Antibigamy Pros And Cons

II. Summary of Arguments

a. The Utah criminal bigamy statute should be considered unconstitutional.

The First Amendment clearly states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” (U.S Consitution) This U.S amendment provides American citizens with the fundamental human right to practice any religion that one pleases. Thomas Green uses the “free exercise to religion claim” in order to argue that Utah’s bigamy statute punishes him for his marital practices.

Citing the United States Supreme Court case in the Church of the Lukumi Babalu, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, Green claims that the law’s obvious disapproval for his religiously-motivated marital practices and should not

Most of his arguments had already been cited dating back to 1878, where George Reynolds tested the constitutionality of the Morrill Antibigamy Act. The Morrill Antibigamy Act initially banned bigamy in all territories, formerly presently known as the states of the America. In that case, Reynolds argues that he could be “found guilty under the law because he believed that marrying more than one woman was his religious duty” (Shurtleff). However, once reviewed the court found that the practice of polygamy was socially undesirable. Fortunately, for Green the time span of how long Reynolds case was heard left him with enough wiggle room to encourage the courts to clarify the language and purpose of the Free Exercise

Shurtleff and Asst. Attorney General Laura B. Dupaix. In determining whether, the Utah criminal bigamy statute should be considered unconstitutional. The counter argument is packed with loads of legal analysis on exact wording included in the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In contrast to Thomas Green, the Court has cited that the Reynolds case in fact provides validity in reasoning why polygamy should be deemed unconstitutional. Reynolds’s ruling clearly states that “social harm may have been a legitimate concern of government for reasons quite apart from discrimination” (Smith, 494 U.S. at 878-79, 110 S.Ct. 1595). Androcentric practices, conscious or unconscious, continue to permeate every system within our society. These androcentric practices may lead to oblivious discrimination against women in polygamous marriages.

In addition to the effects of social harm, the Court also cited that Utah 's bigamy statute would survive a federal free exercise of religion challenge under the most recent standards enunciated by the United States Supreme Court. In an egalitarian society where, human rights are at the forefront of every legal matter. It is no surprise that the “UN Human Rights Committee and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) have condemned polygamy in no uncertain terms.” (ABA) They cited that the practice of polygamy should