Signing a pledge to limit first amendment rights, contract law(which is what Sharia Law cases are really), and any type of marriage, is not good politics. If you don’t like Sharia laws, don’t enter into any contract based on those terms. If you have ideas on marriage, practice them and encourage the same of your peers and family. If you don’t like porn, don’t subscribe to watching it. Our supreme court did spend two years watching porn once a week to see if they could define it as illegal. They could not, and they have more important things to do right now for sure!
Mail.
Marriage is already deeply entwined in the law, and should be, due to the inherent tendency of the arrangement to produce new taxpayers.
Sharia does often entail contract law, but the bare terms of a contract appear against a backdrop of what is called gap filler law, not directly in the contract but an influence on how the contract should be interpreted. It is that back door which could allow development of a body of law that is alien to our traditional legal principles.
As for pornography, it is an assumption too far to say that the protection sought for women and children is necessarily violative of the first amendment. Many women and children every year are drawn into lives no reasonable person would choose, coerced by drugs or poverty or threat of force to serve as sexual entertainment for debased persons. This often ties directly into criminal activity that is so profitable that local law enforcement fails in their duty to protect. This is the foul root from which much pornography stems, and it is not the proper subject of free speech protection, though the end product is considered so.
Bottom line, a pledge can be a good thing in such areas, if there is not an over-commitment to a specific legal strategy, unless that strategy, like DOMA, is a proven and constitutional strategy.
>”If you don’t like Sharia Laws, don’t enter into a contract on those terms’’< Holy S**t! That is staggeringly stupid! Sharia law? Where do you live?