Excellent way of teeing up the question, Tim.  As both Marci and you
suggest, the harm the state wishes to prevent here is the result of one
party feeling *bound* to do something that is deeply contrary to their best
interests.  But by what are they bound in these cases?  Not a contract
enforceable under civil law.  No, they're "bound" in the sense that they
have a *religious* obligation, enforceable (if at all) only by the relevant
religious community.

The state, of course, need not recognize, or give legal status or protection
to, these obligations or contracts.  But can it go further and actually *ban
* -- criminalize -- the religious obligation itself?  Can it prohibit
churches or religious communities from insisting upon -- and internally
enforcing -- religious obligations that the state deems harmful to its
adherents?  I think that's in effect what's going on with the Utah bigamy
law.  And I'm sure we can all think of other familiar obligations common to
many religions that a state might reasonably deem to be harmful.  Can it ban
them?



On Wed, Jul 13, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Mortimer Sellers <
mortimer.sellers@gmai...> wrote:

> Certain types of oppressive relationships -- even if eagerly entered into
> -- should not be legal.  I recall the German case where a contract to be
> eaten alive, although willingly entered into, was not recognized as excusing
> the cannibal.  What is polygamous marriage except a contract to be
> oppressed?   As Marci Hamilton has noticed and anyone who has observed such
> "marriages" in the U.S. (remember Manson?) or overseas (Bin Laden) knows --
> polygamous marriages are cannibalism of the soul, through which many women
> are consumed for the gratification of one man.  It is very hard to imagine
> anyone entering into such a relationship who is compos mentis and not
> subject to some form of coercion, but even if this were to occur, polygamous
> marriage would still amount to a contract to be subjugated.  Conventional
> marriage MAY be oppressive, but polygamous marriage MUST be oppressive. How
> could it be otherwise?
>
>