Reality Polygamists File in Federal Court

           Reality rock star polygamist, Kody Brown and his four wives recently filed a lawsuit in Utah’s federal court. The suit challenges Utah’s anti-bigamy penal statute and requests that the court declare it unconstitutional.  Their attorney, Jonathan Turly, Professor of constitutional law at George Washington University, is not seeking to legitimize polygamous marriages, but to avoid polygamy’s characterization as criminal conduct—smart move.  Some would say this is a distinction without a difference; I see it differently.

            The first hurdle the Browns will have to overcome is standing, the family has moved to Nevada and thus its members are no longer residents of Utah.  Under the rules of civil procedure one needs to have a recognizable interest in a case before courts will address a complaint.  Brown and his wives cannot challenge the constitutionality of Utah’s bigamy statute unless they can demonstrate that their family is in imminent danger of harm by that law.  Therefore, unless Utah prosecutors still intend to prosecute the Browns, the family could lack standing.

            Assuming the Browns overcome the standing issue, the disposition of this case could affect our constitutionally guaranteed right of privacy, a penumbral right (one that is not expressed verbatim but is found in the interstices of the U.S. Constitution—usually interpreted as being part of ‘liberty.’)  This right has been recognized since the early twentieth century and was the basis for the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court decision allowing a woman’s right to abortion.

            Nevertheless, Utah law has one interesting fact: in addition to its statute criminalizing bigamy, the Utah Constitution adopted in 1896, states:

ARTICLE III, Section 1: [Religious Toleration – Polygamy Forbidden].

“The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of this State: 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.”

[Emphasis added]

            This provision was adopted, no doubt in part due to the continued prosecution of polygamy in the late nineteenth century and to give the nation assurances that Utah would not continue the practice.  Ordinarily, in order to amend the constitution, the Utah voting public would have to pass a proposition with a 2/3 majority allowing polygamy.  On the other hand, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) could tell Utah that its laws (both constitutional and statutory) are unconstitutional under the Federal Constitution and then Utah’s laws could be changed by judicial activism.

            In Reynolds v. United States, 1878, 98 U.S. 145,[i]  SCOTUS reviewed the conviction of a Utah Territory resident, George Reynolds, for violation of the federal law against bigamy.  Reynolds claimed the trial court erred because it failed to give his requested instruction that if the jury found Reynolds became a bigamist as a result of sincerely held religious beliefs, then he should be found not guilty.  The Utah trial court wisely refused such an instruction, and also added that the anti-bigamy law was enacted for the protection of innocent women and children. In upholding the trial court’s denial of Reynolds’ proposed instruction and confirming the bigamy law as constitutional and not violative of the right to religious expression,  SCOTUS acknowledged that in general, an individual’s beliefs are to be protected pursuant to the freedom of expression clause.   However, when those beliefs become actions which adversely affect a secularly recognizable interest of the state, regulation was permissible and did not violate constitutional standards.  Quoting Thomas Jefferson, the Court pointed out that in every educated western civilization, monogamy was recognized as the societal norm and that polygamous relationships are hurtful to women and children, “…it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.”[ii] 

The Utah Supreme Court has dealt with the polygamy issue in two relatively recent cases, State v. Green, 2004 UT 76 and State v. Holm, 2006 UT 31.  In both of these decisions the Utah Supreme Court upheld Utah’s bigamy statute as being non-violative of both federal and state constitutions under Reynolds and its progeny. 

            However, in Lawrence v. Texas 539 U.S. 558 (2003) a 6-3 decision which struck down a Texas sodomy law, SCOTUS emphatically held that the law violated the plaintiff’s right to privacy under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Should the Browns' case reach SCOTUS, the case could become a states’ rights fight to determine morality, something that only a minority of the justices in the Lawrence opinion felt the states should retain. 

            The composition of the justices serving on SCOTUS has changed since the Lawrence decision. However, with regard to constitutional leanings concerning the right of privacy, perhaps not much has changed.  Chief Justice Roberts has replaced Rehnquist for the conservative and both Justices Sotamayor and Kagan would likely follow the majority, if not retired Justice O’Connor’s concurrence.  There is even a possibility of a more liberal opinion, building upon the precedent set in Lawrence.  Although  Justices Scalia and Thomas, who dissented in the Lawrence opinion, are still with us and would probably be joined by Chief Justice Roberts, that still leaves at least 5 if not 6 justices likely to side with the Browns.

            If that were the case, Utah’s parochial laws regarding sexuality and even its constitutional ban of polygamy (no doubt a reactionary provision due to the intense prosecution of Utah Mormon polygamists in the early 1890s) would be jeopardized.  Interesting issue.  I’m hoping that the Browns don’t get kicked with a motion to dismiss by the Utah Attorney General for lack of standing.  Utah County prosecutors had commenced an investigation before the Browns moved to Nevada in January, but no charges were ever filed.  If the Browns’ complaint remains viable and SCOTUS grants certiorari, the high court could decide to protect the Browns’ expanded notion of an individual’s federal constitutional right to privacy, effectively overruling Utah's laws.

---

[i] http://supreme.justia.com/us/98/145/case.html.

[ii] Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, adopted January 16, 1786 (Original preamble in draft version) 1 Jeff. Works, 45.  

The Testimony Glove—a Despicable New Brain Washing Technique?

Lets all wear a white glove, just like Michael Jackson did!

 http://deseretbook.com/Testimony-Glove-Only-Kristen-M-Oaks/i/5048530

“Unfortunately large numbers of people all over the world have been specifically taught in childhood not to think, because thinking would lead to questioning the certainties of the elders, and this has not been allowed in most cultures.” --- Brock Chisholm

            Oh that propaganda never stops and it starts at age four! This is a feeble attempt to equate Joseph Smith, an acknowledged Lothario, with the Creator of the Universe and Jesus Christ, who if not the Son of God was certainly a stellar example of sacrifice and love of humanity.  And then, to add the hollow edifices of Mormonism and the current elderly leader, a man who, but for claiming his post in the ranks for decades proves that he is nothing more than a blind follower with stamina.  And for the little girls—nobody to emulate, no notice is taken. 

            Since obviously a book is not enough, how much more effective is the glove as a means of instilling rote verbiage in the minds of naturally inquisitive children in order to keep these young peoples’ minds focused on Mormonism’s party line and away from the natural questioning of a healthy youth.  This obvious brainwashing ply should be abhorrent to even the most devout of Mormons.

            This new Mormon tool enables the use of a longstanding principle of re-education: repetition.  By repeating the same language or mantra over and over until it is known by heart, ignoring the cognition which should accompany such a declaration of certitude, “I know that this is the one and only true church,” etc., one is more nearly able to ensure adherence to the true-believers’ cult-like fanaticism.  It has always been, in my opinion, especially mendacious to uses such a ply on the young. 

            When young minds are naturally inquisitive and curious, shutting them down and locking the door with meaningless absolutisms is a crime against nature, and should be one against the law of the land. The standard Mormon testimony uttered in drone-like manner by young children and usually accompanied by promptings and/or rewards from parents in order to ingrain the Religion’s credo can only be characterized as a despicable form of child abuse.

            As a proponent of real education for these children, I believe that in the public schools, in either 4^th or 5^th grade, children should be instructed in a survey of world religion and philosophy, including secular humanism.  Then, in junior high or middle school, an in-depth study of the many ways of viewing the world and one’s relationship to it, should be taught by qualified teachers of philosophy, epistemology and sociology.  This instruction is every bit as important as mathematics and science.  This instruction might just counter the one-sided fanaticism inculcated in Mormon households throughout Utah.

Freedom to Speak your Mind: Stripping the Shackles of Censorship

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”—George Washington (1732-1799) First President of the USA.

            Critics of the U.S. are everywhere.  But today July 4, 2011, I am not one of them. Today I am grateful for my constitutionally-guaranteed freedom of speech.  This 1^st Amendment right was originally limited to the federal government, but then in 1925, the U.S. Supreme Court wisely held that the due process guarantees of the 14^th  Amendment made the 1^st Amendment applicable to state and even local governments.

            I never appreciated this right until I had to use it to speak the Truth.  Growing up in Utah, a Mormon theocratic state, I had never realized that the television programming, radio stations, newspapers and even what was in the school libraries and most of the book stores was censored according to LDS standards.  But now the Internet has made the test for local or community standards obsolete in most cases.  There are limited  exceptions: for example in Davis and other conservative Utah counties, covers are used in certain grocery stores that display magazines depicting (what would be considered tasteful and not at all pornographic in most educated areas) photographs of women in bikinis or with cleavage.  Thus, the local or community standard for censoring what a very conservative community might consider obscene is on its way to becoming moot; with the World Wide Web, comes a world wide-community.  And so finally, Utah is losing its hold on its long-standing ability to censor. 

            Of course the Mormon Church guarantees no such 1^st Amendment rights to its adherents. The LDS Church is a gerontocracy, led by a cadre of 105 old men.  These men are self-appointed prophets, seers, apostles, seventies, ad nauseum.  These men claim to speak for God.  These men claim that any who do not follow them will suffer. These men are a most arrogant and deceitful group, for they do not listen to their followers—they order them. They deceive them.  And then, after having lived a life dedicated to their teachings, when their followers are so malleable and dependent on their leaders that they are ready to believe anything, they tell them the only way to heaven is through the LDS Temple gates, which pathway comes only at a heavy toll—ten percent of one’s income.  These men boldly admit that “everything may be sacrificed” to maintain the integrity of the essential facts which form the basis of LDS beliefs.[1]

            Where do these men get such power to censor, proscribe and lead?  They claim it is directly from the Lord.  However, history tells us that these men get their power from a claimed restoration of priesthood authority to Joseph Smith in the 1830s, when the evidence shows that such events never occurred! 

            Even Mormon academic apologist and professor at Columbia, author of Rough Stone Rolling, Richard L. Bushman, has admitted the fact that Smith mentioned nothing of John the Baptist or a reception of the holy priesthood until years after the events were supposed to have occurred.  Bushman writes that:  “The late appearance of these accounts raises the possibility of later fabrication.”[2]  In a court of law, this lack of a contemporaneous record of an event, that is the absence of evidence, can be used as evidence that the event never occurred.

            But because Mormons have been told not to read anything not endorsed or approved by their leaders, many will not even peek at another point of view. So my voice, along with the voices of the other authors, non-Mormons and former Mormons who have become disenchanted and discouraged with the true facts that have been discovered and yet continue to be covered-up by the LDS leadership, write about these things, until finally there will so much information proving that Mormonism is a fraud, that there will be no need for a trial. 

            The court of public opinion will have before it such a long list of damaging, undisputed facts, that a summary judgment will be granted by Mormons as well as non-Mormons and the result of such a verdict will be that the LDS Church will lose any reputation it had ever painstakingly built as an institution for the good of its members and mankind as a whole.  However, its reputation as a business capable of maximizing profit from the tithes received by its investors might well remain as a matter of history; for at that, it has shown incredible skill. 

            And so, I am thankful that I will not be shot or killed or tortured for what I say.  What I say may not be pleasant, or even popular, but neither have the messages of any of those who have tested their 1^st Amendment rights.  None have been in conformity with the mainstream of public opinion. 

            Justice Louis Brandeis, in his opinion in Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357, 375 (1927) said in part:  “…the freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think,” [is] “indispensable,” and that “the greatest menace to freedom is an inert people.”  Like many of my colleagues who are engaged in the quest to expose the evils of Mormonism, I have risen out of decades of Mormon mind-controlled inertia to speak.  And having spoken, and seen that some, if not many will respond to the Truth, I will not be silenced.

            Thank you, my country of birth, the United States of America for my freedom to speak.

---

[1] “My duty as a member of the Council of the Twelve is to protect what is most unique about the LDS church, namely the authority of priesthood, testimony regarding the restoration of the gospel, and the divine mission of the Savior.  Everything may be sacrificed in order to maintain the integrity of those essential facts. Thus, if Mormon Enigma reveals information that is detrimental to the reputation of Joseph Smith, then it is necessary to try to limit its influence and that of its authors.” [Emphasis Added]  Statement by Dallin H. Oaks to the female author, Linda King Newell, who along with Valeen Tippetts Avery, wrote Mormon Enigma: Emma Hale Smith, 2^nd Ed. , 1994 (Urbana: Univ. of Ill. Press/Doubleday) as noted in, Robert D.  Anderson, Inside the Mind of Joseph Smith, 1999 (Salt Lake City: Signature Books) xiii, n. 28.

[2] Richard Lyman, Bushman, Joseph Smith: Rough Stone Rolling, 2007 (New York: Vintage Books) 75.