Remember this little nugget of genius from Hollywood scholar Cameron Diaz during the 2004 election cycle? : "We have a voice now, and we're not using it, and women have so much to lose. I mean, we could lose the right to our bodies…if you think that rape should be legal, then don't vote."

This was part of a rambling and obviously inane monologue Diaz gave on The Oprah Winfrey Show in 2004 as she plugged both Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle and John Kerry for POTUS. Pundits tried to defend her diatribe by saying she was expressing her support for Kerry's pro-abortion views. How that translates into "legal rape," I do not know. She should probably just stick to film scripts.

Well, Bush won after all that and rape still isn't legal. In truth, it's closer to being legal under Hollywood's darling Obama six years later than it ever was under W.

In New Jersey last year, family court judge Joseph Charles ruled against a woman's request for a restraining order against her ex-husband who she claimed sexually abused her. Judge Charles said he believed the man was behaving according to his Muslim beliefs, and that he didn't have "the criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault" her.

The woman testified that her husband repeatedly forced her to have sex with him, telling her he could do anything he wanted to her because she was his wife and, as such, forced to submit. Judge Charles ruled that the husband's behavior "was something that was consistent with his practices and…not prohibited."

Here, Judge Charles indirectly referred to Sharia law, the sacred law of Islam and, Muslims believe, the direct will of Allah. According to Sharia, women are considered inferior to men, and as such have fewer rights. In fact, a woman counts as half a man in giving evidence in a court of law. A husband has the right and the duty, both morally and religiously, to beat his wives (yes, they practice polygamy) for disobedience or misbehavior, however weak the evidence may be. A woman does not have the right to choose her husband, where she will live, or the clothes she will wear. She also cannot travel freely unless accompanied by a male relative.

Under this law, women are never independent from the fathers, brothers, husbands, and other men in their families. One of the most common punishments for women for adultery or other misconduct is the horrific and primitive practice of public stoning, sometimes at the hands of family members. In short, Sharia maintains the extreme patriarchy of the Islamic world.

However, the feminist voices have been practically silent on this issue. It seems "legal rape" disappears as soon as a Democrat is in office. But as Judge Charles has demonstrated, this is not so.

While judges try to respect various belief systems, as Judge Charles did here, they risk condoning Sharia law in the United States. In fact, a law proposed in Oklahoma, which will be on the November ballot there, would ban judges from considering international or Sharia law in their rulings. The fact that the issue is even being considered should scare everyone. We can only hope that Oklahomans have the good sense to uphold this ban, because without it, Sharia law would be allowed in America's courts.

Our autonomous justice system should not be considering international and Sharia law. That's a sure first step to losing our sovereignty and becoming part of a global community with amorphous boundaries, which the left and Obama would enjoy more than we proud Americans can imagine or believe. If immigrants want to take advantage of all the God-given rights and freedoms we Americans enjoy, defended through the decades by brave men and women, they must accept that they are under the jurisdiction of our justice system based on equal rights. In fact, the primary catalyst of the liberation of Muslim women as well as the safeguarding of American sovereignty will be the obliteration of Sharia wherever it is practiced.