Polygamy Buhman Case Summary

The Defendant, Hale Hallow, is petitioning the court to declare Utah’s state law criminalizing polygamy unconstitutional. Hale Hallow is a faithful member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (LDS, or Mormons) and has relations with multiple different women. He believes that he has a constitutional right to enter into a marriage with more than one of these women. However, Mr. Hallow is being denied such right due to Utah state law. After Utah’s state court of appeals ruled that the law will be upheld, Mr. Hallow appealed to the United States Supreme Court, arguing that his First and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution were being violated. The Constitutional issues at hand are whether or not polygamy is a constitutional

In the case Obergefell v. Hodges, the sixth Circuit recognized that banning same-sex marriage did not violate the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. James Obergefell and John Arthur James, who were legally married in Maryland in 2013, filed a lawsuit to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio for charging the state’s refusal to recognize same-sex marriages on death certificates on July 19, 2013, and the case was assigned to Judge Timothy S. Black. On July 22, 2013, Judge Black agreed a temporary restraining order that required the state to recognize the marriage of Mr. Obergefell and Mr. Arthur on Mr. Arthur’s death certificate. In addition, on September 26, 2013, the plaintiffs

I disagree with the holding in the case of loving v. Virginia for three following reasons. One of the reasons being that The state of Virginia had the right to adopt the anti miscegenation laws in order to protect the the purity of white race in contrary to the black race which one believed such association would weakened the racial hygiene and the stability of homes and families . The anti miscegenation laws stated a rational argument that expressed the negative impact interracial marriage will have on either race. On the other hand , the court should not intervene and invalidate the anti miscegenation laws due to the tradition of marriage. Marriage has been subject to state regulation without. Federal intervention. Therefore , it is not

Out of five key Supreme Court rulings, Obergefell v. Hodges was selected to be evaluated in this piece. The ban on same sex marriage is the law being challenged in the case. According to the case study, “groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans on same-sex marriage…” (Oyez, 2014).

In Obergefell v. Hodges, the plaintiffs, including fourteen same-sex couples, argued for their marriages performed legally in another state to be recognized in their state of residence. They were asking that the privileges and responsibilities of marriage be granted to them as they would to any opposite-sex couple. The plaintiffs gave examples of how unequal protection negatively affects them to convince the judges that they should have their marriage recognized. Obergefell was denied being included in his spouse’s death record. DeBoer was disallowed adoption with her spouse, which could cause issues should one of the children become sick or one of the parents die.

The petitioners were two men whose same-sex partners had died and fourteen same-sex couples who all brought cases in their respective District Courts challenging either the denial of their right to marry or the right to have their marriage performed elsewhere recognized in their own state. The cases were heard in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, each of which defines marriage as between a woman and a man. In each case, the relevant District Court found in favor of the petitioner. Each of the respondents, who were state officials responsible

Judge Bunning’s goal is to uphold the constitution of the United States and to issue a ruling that clear and that applied to ALL couples.

The Supreme Court recently had another case, this time dealing with civil rights. In this case, a couple were in a same sex marriage. One of them had a child via a sperm donor, but when they went to fill out the birth certificate, the Arkansas Department of Health issued certificates bearing only the birth mother’s name, and not the other parent. The Arkansas Department of Health, for purposes of birth registration, deems the woman who gives birth to the child the mother, while the name of her husband will be used as the father. Since the other parent was not the father of the child, the Arkansas Department of Health did not put a name in for the father. The couple saw this as a violation of the Constitution because it prohibits same-sex couples the same

I chose to review the article Goodridge v. Department of Public Health by Chief Justice Margaret H. Marshall. In this article, Marshall examines the issue of same-sex marriage by reviewing both sides of the argument, and she comes to the conclusion that not allowing this union is unconstitutional. In a good argument, both propositions must be taken into account and premises from each side should be studied prior to making a final conclusion. Most of the premises used in her argument were prescriptive, or based on personal values (Boss, 2014, p. 199). Chief Justice Marshall mentioned that she had given full deference to the other side of the argument, but found, based on her strong premises, that not allowing same-sex marriage is against a person’s civil rights.

This particular case was another impact our Chief Justice has had on our Country. Though, Roberts did not win this case in the end but had strong opinions towards the issue. Today, same sex marriage is legal in all fifty States. According to Roberts, he believed if same sex was acceptable then why not agree on polygamy (Macedo, Stephen). This particular marriage is having multiple wives or husbands at the same time. Roberts was very strong with his argument and stated polygamy would be less of a stretch than same sex marriage, declaring, “From the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world (Macedo). If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one” (Macedo). After the passing of the same sex marriage law, Roberts brought up the Constitution and wanted all to stop thinking it was the reason for the decision because it had nothing to do with it. Roberts believed the Constitution knows nothing about fairness. Same sex marriage was made legal in the United States on June 26, 2015 (Macedo). The United States Supreme Court ruled this law in Obergefell v. Hodges

The Supreme Court took on the Late Corporation of the Church of the Latter-Day Saints v. United States in 1890. The case was to decide if the United States had the right to seize donated property from the Late Corporation of the Church of the Latter-Day Saints. The case was a six to three decision, led by Joseph Bradley, to take the Mormon Church’s donated property. The Supreme Court did not want the lands owned by the Late Corporation of the Church of the Latter-Day Saints allow the church to spread polygamy, now that polygamy was illegal. The dissent of the case was on the ground that the church had a right to property; it did not argue that the church had a right to religion. The dissent argued that the United States did not have the right

The Morrill Anti- Polygamy Act would outlaw polygamy, yet was not heavily prosecuted because the jury would not convict their own. One of the things that lead up to Latter Day Saints vs United States court case was Reynolds vs the United States. Reynolds was instructed by the Church to be a test case in order to maintain polygamy through the court system. The case was meant to push first amendment rights to protect the Mormon religion and polygamy. The Mormon Church thought that by trying this case, the case would prove that there is a separation of church and state; this would allow them to keep polygamy. The courts argued that polygamy would undermine the entire government system. The ground to this is that America was built on the institute

The protection of the public from religious action must be held under a strict scrutiny test from United States v. Carolene Products Co. (1938), meaning the government has to prove it causes such public harm. The strict scrutiny test for the Free exercise of Religion is called the Sherbert Test, which was established by Justice Brennan’s opinion in Sherbert v. Verner (1963). This test requires a three prong test that we have applied to today’s case. First did the government burden the individual from swaying away from a religious practice due to an established law. Polygamy is part of the Mormon church and the criminalizing of it causes individuals to not take part in it. The next prong’s deal with the state’s mean on the regulation and since

Obergefell v. Hodges was started by same-sex couples throughout the country claiming that denial of their right to marry was against the Fourteenth Amendment. After months of argument, the court finally decided in favor of the couples. Of course, as this topic has been argued for years, it safe to say there will be unfavorable consequences for those involved in a church.

A woman pushes as hard as she can for the last time. “It’s a baby girl!” the man announces, as the new mother hangs her head in sight of the hardships her baby, Elizabeth, will face. Miles away in a hospital, another woman gives birth to a healthy baby girl, Marley. As she sees her baby for the first time, she smiles knowing all the great adventures this baby will experience in her life. The polygamous mom takes the little girl home to her family, a family where she has more than one mother and many brothers and sisters. As she grows up she lives her life trying to be “proper” and “sweet” in the eyes of the prophet. Somewhere far away, Marley is outside playing with her mother and learning how to be a kid. At the age of fourteen, young girls like Marley are innocent and should be going on dates, having fun with friends, and living their life, but for a fourteen year old Elizabeth, she is married to a man twice her age to be his second wife. As she begins her life with her husband, she sees the jealousy of the first wife and the neglect she feels by her presence. Shortly after, the young girl is replaced by another new wife after having a child. Ever since the day she was born, she had no control over these stages happening. Her fate was determined from time of birth and is determined by men until the day she dies. Her fate will be ruled by the religion of Polygamy.