Polygamist Marriages Internal Memorandum free essay sample

Ms. Evans moved in with the Conway’s two years ago, in which time Mr. Conway and Ms. Evans began dating even though he has been married to his wife Barb for 10 years, and have five children together. In 2011Mr. Conway decided he wanted to be married to Deborah Evans as well for a second wife, as it is part of their religious beliefs to do and applied for a marriage license in canyon County, Utah. Mr. Conway and Ms. Evans then proceeded to the county clerk’s office and applied for their marriage license where they were denied, and informed at that point that polygamy in the state of Utah is not legal, and since Mr. Conway was already married, they could not get a marriage license. The Conway’s and Ms. Evans at this point sued the state of Utah in trial court for their right to practice polygamy based off of their religious beliefs. We will write a custom essay sample on Polygamist Marriages Internal Memorandum or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page The trial court ruled against them, and denied the group the marriage license. At this point the Conway’s and Ms. Evans would like to appeal the trial court decision. Issue: This memorandum will discuss statutes, and case law Utah may use in the appeal against our clients claims of constitutional violations, and religious rights to carry out polygamy as a religious right. Discussion: When discussing the issue of polygamy, the one case ruling mostly, and heavily relied on is in Reynolds Conway. This was the first case to weigh in on Utah’s anti-bigamy laws to state that they are constitutional. Further when Chief Justice Waite delivered the opinion of the court in discussion of the opinion further discussed if Mormons or the sects that are part of the religion practicing polygamy should be exempt from the law. The state of Utah may use this in our current case to try and show and or justify why Ms. Evans, Mr. amp; Mrs. Conway should not have the right to be married in a polygamous marriage, or granted a religious exemption. Lastly in Reynolds Chief Justice Waite compared polygamy as â€Å"a criminal act† which is also where the state of Utah will weigh in on this wording as well for the defense. The state of Utah also relies heavily on Utah Const. art. III,  § 1, in Utah’s Constitution stating â€Å"First: Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed. No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited†, and Utah’s anti-polygamy statute, Utah Code Ann. 76-7-101(1)(2)(3) stating â€Å"(1) A person is guilty of bigamy when, knowing he has a husband or wife or knowing the other person has a husband or wife, the person purports to marry another person or cohabits with another person, (2) Bigamy is a felony of the third degree, and (3) It shall be a defense to bigamy that the accused reasonably believed he and the other person were legal ly eligible to remarry† to make their standing that in the state of Utah a polygamous marriage is not valid, or constitutional, and a felony offense of the third degree. There have been several other cases besides Reynolds that have been in objection to polygamy. Potter v. Murray City, 585 F. Supp. 1126 (D. Utah 1984) is an example that the state will use as well. In Potter a Mormon police officer was discovered to be practicing polygamy and was fired. The dissenting judge on this case Judge Christensen claimed he was not weighing heavily on Reynolds to render any decision on this current case stating that he had â€Å"largely ignored† the holding in Reynolds to look at the issue in Potter. Potter at 45. In the end though when giving his decision, he still reverted back to Reynolds stating that it was still good law, and that Utah still held interest in the fact that the prohibition of polygamy should still stand. Reynolds not only is good and strong case law that stands, and is upheld in most if not all polygamy and bigamy cases, not only did it stand and was upheld in State v.