Polygamists Win in Court Using Trail Blazed by Same-Sex Marriage

Marriage, ,

Last December U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups issued a ruling effectively decriminalizing polygamy in Utah.

Under Utah law, a person may not file for more than one marriage license or cohabit with more than one “spouse.” The law is intended to prevent both state-recognized polygamy and the unofficial polygamy practiced by some people in which a man is legally married to one woman, but has other “wives” to which he is not legally married.

Kody Brown and his wives, stars of the reality TV show “Sister Wives” depicting their polygamous lifestyle, filed suit against the State of Utah over the law, and last December Judge Clark Waddoups struck the portion of the law preventing people from living together in polygamous relationships; Judge Waddoups did, however, leave the portion of the law preventing a person from filing for more than one marriage license. Since most polygamous groups do not typically file for multiple state marriage licenses anyway, this effectively decriminalizes polygamy in the State of Utah.

A stay was placed on Judge Waddoups’ initial ruling last year, pending a decision on whether or not Utah owed the Browns any financial compensation. This week, Judge Waddoups ruled the State of Utah must pay the Browns’ attorney fees, and put the full force of his December ruling into effect.

This ruling is significant, because the logic employed by Judge Waddoups decriminalizing polygamy is the very same logic being used to advance same-sex marriage around the country. Gay activists have long dismissed claims that same-sex marriage would lead to polygamy as “fear mongering.” However, Judge Waddoups’ ruling owes a lot to the U.S. Supreme Court’s Lawrence v. Texas ruling which has been used over and over again in court to argue against everything from the federal Defense of Marriage Act to state marriage amendments.

Judge Waddoups’ ruling largely hinges on the following: (more…)

READ MORE

Atheist Group Goes After Arkansas Pizza Parlor

Religious Freedom, , ,

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is drumming up controversy in Arkansas again–this time over pizza.

You may recall in 2013 FFRF threatened legal action against Conway public schools because school administrators allowed youth pastors to visit students on campus the same way it allowed other visitors to meet with students. The schools (and youth pastors) won that debate; now the group is back, and this time they are going after a private pizzeria in Searcy.

According to KTHV in Little Rock, Bailey’s Pizza of Searcy received a letter from the atheist group after the group learned Bailey’s offered a 10% discount to anyone who brought a church bulletin into the restaurant on Sundays.

Freedom From Religion Foundation claims this discount discriminates against people who do not go to church, and that it violates the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964. We feel that argument simply does not hold water. Giving someone a discount because they have a church bulletin with them does not discriminate against atheists any more than giving a senior citizen a discount discriminates against young people. It’s simply another way businesses can attract customers. No one is being denied service because of their faith or lack thereof.

Freedom From Religion Foundation’s argument against Bailey’s Pizza is so bizarre it’s almost laughable. How “religiously neutral” does a business have to be? If Bailey’s prepares all its pizzas in a kitchen with pork products (like pepperoni, for example), that’s liable to prevent people with religious objections to pork from eating there. Is that “discrimination”? No, it simply means “places of public accommodation” (to borrow from the Civil Rights Act) can’t always please every member of the public.

When President Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I’m not sure the goal was to stop pizzerias from giving nominal discounts to anyone who walks in with a church bulletin. Giving a discount to someone is not religious discrimination, but trying to tell a business owner his private restaurant must be a religion-free zone arguably is.

Photo Credit: “Flickr – cyclonebill – Kartoffelpizza med rosmarinpesto” by cyclonebill – Kartoffelpizza med rosmarinpesto. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.0 via Wikimedia Commons.

READ MORE

Family Council Releases Two New Policy Briefs on Fayetteville Ordinance

Current Events, , , , , ,

Today Family Council is releasing two new policy briefs on the recently-passed “nondiscrimination” ordinance in Fayetteville (Fayetteville Chapter 119).

The first policy brief analyzes the last-minute amendments adopted by the Fayetteville City Council prior to passing the ordinance.

The second policy brief reexamines the ordinance as a whole and the unintended consequences it carries.

Of particular importance are that the ordinance:

  • Still opens churches, private schools, and religious people who own businesses to the threat of criminal prosecution;
  • Opens some ministers, individually, to the possibility of criminal prosecution; and
  • Still does not prevent a man who claims to be a woman from using the women’s restrooms, showers, locker rooms, or changing areas at businesses and public locations.

Click here to read Family Council’s analysis of the amendments made to Fayetteville Chapter 119 prior to passage.

Click here to read Family Council’s new policy brief on Fayetteville Chapter 119.

READ MORE