Posted on 04/16/2018 7:16:08 PM PDT by aimhigh
Judge rules Islamic ceremony wasn't a legal marriage, so woman can testify against Ayyub Abdul-Alim in gun case
The ex-wife of a city man charged in a gun case will be able to testify against him after a judge ruled their Islamic wedding ceremony didn't meet the state's legal requirements for marriage.
Ayyub Abdul-Alim is slated to go on trial April 24. He is charged with two counts of possession of a firearm without a firearms identification card and a count each of illegal possession of a firearm and possession of a large capacity feeding device.
(Excerpt) Read more at masslive.com ...
I am no fan of the ROP but I am one of the First Amendment.
This ruling is beyond dangerous.
This also would seem to be about whether she MUST, not whether she MAY. She always MAY.
This kind of thing is what we will get, though, from a “no trace of sharia” policy. Imams won’t be able to perform valid weddings.
But here’s another twist: she’s an ex. So doesn’t that abrogate the privilege too?
I would go so far to say that since ALL the several States that ratified the Constitution, A4:S2:C1 in particular, honored common law marriage that all State laws requiring a license to wed are in fact in abeyance of said clause.
Likewise, the body of P&I mentioned by the clause being the only applicable body of rights retained among the several States when the 9th Amendment was ratified to be the other rights retained, such laws enacted under federal authority where there is no State Jurisdiction are likewise unlawful.
We need Regulatory Decapture on so many levels, and screw the desire of all lievels of government to try to raise funds by issuance of licenses on the pretense of managing society.
“We need Regulatory Decapture on so many levels, and screw the desire of all lievels of government to try to raise funds by issuance of licenses on the pretense of managing society.“
Yea, what you said.
L
With “gay marriage” being de rigueur, marriage itself might as well be busted down to “householding.” Any meaning transcending that needs to be in the bailiwick of the church, temple, or other “house of worship.” Whether it worships Jesus or Cthulhu or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
This article says the privilege can be waived by either party at any time.
https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/husband-wife-privilege.html
But how is it fake? It valid is a marriage license, fine. But saying one religion is a marriage and another not, is odd.
Then, again, where does multiple wives fit in? Does state law trump religion?
I think the judge is an idiot and is more interested in prosecuting a "gun crime" than in justice.
Finally, that the person is Islamic, that should disqualify them from buying and possessing guns anyway.
What, did they say it three times?
It sounded like she wanted to refuse on the basis of the marriage, but it was ruled she couldn’t. But since she is an ex, what is the issue? Was she saying, perhaps, that the Islamic marriage overruled a state divorce? If that’s where she is, then the state rules apply.
And she may be afraid for different reasons. Maybe she should be eligible for witness protection.
Well your “finally” isn’t in law, so rotsa ruck.
That’s how Islamic divorces are done
They did not have a marriage license and did not file/register the marriage with the state. Whether their ceremony was Islamic, Jewish, Christian or whatever is irrelevant.
Wow.
There are a bunch of bigamists out there.
The privilege applies for the period of time that they were married.
But it really isn’t about just gay marriage. There’s an saying, IIRC, that when orthodoxy becomes optional it will end up being proscribed ...implied when those pushing for it to be optional finally get the camel in the tent.
Those trying to call this perverted dance never wanted to be just left alone, like your householding suggestion might lend itself to. They wanted acceptance, affirmation, and finally dominance.
This is ultimately about erasing the free exercise of religion, and ultimately Christianity proper.
That, if you’ll pardon the phrase, men (perverts in particular) might be found true ... end of story, no saying God has different ideas allowed.
In the original article, the husband told her where the contraband was.
She went to the police.
But it sets an excellent precedent.
These marriages are not part of US law.
Sharia is not part of US law.
” I am no fan of the ROP but I am one of the First Amendment.”
In THIS country in most states a certificate of marriage is required in order to be considered married by law. Otherwise anyone and everyone could run around saying “we’re married” with all the legal protections and obligations thereof.
How in your mind does that infringe on the First Amendment ?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.