Wisconsin V. Yoder: The Criminalization Of Polygamy

In The Gay Marriage Case, Obergefell v Hodges, the United States Supreme Court decided that a state may not prohibit same-sex marriage. Instead, it emphasized that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to the gay society through the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment of the United States of America Constitution. The involved decision maker in the case was Justice Anthony Kennedy, who gave four primary reasons for his decision.

Polygamy is the practice or custom of having more than one wife or husband at the same time. Polyandry is a form of polygamy where a woman can marry more than one man at the same time, and polygyny is another form of polygamy where a man is allowed to have more than one wife. Polygamy is more known than polyandry. Polygamy is permitted in countries like Australia, Afghanistan, Iran, and Africa, and in other countries like the United States, England, Spain, and Mexico it is not permitted. Many view Polygamy as a sexual desire and satisfaction to be with more than just one man or woman, but for many cultural reasons, man and woman may have more than one wife or husband. As discussed in the video, the meaning of love & polygamy, the positive outcomes of having more than one wife or husband is so they can be provided each other with help.

Most would equate their struggle and first for equality to gay marriage. This is mostly due to so much acceptance of those individuals that do not fit the mold of the typical monogamous man and women marriage. We are far from a city that is accepting of this union or are we? Recently families who practice polygamy have been in the public increasingly. Modern day television series such as the Sister Wives follows a family in a polygamous union who documents their day to day life and the struggle that we mentioned in the previous paragraph. This family lives their life in peace which reverts back to my stance on the issue in which the laws that currently exist around polygamy unions are good as they are. Reporter Amy Robek of the 20/20 news show reported on the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints Polygamy Compound in a documentary titled “Secrets of the Mormon Cult: Breaking Polygamy”. This documentary was filmed after the prosecution of the cult leader of the FLDS compound Warren Jeff’s. They got a rare inside look on what life is like within compounds, shedding light to outsiders the daily operations and schedules the sheltered people. What they discovered was these families are hold a lower standard of education, health care, and nutritional values. From

The Court, in its ruling in Yoder, applied the “Sherbert Test” and found that the compulsory education law was a substantial burden on their religious practices and the State’s interests were not compelling enough to disrupt the Amish way of life.

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

Verner. Sherbert was fired because she failed to show up to work on Saturdays because of practices in the Seventh Day Adventist Church. She was denied unemployment benefits because her religious practice was not a good enough reason to fail to show up. In this particular case, the court held that Sherbert’s First Amendment right was burdened, that there was no “compelling interest” being challenged, and that it was not protecting said interest in the “least restrictive” way possible. The court established the Sherbert test, or standard, for reviewing legislation that conflicted with the Free Exercise Clause. The court also implemented the Sherbert test when ruling in Wisconsin v. Yoder. In this case, the court held that the state did not have a compelling interest to require that children from an Amish to attend a public school. As mentioned previously, the majority in Oregon v. Smith completely disregarded this standard and reverted to the “neutral law”

Hodges concluded that the right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of a person protected by the Constitution. The Court has long afforded the right to marry constitutional protection. But the standard test for identifying a fundamental right under the Due Process Clause is that the right must be “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition (Washington Post)”. However, the majority opinion went further to find that “the liberties implied within the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause have stretched to certain personal choices central to a person’s dignity and autonomy, including their intimate choices that define personal identity and beliefs (Washington Post)”. Using this idea, the majority opinion concluded that the liberty interest to marry extends to same-sex couples. The ruling has helped gay rights advocates fight more than a hundred and fifteen pieces of legislation that were introduced in state legislatures that were targeting gay people. The majority opinion agreed that the Constitution contemplates that democracy is the appropriate process for change. “In addition to clearing the way for same-sex marriage nationwide, Friday’s decision may help end discrimination against gays and lesbians in other matters, such as adoption and custody rights, legal experts say (LATimes)”. Gay couples can now have no problem matters when wanting to start a family because of the great decision made by the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion in the United States v. Windsor, which struck down a federal law denying benefits to married same-sex couples, and exactly twelve years after his majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down laws making gay sex a crime.“In all his decisions Justice Kennedy embraced a vision of a living Constitution, one that evolves with societal changes (NYTimes)”. Kennedy makes a great point that the generations before wrote and ratified the Bill

In the case, Wisconsin v. Yonder which was argued on December 8, 1971, and the decision was made on May 15, 1972. The defendants were an Amish Mennonite Church who was in violation of Wisconsin’s school compulsory law. Which after their children graduated the eighth grade they declined to send them to the public or private school. Because of the compulsory school law which is required until age 16 a child’s school attendance. The Amish Mennonite Church continued to provide their children with vocational education preparing them for continued Amish life in their community. The sincerely did not believe that the Amish life would work well with the public or private school attendance law because of their way of life. The Amish believe that this

Hyde v Hyde 1866 defined the term marriage as: “The voluntary union of one man and one woman at the exclusion of all others for life”. This definition is built of the back of a very morally religious country, and in fact prior to the definition it uses the words “in christendom” . The basis of this concept can be traced right back to the creation of religion with the creation of Adam and Eve as Husband and Wife in the bible . This position has stood the test of time and is still to some extent true in today’s society. However the Legislature and Judiciary have over the last forty to fifty years appeared to severely weaken the position and in some instances have gone as far as saying Hyde is no longer relevant .

Conway. This was the first case to weigh in on Utah’s anti-bigamy laws to state that they are constitutional. Further when Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court in discussion of the opinion further discussed if Mormons or the sects that are part of the religion practicing polygamy should be exempt from the law. The state of Utah may use this in our current case to try and show and or justify why Ms. Evans, Mr. & Mrs. Conway should not have the right to be married in a polygamous marriage, or granted a religious exemption. Lastly in Reynolds Chief Justice Waite compared polygamy as “a criminal act” which is also where the state of Utah will weigh in on this wording as well for the defense.

The Warsaw Signal, a prominent newspaper in Nauvoo, IL, demonstrated an intense skepticism and at times hostility animus towards Joseph Smith’s polygamist claims. Aside from attacking polygamy, the Warsaw Signal also accuses Joseph Smith of ordering hit-men to kill political enemies and running a counterfeit currency operation. 2 Thomas C. Sharp, the author of the Warsaw Signal states: “They show conclusively that the females of your city, are taught by you, to hold virtue, chastity, decency and propriety, eh! every thing that gives adornment to the character of the sex, as subservient to your will and desire. Yes Joe! by your showing, you have made it appear to the world, that the women of your church, will willingly submit to a seducer if

Within Canada we have a generous amount of freedom but this leads to the abuse of our system. This is especially true with regards to polygamy in Bountiful, BC. Because women are susceptible to mental abuse in polygamist relationships it should continue to be illegal in Canada. If this law is in enforced it would help women to be freed of the oppression caused by male domination, eliminate the need for women to suppress feelings that conflict with the ideals of the polygamy life, and aid in avoiding depression resulting from the build-up of concealed feelings.

The proposed legalization of same-sex marriage is one of the most significant issues in contemporary American family law. As a heavily campaigned development currently discussed in law assessment; these extremely confrontational and debatable political questions are facing present day American courts. If same-sex marriage is legalized, its affect on the parents, children, same sex couples, families, and the social and political world will be astronomical. The arguments surrounding the issue though confrontational nonetheless are easily seen from a wide array of perspectives. One of the perspectives states that marriage is a promise to a spouse to stay loyal and faithful in all

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.

Polygamy has been illegal in the United States since 1878, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that freedom to practice the Mormon religion did not extend to having multiple wives (Reynolds v United States 1878). Federal law does not allow prospective immigrants who practice polygamy into the United States. Although, there has been polygamy found in New York among some immigrants from countries in which