[SkyDancer]

I believe in the Law until it interferes with Justice.

[publius911]

The court had a point, but only if you accept the analogy between polygamy and murder.

I wish this article had delivered on its headline.
The lack of clarity and precision of language, however, dooms it early on.
There is no analogy involved, the right word is equivalence.
That gaffe invited me to go on to the next thread.

[Zuse]

Coming soon,
Muslim polygamy and Aztlan human sacrifice?

[Lurking Libertarian]

When it seems reasonable to contemplate a religious exception to a generally applicable law, that is a pretty good reason to question the law itself.

During the Vietnam War, Quakers demanded that they not be required to pay income taxes, because taxes funded the war. The courts shut that argument down; had they not, I suspect 95% of the population would suddenly have become Quakers.

[Ransomed]

“In 1878, the Supreme Court unanimously rejected a Mormon’s First Amendment challenge to the federal ban on bigamy.”

I wonder if there is more bigamy now than back then. Just not state accepted bigamy. You have all the splinter ex-LDS, those LDS that do it under the table, those Muslems that do it, and everyone else who gives it a try I suppose. No cohabitation laws are really enforced, they usually get them on abuse or benefit fraud of some sort, right? Much bigger population now, and post sexual revolution.

Freegards

[i_robot73]

I’ve always loved these extra-Constitutional ‘gotchas’. What, and where, is a “compelling governmental interest.” spelled out in our Founding documents?

Hey, Buzzie, as long as one does not infringe upon the (True) Rights of another, it’s not up to gov’t to ‘decide’ what is ‘worthy’ in re: 1st Amendment (IE: there’s a HUGE jump from peyote vs. human sacrifice)

Course, the Buzzard doesn’t understand ‘shall not be infringed’ anyway; why care what her thoughts on the rest might be?