Does anyone know how this works in the real world? In other words, how
do the plural
marriages actually occur, and how is it that they violate criminal
bigamy laws?
In the plural marriagesI know of (none of which are in a Mormon
context) the group or multiple commitments are done through
Alabama also recognizes
common law marriage. However, one
of the requirements is that both parties have the capacity to marry. Under no circumstances would a person
legally married to one spouse be found common law married to another. There are some old Alabama cases exactly on that point.
Much of the legal action in
Utah and Arizona recently against the FLDS that practices polygamy has not been
for violation of the bigamy laws, but for a wide range of other kinds of
violations. My blog this morning discussses an article from today's Salt
Lake Tribune that reviews the
As with almost all criminal statutes, you probably
need to look at the Utah cases to see if they take the same approach as Alabama. They might define bigamy
to cover more of their problem.
Good luck.
Joel L. Sogol
Attorney at Law
811 21st Avenue
Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35401
ph (205)
Rick Duncan wrote:
Ed: The Court held that the purpose of the legislature
was to bring religion into the classroom.It was the legislature's bad
purpose that was the problem. If the Court had found that the
legislature had a secular purpose, the Act would not have been
vulnerable to a facial
Ed: I guess we just read the case differently. Because the law was not allowed to go into effect, there was no curriculum everadopted in any school for the Court to make any finding about whatsoever.You have to read quotations in context!
I guess I'll teach Edwards in my Con Law II class based
Rick writes:
The only possible crime (assuming all
parties are consenting adults)is adultery, and criminal adultery laws
probably don't survive Lawrence (or do they?).
I'm not sure why adultery laws wouldn't
survive Recall that Blackmun, in his Bowers dissent, took care to
Sandy: If W consents to H's adultery with X, exactly who is the victim? Doesn't Lawrence recognize the dignity of consenting adults to define their own intimate lives?
And isn't male on male anal sodomy "victim causing" in terms of AIDS and other STDs that are disproportiantely spread by this
Rick Duncan wrote:
Ed: I guess we just read the case differently. Because the law
was not allowed to go into effect, there was no curriculum everadopted
in any school for the Court to make any finding about whatsoever.You
have to read quotations in context!
Of course you have to read
Here is a hypo that might help focus our discussion of Edwards.
Imagine a legislature that passes a law requiring evolution to be taught each year from 7th through 12th grade, and further imagine that the law recites that it is being enacted for the sole purpose of helping students understand
Rick Duncan wrote:
Here is a hypo that might help focus our discussion of Edwards.
Imagine a legislature that passes a law requiring evolution to
be taught each year from 7th through 12th grade, and further imagine
that the law recites that it is being enacted for the sole purpose of
I am wondering whether marriage is also victim-causing behavior. After all, it seems to result in expectations that fail half the time causing severe pain to at least one spouse and children. Of course, one solution is to outlaw divorce, but surely a legislature could decide that loveless
Could not a claim both be scientific and religious at the same time?
Conceptually, I don't see any problem with that. But this raises an
interesting problem. Suppose a particular scientific theory happens to lend
support to a religious point of view in strong way, e.g., the Big Bang lends
In a message dated 8/21/2005 1:30:54 PM Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Lawrence, at least as a matter of formal analysis,
inasmuch as we it is certainly rational to view adultery as a victim-creating
activity and a well-substantiated threat to
marriage.
I might
I should have noted several other harms of marriage.
1. First, and most obviously, there is the feminist critique that contemporary marriage severely damages the life prospects of women. If a legislature was convinced by this, could they outlaw marriage.
2. My mother once did a study of
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Rick Duncan
Sent: Sun 8/21/2005 1:15 PM
To: Law Religion issues for Law Academics
Subject: RE: Religious Polygamy
Does Sandy now agree with me that male on male anal sodomy is victim-causing
behavior?
I don't think it
We're back to the evidence. Under the circumstances listed below, I don't think ID can qualify as science. If there is no research, no data, and no support, on what basis could it be called science? What other reason would there be to teach it, then, other than religion? We cannot expect courts,
Back to the evidence: CDC studies show that condoms alone are at least 90% effective in preventing the spread of HIV when one partner is HIV positive. The 90% was calculated on the basis of 9 out of 10 of the couples had no spread of the disease, not that 1 out of every 10 acts was infective.
Frankie Beckwith wrote:
Could not a claim both be scientific and religious at the same time?
Conceptually, I don't see any problem with that. But this raises an
interesting problem. Suppose a particular scientific theory happens to lend
support to a religious point of view in strong way,
I think Ed's point extends beyond science to other parts of the school
curriculum as well. History, art, literature, and other subjects may
reinforce or conflict with various religious beliefs. Generally speaking, I
don't think the Establishment Clause is violated when that occurs
incidentally
Ed:
We are veering off the church-state issue. So, in order to not irritate
Eugene, I will respond briefly.
I think the Craig-Smith debate makes my point. Both Craig and Smith agree
that Big Bang cosmology, because it is knowledge, has implications for
theology. For Smith, it better comports
Title: Re: No Secular Purpose
Ed:
Its not clear to me why the beliefs of ID advocates should be the object of judicial assessment. As I understand the Madisonian and Jeffersonian traditions on matters religious, the state has no right, and thus no legitimate power, to interfere with the
Title: Re: No Secular Purpose
Francis Beckwith
writes:
. Motives, after all, are types of
beliefs that causally contribute to bringing about certain actions. But beliefs
are off limits, according to the Courts Jeffersonian tradition.
So, if you accept that tradition, religious motives can
At 12:23 PM 8/21/2005 -0700, you wrote:
Yes, a scientific view could be religious -- and this is why it is so
important that what is claimed as science be science.
Darwin was Christian when he discovered evolution. He had no religious
intent in publishing the theory. As some wag noted,
Title: Re: No Secular Purpose
Good point, Sandy. I was unclear. What I should have said is that religious motives cannot be part of any courts assessment in Establishment Clause cases since it would be penalizing citizens for their beliefs rather than because of their actions or legislative
Title: Re: No Secular Purpose
Frank writes:
. But I think that fact shows that in both EC
and FE contexts beliefs are protected absolutely (actions and practices,
of course, are a different matter), which means that they cannot be the basis
for restricting a citizens liberties. But, of
First, it's the motivations of the government officials who order ID be taught in the absence of any valid secular purpose that the judges analyze. Those motivations are revealed in any number of ways, but it's certainly fair to look at statements by ID advocates, especially people like Bill
Title: Re: No Secular Purpose
What I am saying is that if the citizens have good secular reasons for their policy proposal, then their religious motives should be irrelevant, since motives are not the justification for the policy or even the policy itself. Motives are beliefs that causally
Say that some (unknown) number of legislators wants ID taught
(or, if we're dealing with Epperson, evolution not taught), because they
want to promote the theory that man was divinely created.
Some unknown number of legislators is concerned that public
schools are losing community
Title: Re: No Secular Purpose
Sorry for my lack of clarity about what I mean by punishment. Maybe this will help.
Citizens and legislators are often motivated by their religious beliefs to influence the institutions of government and to craft laws and policies that affect the trajectory of
Title: Re: Religious Polygamy
Utah's bigamy law defines bigamy as either purporting to marry or cohabiting with one person while married to another. Holm was convicted under both prongs, with the purported marriage based on his participation in a religious ceremony. Holm was legally married to
No one ever suggested that purpose analysis would be easy or even that it
is preferable to grounding constitutional decisions on the effect or the
facial content of laws. We use purpose analysis because purpose matters
(that is, it is related to the normative principles of constitutional law)
I wonder -- seriously -- if God says, Psalm 9:17, that nations that forget Him
are turned into Hell, does it serve a secular purpose to acknolwedge and obey
Him and, thus , NOT be turned into Hell? God bless you all. John Lofton,
Recovering Republican, Editor, TheAmericanView.com
In a message dated 8/21/2005 10:47:54 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
The
district court in Edwards issued summary judgment, based in large
part on the decision in McLean. It is worth remembering that in
that case, in deposition, each of the creationists'
This story will be in tomorrow's Boston Globe. So the question is this:
Should school boards be able to require to treat UFOs as a real possibility in
those courses in which such information might conceivably be relevant (perhaps
physics)? Is the evidence for UFOs really weaker than for ID?
35 matches
Mail list logo
