http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20060323.html

http://writ.news.findlaw.com/hamilton/20080501.html

The Findlaw column below cites two incisive Marci Hamilton columns on the subject, links above, the first re:  the fictionalized version of polygamy on TV and the second as to the reality, such as where Child Protective Services seem routinely to ignore how children are reportedly treated in some of the Fundamentalists LDS plural households, what with girls contracted in marriage in childhood in ways that might find favor in rural northern India, and boys thrown out of the household onto the street, literally, according to the report, upon reaching puberty (to prevent their going after dad's women, if I'm reading the analysis correctly).

The Grossman column notes that bigamy in the early U.S. sense was intended to provide a punishment to the man who abandons W1, and perhaps children, in order to disappear into the vastness of the country before the communications revolution in order to marry W2, who hasn't a clue, an instance of domestic fraud.

The religious aspect seems to confuse matters.  Assuming that polygamy were protected on religious grounds, like use of sacramental wine during Prohibition, or male circumcision as a sign of faith, that wouldn't protect against fraud or child abuse or neglect.

I doubt that anyone would much care if a person of one gender lived together at the same time with two or more of the opposite gender w/o benefit of clergy.  The difficulty seems to be in acquiring either a church or civil marriage certificate w/o previous dissolution of a previously acquired one.  The rule allowing only one of these certificates (or marriages in the common-law sense)  to issue and remain valid at a time seems to make them proxies designed to eliminate the practice of plural marriage.

Question:  Is there a rational basis, or more, for concluding that society is better off maintaining the status quo in regard to prohibiting concurrent polygamy but permitting 'serial' polygamy?  If there were a trial of the issue, as Judge Vaughn Walker, USDJ/NORCAL, conducted on the issue of gay marriage a year or two ago, what would the evidence look like on the merits, that is, apart from the religious arguments?

The sociologists would have to weigh in, I imagine, shades of Brown...

rs


On Jul 12, 2011, at 4:56 PM, Eric M. Freedman wrote:

> Marty's memory is good:
>  
> http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20101004.html
>  
> Best. -E.
>  
>  
>                          *************
>                          Eric M. Freedman
>     Maurice A. Deane Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law
>               Eric.M.Freedman@Hofs...
> Office:                                  Home Office:
> Hofstra Law School                250 West 94th Street
> Hempstead, N.Y. 11550         New York, N.Y. 10025
> Tel. 516-463-5167                Tel. 212-665-2713      
> Fax 516-463-5129                 Fax  212-665-2714    
> http://law2.hofstra.edu/Directory/Faculty/FullTimeFaculty/ftfac_efreedman.html
>                           *************
>  
>  
>  
>  
> From: conlawprof-bounces@list... [mailto:conlawprof-bounces@list...] On Behalf Of Marty Lederman
> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 7:41 PM
> To: hamilton02@aol....
> Cc: conlawprof@list...; conlawprof-bounces@list...
> Subject: Re: Challenge to Utah polygamy law
>  
> As of 2006, at least, the Utah bigamy law made it a crime for a married person to "(i) purport[] to marry another person or (ii) cohabit[] with another person."
>  
> The state apparently has not enforced the cohabitation prong for many years -- it would, of course, cover a great number of married persons living with their lovers -- and if it were to do so, it presumably would be subject to a substantialLawrence/Moore-type of due process challenge.  Perhaps there is some threat of such prosecution here on a cohabitation theory, which would explain Turley's due process focus.
>  
> The action in actual Utah cases, then, has been on the first prong -- prohibiting a married person from "purporting" to marry a second spouse.  This does not refer to attempting to obtain a second civil marriage certificate from the State of Utah -- the State will only grant an individual one such certificate of civil status at a time, and that restriction on the state's conferral of civil marriage status is undoubtedly constitutional.
>  
> Instead, the prosecutions occur where a married person engages, not in another civil marriage ceremony, but in a religiousmarriage ceremony, and obtains the religious (but not civil) status of marriage with a second person.  In this sense, the statute is directed at, and singles out for punishment, a religious ritual itself, and the conferral of a religious status on two persons.  
>  
> Were it not for the stare decisis effect of Reynolds, I can't imagine why this wouldn't be a Free Exercise violation, especially after Lukumi.  I am no fan of bigamy, but is there any good argument why this statute should be considered constitutional?
>  
> If I recall correctly, the issues are teed up very nicely in the three opinions of Justices of the Utah Supreme Court in State v. Holm, 137 P.3d 736 (2006).  The majority rejected the religious freedom arguments; but my recollection is that I found the dissent more persuasive when I read it five years ago.
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2011 at 7:05 PM, <hamilton02@aol....> wrote:
> The lawsuit confuses sex and marriage.  Lawrence supports a right to private consensual sex.  That is separate from the legislatively-defined institution of marriage
> Polygamy debates frequently fall into this problem.
>
>
> Marci
>
> Marci A. Hamilton
> Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law
> Cardozo School of Law
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Nareissa L. Smith" <nsmith@fcsl...>
> Sender: conlawprof-bounces@list...
> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2011 22:30:58
> To: conlawprof@list...<conlawprof@list...>
> Subject: Challenge to Utah polygamy law
>
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof@list...
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof@list...
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> To post, send message to Conlawprof@list...
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/conlawprof
>
> Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private.  Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.