ends is the result that the right / conservative agrees with. I wonder if the Dems were doing this same thing if everyone here would be so nonchalant about the methods being used?

News Flash: They are doing this exact same thing. They've been doing it for years.

 

[LightningCrash]

you people is ornery

 

[Glocktogo]

What???

I agree that we should expect people who come to our vountry to conform to our values and accept the social compact. If their native customs contradict our law, then our law should trump.

My problem is that the motivation of this state question is to whip up anti Muslim sentiment in an effort to manipulate the voting public. It proposes an unrealsitic scenario, then calls for a law. It is simply silly, and dangerous to the degree that it further alienates a group of Americans.


Our legislature does not think out the consequences too much any more, they just do whatever polls well. When are they going to address issues like health, education and jobs?

Don't forget about the roads!

As for the rest, have they told you or made some announcement that this is their intent? Have they announced their anti-Muslim sentiment? Being against a foreign legal system is not the same as being against the people who use it. Perhaps it's your anti-conservative sentiment that is being manipulated? Or are you just passing judgement against conservatism as part of your societal norms?

 

[Progun223]

What surprises me is how many people on an Oklahoma gun forum are gullible enough to just drink the Kool Aid and be content in their lazy boy. I think that if the government declared Sharia Law and told us to turn in our guns tomorrow, about 75% of the people on here would obey.

 

[Glocktogo]

In a perfect world, you're right that it would be in the best interest of Oklahomans to have the protections of U.S. and Oklahoma law in a dispute. But that is not always the case.

When negotiating a contract, there are two key points of contention that are sometimes traded: choice of venue and choice of law. Let's say that I want to contract with a graphics design company out of Australia. Obviously, a venue of Oklahoma for be very inconvenient for them, while a venue in Australia would be very inconvenient for me. In this case, the applicable Australian laws might be more beneficial to both of us.

So now that we have decided to us Australian law for the contract, leaving the next point of contention as the choice of venue. There are two things that would go into this decision: "fair" tradeoff, and jurisdiction. If they perceive me as a higher risk of breaching the contract than themselves, then they might prefer to have Oklahoma defined as the venue as this would allow them to actually collect on a judgement. I would also probably prefer Oklahoma as a convenient venue because the contract is being done under laws that my legal team may not be as familiar with as theirs.

Most courts of other countries allow their courts to reference international law, for better or worse. If I were to sue the Australian company for breach of contract in Oklahoma, obviously Oklahoma does not have jurisdiction. However, the Australian courts would likely consider the Oklahoma ruling that referenced Australian law when I go through their legal system to collect on the judgement.





This is a valid point (and I think you know that I don't mean Hawaii). But how many couples would go through that process? How many would not find out about that requirement until divorce proceedings? I'm willing to bet that if they didn't find out until they tried to get a divorce, someone would definitely have a huge advantage since they would not be considered to be legally married.

What about married immigrants who go through the citizenship process? When they move to Oklahoma, should they be required to have a justice of the peace wedding?

As I stated before, there's been nothing entered into evidence that international marriages would be nullified in Oklahoma by this law. They may still be recognized as valid if the marriage contract was entered into in the same manner as one here in the US would be.

The same goes for other types of contracts. If an Australian company wants a contract entered into in accordance with Austrailian law, but wants the venue to be Oklahoma, that's cherry picking, right? If you get a ruling here in Oklahoma and the Austrailian court uses it as a factor in their decision so you can collect damages from the Aussie company, that's good right? If the Austrailian company gets a ruling there against you and the Oklahoma court doesn't recognize it in their proceedings, that's also good for you right?

I want to see the downside here, but I haven't as of yet. I'm open to more persuasion though!