Question on polygamy, page 2

Originally posted by saint4God
Torque - Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the decision against poligamy was a religious-based. When it was being voted on, a government official said the practice did not coincide with the Christian values this country was founded on. Apparently the law-makers agreed. I agree it does throw a wrench in the works when you try to justify that these days since the "separation of church and state" movement that started a few decades ago. By the way that phrase is not the law, it was a catch-phrase also started by a government official.

Original US statute on bigamy/polygamy: 'Every person having a husband or wife living, who marries another, whether married or single, in a Territory, or other place over which the United States have exclusive jurisdiction, is guilty of bigamy, and shall be punished by a fine of not more than $500, and by imprisonment for a term of not more than five years.'

The challenge to the law:

In 1879 a mormon polygamist was charged with bigamy under the statue listed above. He took his appeals all the way to the Supreme Court. Reynolds argument was based on his first amendment right to practice his religion in freedom without government intervention. He lost.

In our opinion, the statute immediately under consideration is within the legislative power of Congress. It is constitutional and valid as prescribing a rule of action for all those residing in the Territories, and in places over which the United States have exclusive control. This being so, the only question which remains is, whether those who make polygamy a part of their religion are excepted from the operation of the statute. If they are, then those who do not make polygamy a part of their religious belief may be found guilty and punished, while those who do, must be acquitted and go free. This would be introducing a new element into criminal law. Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband, would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?

So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? The permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances....

This is an important decision because the court ruled against Reynolds stating that no man's religious beliefs are superior to his nation's laws.

It also shows that well over 100 years ago the Courts were seeking to draw a separation between church and state.

The other interesting footnote is the bigamy statute itself. Notice how it says a person can have only one wife or one husband at a time. It doesn't define that the wife or husband must be of the opposite sex.

BTW to Byrd: You're right bad choice of word. I should have noted supposed "pagan" or other cultural...

[edit on 10/8/04 by Bleys]