The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Law and Reynolds v The United States of America

Though the debate surrounding marriage is between is contentious however, the idea that it is a practice for two people, and only two people is unquestionably entrenched into the institution.

Bigamy, bi- meaning two and -gamy meaning marriage or union, is defined as the practice of entering into a marriage with a person who is already legally married to someone else. It would be the opposite of monogamy, which is being legally married to one person only. Polygamy, poly- meaning many, would be would be the practice of having many marriages.

In the United States the practice of bigamy is a misdemeanor and the practice of polygamy is a felony. This is defined by the Model Penal Code (Section 230.1), a tool used to assist legislators and lawmakers.  The Bigamy law has a few interesting things about it. The first is that long, unexplained absences, usually five to seven years in duration, can annul a marriage. Should a spouse remarry only to have their previous spouse appear, they would not be convicted of a crime. However, bigamy is a strict liability crime. A strict liability crime is one that holds someone accountable whether or not culpability is found. This means that even if someone had a good faith belief that their divorce was legal and remarries only to find that it was done improperly and not recognized by the law, they would be subject to punishment.

In 1862, President Lincoln signed the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act into law. The practice of polygamy had been going on in the United States for the previous ten years. Though it banned the practice, it was not initially enforced because the Federal Government was preoccupied with the Civil War.

It was in 1875 that Reynolds v The United States took place and the ban of bigamy was unanimously upheld by the US Supreme Court. Reynolds, on behalf of fundamentalist Mormons, was on trial for the crime of bigamy. He held that the ban on bigamy directly violated their first amendment right to practice their religion.

This law is still being contested today. In mid-July 2011, The Sister Wives clan and their leader, Kody Brown of Utah, have challenged the law on the grounds that marriage between consenting adults should not be limited. The group is hoping to see the practice decriminalized. Currently the state of Utah has an extremely stringent Anti-Bigamy Statute that bans even the practice of cohabitating with someone whom you are not married to. People are also banned from entering spiritual marriages with anyone other than their spouse. The ACLU of Utah feels violates the freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment and by the outcome of the case Planned Parenthood v Casey which established that there were personal realms that the government has no place it. This case also builds on Lawrence v Texas, the case which struck down sodomy laws, because, they argue, the Federal Government should not be able to exercise control over intimate contact.

Should the Sister Wives Clan win the case it would not necessarily win state recognition of marriage however, it would be a stepping stone along the way as polygamy would no longer be punishable by law.

Wisconsin political and religious watchdog group Freedom From Religion Foundation filed a lawsuit with the federal district court in Houston, Texas recently in order to bar Texas governor Rick Perry from participating in a prayer rally which he has organized and promoted.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation says it is taking legal action against Perry, who intends on running for president in 2012, because they claim his involvement in organizing such an event effectively gives Evangelical Christianity a government endorsement. Providing such an endorsement is a Constitutional violation, the Freedom From Religion Foundation believes.

Despite the litigation, Perry does not plan on on canceling or delaying the event, which has been christened “The Response” and is scheduled to occur on August 6 in Houston. The free, public event will be hosted by the American Family Association, a staunchly conservative Christian advocacy group. The event’s website calls the event “a call to prayer for a nation in crisis”.

“Governor Perry believes the prayer event will serve as an opportunity for Americans to pray together for our nation,” a spokesperson for the governor said.

Perry, a former Democrat regarded by many as moderately conservative, has drawn the ire of atheist and agnostic groups for his emphasis on the power of prayer.

“I sincerely hope you’ll join me in asking God’s forgiveness, wisdom and provision for our state and nation,” Perry said in a message on the Response’s website. “There is hope for America. It lies in heaven, and we will find it on our knees.”

Is the Freedom From Religion Foundation in the right by suing Perry? Should presidential nominees and publicly-elected officials to posts as high as governorships be able to endorse religious groups? Or is Perry justified in supporting the religion he so obviously identifies with?

In 1962, the US Supreme Court Ruled that prayer in public school was a violation of the Establishment Clause.

The Establishment Clause was enacted to prevent any government endorsement of any particular religion. As this country was originally settled so Puritans would be able to avoid religious persecution, the tradition of secular government was upheld by Justice Hugo Black and six other Supreme Court justices.

There was one dissenting vote which made the decision 6-1 in favor of removing sponsored prayer from school, even if it was nondenominational and students were allowed to step out of the room.

The legal battle began when a group of parents from New York, Engel, sued over the sponsored prayers led by teachers and school officials every morning. In a decision that many consider the beginning of moral decline, and others a benchmark in the separation of church and state, the practice of reciting prayer every morning in public school was made illegal.

The prayer in question was: “Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our country. Amen.”

The majority opinion in Engel v Vitale by Justice Hugo Black “The petitioners contend… that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents’ prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause… We agree with this contention since we think that, in this country, it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.”

The dissenting opinion “I think the Court has misapplied a great constitutional principle. I cannot see how an “official religion” is established by letting those who want to say a prayer say it. On the contrary, I think that to deny the wish of these school children to join in reciting this prayer is to deny them the opportunity of sharing in the spiritual heritage of our Nation.”

Since the case has handed down its decision, the nation has been arguing back and forth over the removal of prayer in school. Many argue that the moral fabric of the nation has eroded while others cite those arguments as false causalities.

A street in Brooklyn, New York City was recently rechristened as “Seven in Heaven Way” in honor of seven firefighters who lost their lives on Sept. 11, 2001. The inclusion of the word “Heaven” has drawn criticism from the atheist group New York City Atheists. This group, which opposes the use of religious symbols or other religious references in public places, claims they are prepared to take the city of New York to court to have the sign’s name changed.

New York City Atheists president Kenneth Bronstein claims the threat of legal action is in line with the group’s secularist agenda.

“This is not a matter of faltering patriotism or public ignorance, but rather an effort to promote secularism,” Bronstein said. “We want [the sign] to be neutral. Anyone can believe whatever they want to believe.”

New York City Atheists calls the inclusion of the word “Heaven” on the sign an overt reference to Christianity which, in turn, crosses the line which divides church and state.

“We’re supposed to be a secular nation”, Bronstein said. “There really should not be any religious symbolism or signage in public places.”

Bronstein suggests that the street could have the secular name “We Remember the 7-911” instead.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Have the New York City Atheists gone to far? Is it reasonable for a single religious word like “Heaven” to be included on a lone street sign? Or should everything that is public also be secular? Please let us know what you think.

Full Legal Text of the Defense of Marriage Act:  http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=104_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ199.104

History/Background:

In 1996, under the Clinton administration, Congress passed the Defense of Marriage Act. In section III, this act explicitly defines marriage as a legal bond limited to one man and one woman and does not require the Federal government to recognize civil unions of other configurations that were granted by state law. The act was passed in response to a state law in Hawaii that specified that same-sex marriages were legal.

The Defense of Marriage Act also limited same sex couples from being allowed the same legal rights as heterosexual, monogamous couples.
In 2010, the Defense of Marriage Act was put to the test when Judge Tauro, a district judge in the Court of Massachusetts ruled that the failure to confer the same legal rights to same sex couples as to heterosexual couples was unconstitutional. This opened the door for further debate about the constitutionality of DOMA, both on the state and federal levels. Currently, the Obama administration views the act as unconstitutional because it violates the 10th amendment.

Important Language in DOMA:

Section 2 of DOMA:  “No State, territory or possession of the United States or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship” – Allowing states complete control over the recognition of marriage.

Section 3 of DOMA:  `In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the word `marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word `spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife.’. – Controversial Language which excludes same sex couples from the institution of marriage.

Current Status:

The Obama Administration does view DOMA as unconstitutional and is refusing to uphold the law. This means the Department of Justice has stopped defending it. Those in support of banning gay marriage, the official sponsor being Vicky Hartzler, a Republican of Missouri, have introduced a bill which condemns the Obama administration’s actions which is bill is currently in the House judiciary committee.

Vote Information:

House of Representatives: 342 Yeas, 67 Nays, Senate vote Roll Call for DOMA

United States Senate: 14 Yeas, 85 Nays, House vote Roll Call for DOMA

Neptune High School of Ocean Grove, NJ has hosted their graduation ceremony in the 6500-seat Great Auditorium for over seven decades. The Great Auditorium, which was built in 1894, is Ocean Grove’s largest venue and can fit the entire population of the town within it one and half times over. In addition to graduation ceremonies, the Great Auditorium has also hosted US presidents, NJ governors and musical groups like the Beach Boys.

This seemingly innocuous tradition is currently being challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union because the Great Auditorium is both owned by a church and is littered with Christian images. The ACLU believes that holding a school-related function in a venue with self-evident religious ties is a violation of the separation of church and state and a First Amendment violation. A complaint lodged after last year’s ceremony by a family offended by the Christian images in the Great Auditorium has spurred the civil liberties watchdog into considering filing litigation.

The ACLU requested that the Neptune School District remove or cover a large cross displayed on the exterior of the Great Auditorium and remove several smaller religious signs from the interior of the building and omit hymns from the ceremony. Neptune Public School District Superintendent David Mooij agreed to rid the ceremony of religious references but refused to cover or remove the religious symbols found on the building.

“[We are] a Christian ministry, and we can’t change who we are,” said an official from the group that owns the Great Auditorium in support of maintaining thee Christian symbols and signs there. “We want this tradition to keep going as badly as anyone, but not at the expense of who we are.”

The ACLU then requested the school district change the location of the graduation ceremony, which Mooij also refused to do on the basis of a paucity of suitable replacement venues.

ACLU spokespeople have not confirmed whether or not the civil liberties organization will take action against the Neptune School District, though they emphasize that negotiations with the school district are currently underway.

The organization that owns the Great Auditorium, a Methodist group called the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, also owns all of the land in that town. How this will factor into a lawsuit, in the event one is filed, remains to be seen.

PLEASE SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Is the ACLU overstepping its bounds and being overly sensitive about an innocent long-standing school tradition? Is it unreasonable for non-Christians to be offended by Christian imagery in a predominantly Christian society? Or should all school districts be completely secular and devoid of anything remotely concerned with religion? Please let us know what you think.

We hope you enjoy the blog and ask you to share your thoughts as much as possible.

Enjoy!