U.S. District Court Judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange said she
was persuaded that a constitutional amendment known as
State Question (SQ) 755 seemed to have a legally improper
religious purpose and posed a threat to violate the rights
of Muslims. It doesn’t matter that the ballot measure
passed last week by a vote of 70 percent to 30 percent.
So why did this federal judge rule against the
overwhelming majority of Oklahoma voters? She said "While
the public has an interest in the will of the voters being
carried out, the Court finds that the public has a more
profound and long-term interest in upholding an
individual's constitutional rights." The Constitution
Vicki is referring to is our U.S. Constitution (USC). Ok,
so let’s see if a judge can define the difference between
secular and religious? “[P]laintiff has made a
preliminary showing that State Question 755’s amendment
does not have a secular purpose”. She says it has a
religious purpose. In court argument it was noted that SQ
755 was proposed to make sure that Oklahoma courts were
not used to undermine the "Judeo-Christian" founding
principles of the country. But, wait a minute. If this
purpose is true then civil law *really* has a religious
foundation? Is civil law facially religious? Vicki
affirms a ‘yes’ herself when she affirms that the state is
involved in all kinds of contracts of a religious nature.
In fact, she accepted the plantiff's argument that an
Islamic will would not be fully probated by a state court
in Oklahoma. But what do we do about all those nasty
things like corporal punishment of wife, etc. where Sharia
law conflicts with "Judeo-Christian" law. So, I’m
confused. Is civil law secular? Is it even religiously
neutral? How can Vicki *judge* that SQ 755 "is not
facially neutral”. I suppose this means a judge is at
liberty to “religiously” define “neutral” as well as
uphold whatever law they want.
Will Vicki be impeached? Probably not. I do believe our
beloved USC is broken.
Quotes are from www.constitutioncampaign.org/blog.