A New Jersey judge recently cited a husband's beliefs under Sharia Law in a case where his wife claimed rape and sought a protective order. The judge did not assert that Sharia Law superseded US Law, but used the husband's religious beliefs as a rationale for not establishing criminal intent. This controversial ruling was overturned on appeal, highlighting the critical importance of equal protection under the law in a secular democracy. The discussion raises significant questions about the intersection of religious customs and legal standards in immigrant communities.
PREREQUISITESLegal professionals, policymakers, sociologists, and anyone interested in the intersection of law, religion, and cultural practices in a secular society.
jarednjames said:GeargCantor, words fail me.
You OWN a car, you DO NOT in any way own your wife / husband.
If you take two people, one says "I want to have sex with you" and the other says "no", but the first proceeds to do it anyway, that is rape, whether in marriage or not.
as aboveGeorgCantor said:Reference please.
OF COURSE! At least once in their lifetime. Isn't that somewhat obvious?[/QUOTE said:rubbish unless you prove it with a reference
If she has had sex for 5 years with you on 1003 occassions said:again, rubbish
I am not from the US said:i prefer that law to ones such as having a hand removed for theft...
GeorgCantor said:I understand now that is a commonly accepted understanding in the US, but you are asking for trouble with this. A "rape" by a husband is not comparable in ANY way WHATSOEVER to a rape by a stranger. And this is exactly 100.00% certain.