polygamy

is [as determined unanimously by the supreme court decision in 'reynolds v United States'] unconstitutional because it challenges the traditional construct of marriage by threatening to reduce society to a 'stationary despotism' in which the husband is given the power to marry as many wives as he pleases, despite the first wife's opinion.

These acts were particularly harmful to society, in the Court's opinion, because they challenged the traditional construct of marriage. This belief held that polygamy threatened to reduce society to a 'stationary despotism' since the husband was given the power to marry as many wives as he pleased, despite the first wife's opinion (Oleske, 1997, 755).

is [as unanimously determined by the supreme court decision in 'reynolds v United States'] unconstitutional because a religious exception to this practice (as was being demanded) would make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.

Reynolds v. United States established a direction of polygamy legislation that persist to this day. The defendant opened the debate by claiming that the Free Exercise Clause was applicable to the case of polygamy practiced by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints since polygamy is a religious practice. Reynolds claimed that there should be a religious exemption for Mormons because members of the church believed the practice of polygamy was directly enjoined upon the male members by the Almighty God in a revelation to Joseph Smith, and failing or refusing to practice polygamy by such male members of the church would be punished by damnation in the life to come (Linder, 2012). Reynolds claimed that a law banning bigamy without a religious exemption was unfairly discriminating and oppressing members of the Mormon Church. The Court did not find Reynolds's argument convincing... in fact, the Court unanimously rejected this argument, stating that such an exception would 'make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself' (Oleske, 1997, 755). To the court, maintaining the integrity and superiority of the laws was tantamount, and the justices did not want this case to become a precedent for breaking laws and claiming religious exemption. Using Jeffersonian Belief-Act doctrine, the Court outlined how religious beliefs are the prerogative of the individual, but the actions that stem from those beliefs are not. Thus, the Free Exercise clause did not apply to Reynolds's practice of bigamy as man, according to Thomas Jefferson, has 'no natural right in opposition to his social duties' (Lipscomb, 1903).

S. OleskeThinkers

S. Oleske