Court Opinion

ID: 9824431
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-01 10:45:35.908346+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:45.343094
License: Public Domain

*417DAMOORGIAN, J.,
dissenting.
I dissent because the ward did not lose his right to marry. Rather, his right to marry was made subject to court approval for his own protection. Strikingly absent from the majority’s attempt to explain why this case is a matter of great public importance justifying the certified question, is any attempt to argue that the state does not have a compelling state interest in protecting those who are declared incompetent from becoming victims of nefarious conduct. Perhaps this is because the condition precedent imposed on the ward’s right to marry is not unduly burdensome. The implication of the majority’s certified question is to allow a ward to be victimized and then have the court system unravel the mess. I do not join in such an undertaking.