Oklahoma Judge cites Genesis to deny name change

[galdre]

You have to go to a judge to change your name in Oklahoma?! I changed my name while living in California and didn't have to do that. Seems pretty stupid that someone should have to go to a judge to change their name, and that the judge can refuse for such stupid reasons

 

[JollyRoger]

The judge is just protecting Oklahoma from becoming the land of confusion.

 

[Borachio]

I thought this thread was about some town called Genesis being obliged to change its name. How stupid am I? Very.

But while I'm on the subject: Why should names be gender-coded anyway? And why should women have to (or usually do) change their surnames on marriage?

"My name is Sue. How. Do. You. Do?"

Can I change my name now? How about "the artist formerly known as the artist formerly known (sic*) as Borachio, now reknown as Borachio"?

*i.e. duplication not a typo.

 

[Arakhor]

Now all we need in this thread is a "strict constitutionalist" to tell us all why this is clearly not unconstitutional.

 

[Borachio]

See, once you start writing things down and start believing they must be absolutely true, whether they are, oh I don't know, 200 years old or, maybe, 2000 years old, you are going to have trouble.

(It's all written down here, in my little black book. Hocus pocus, bibble babble, boil and trouble. Don't mind me, I'm just losing sanity. Nothing to see here. Move along.)

 

[GhostWriter16]

Now all we need in this thread is a "strict constitutionalist" to tell us all why this is clearly not unconstitutional.

It probably isn't technically, but its still stupid and idiotic.

 

[Berzerker]

its unconstitutional, he's establishing religion

 

[GhostWriter16]

The first amendment only applies to congress, doesn't it?

Even if that's not accurate, his reasoning is religious, but he is not mandating "Exercise of religion."

I'd agree SCOTUS could strike this down on ninth amendment grounds, however, and they probably should. If it gets that far, which it probably won't.

 

[Old Hippy]

be far quicker for the guy to change his name to a lesile or some other duel gender name then change it to the one he wants... just so he can stuff it to the judge

 

[Berzerker]

The first amendment only applies to congress, doesn't it?

Even if that's not accurate, his reasoning is religious, but he is not mandating "Exercise of religion."

I'd agree SCOTUS could strike this down on ninth amendment grounds, however, and they probably should. If it gets that far, which it probably won't.

Americans have federal citizenship too, the states cant establish religion either - and I'm not accusing the state of passing such a law, it sounds like this guy is adding to the category of fraud. Establishing religion (or respecting the establishment of religion) involves laws but assumes judges aint writing their own, so I'd expect the law to be upheld and this judge's decisions erased. He is mandating others follow his version of religion - they must keep names they dont want based on what this dude thinks is a message from God.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Americans have federal citizenship too, the states cant establish religion either - and I'm not accusing the state of passing such a law, it sounds like this guy is adding to the category of fraud. Establishing religion (or respecting the establishment of religion) involves laws but assumes judges aint writing their own, so I'd expect the law to be upheld and this judge's decisions erased. He is mandating others follow his version of religion - they must keep names they dont want based on what this dude thinks is a message from God.

We should be clear that I was more or less arguing a technicality there, I don't like this law anymore than you do.

I think your argument is superior to mine.

 

[Berzerker]

well thank you

 

[Leoreth]

The first amendment only applies to congress, doesn't it?

Yeah, and you know why that is? Because only Congress can make new laws. Judges have to stick to laws that already exist. And there's none to base his judgment on.