Internal Memorandum of Law - Research Paper Example

 Internal Memorandum of Law The sequel presents a proposal that analyzes the various issues associated with the opposition’s case, in reply to an appeal, to be filed by Debbie Evens and others against the orders of the lower Court, in respect of their marriage license certificate. Summary It is the objective of the author of this work to examine the various issues that pertain to the filing of a case, by the opposition in respect of an appeal that is to be filed by Debbie Evens and others, against the orders of the lower court, regarding their marriage license certificate. To this end, several resources will be consulted, in order to obtain the relevant information. Description In order to file a case against the appeal to be filed by Debbie Evans and others, and to evaluate the opponent’s chances of success in this endeavor, the bigamy laws of Utah and other relevant legislation, as well as the decided case law, have to be examined. Debbie Evans wanted to marry a married man Aaron, with the consent of his wife, Barb Conway. They had applied for a marriage license, which was denied, and their plea in the trial court for being provided with such a license, was rejected. They wanted to file an appeal in the upper court against this order, challenging the State’s power to interfere with their religious freedom and curtailing their right to polygamous marriage, which in accordance with their religious customs. The Mormon Church, openly promoted polygamy, until the year 1890, when it discontinued this practice. This volte face was occasioned by Utah territory’s attempt to obtain statehood, and as Congress was insistent that the presence of anti – polygamy legislation was essential for admission into the Union. Since that point in time, the Mormon Church has desisted from actively supporting polygamy, amongst its members. In its efforts to prove that it is opposed to the practices of the 30,000 odd polygamists, who reside in various places in the West, the Mormon Church has resorted to excommunication of its members who practice polygamy (Cosgrove - Mather, 2004). The state of Utah was witness to a polygamy case that attracted considerable attention. This was the case of State of Utah v. Green, wherein the defendant had maintained conjugal relations with several women, and had thereby fathered 28 children (State of Utah v. Thomas Arthur Green, 2004). His conviction by the lower court was upheld in the Supreme Court of Utah. The Texan authorities initiated action against a Mormon church in the year 2008. This was in response to an apprehension that minor girls were being compelled to undergo polygamous marriage. It has been contended that laws prohibiting polygamy could be in violation of the constitution, as they are chiefly founded on moral grounds (Robinson, 2008). Polygamy has been an endemic and long standing practice in Utah and Colorado. The number of persons, who subscribe to the different Mormon sects, runs to the tens of thousands, in these states. However, just two persons had been formally charged, in the recent decades. These individuals had vociferously promoted polygamy in the state of Utah (Robinson, 2008). Moreover, In Lawrence v. Texas two persons of the same gender had indulged in carnal activities. This was a criminal offence at that point of time, in Texas. The US Supreme Court in a 6 – 3 ruling rescinded the anti – sodomy law of Texas, which it held to be unconstitutional (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). Every US citizen is guaranteed by the First Amendment to the US Constitution, the right to freedom from unnecessary governmental intrusion, in the context of religious practice, expression of opinions and association. Moreover, in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the US Supreme Court opined that the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause promised individuals with a specific area of personal liberty, which the government could not intrude upon (Utah’s Bigamy Statute and the Right to Privacy and Religious Freedom, 2006). These guarantees provide an individual with considerable lee way in conducting his personal affairs, as long as these do not jeopardize the interests of the state or other individuals. The American Civil Liberties Union of Utah is of the firm conviction that the bigamy statue of Utah, which renders it a criminal offence to engage in spiritual plural marriage, infringes these rights (Utah’s Bigamy Statute and the Right to Privacy and Religious Freedom, 2006). The contention that Utah’s laws violated the US Constitution was addressed in the case of State v. Green. The defendant’s argument was that conviction under the bigamy law, infringed his constitutional right to religious freedom (Utah’s Bigamy Statute and the Right to Privacy and Religious Freedom, 2006). This was not accepted by the Utah Supreme Court, although it conceded that the bigamy statute was detrimental to the interests of those who were desirous of practicing polygamy. The Supreme Court of Utah ruled in re Steed, that Judge Walter Steed, the accused had violated the state’s bigamy statute. It also held that this judge was to be removed from the bench. At the time of his appointment Steed had one legal wife and one spiritual wife. Thereafter, he acquired another spiritual wife, and fathered around 30 children, from his relationship with these three women (Re Inquiry of a Judge, The Honorable Walter K. Steed, 2006). The court opined that where a sitting judge was involved, his belief that a criminal statute violated the constitution was of no consequence. The criminal prohibitions of the law could be ignored by a judge, only at his peril. The difference between this case and that of Green was that all of the cohabiting women were adults at the time of their entering into a union with Steed. In State v. Holm, most of the presiding judges of the Utah Supreme Court ruled that the state’s bigamy statue did not violate the constitution. Holmes sought to rely on the decision in Lawrence v. Texas, to continue with his multiple relationships; but the court rejected his defense (State of Utah v. Rodney Hans Holm, 2006). Conclusion The above discussion and decided case law favor the opposition’s chances of success, in case an appeal is filed by Debbie Evans and others. The court had made it very clear, in a number of cases that the prime objective of the law was to regulate marriage and protect women and children, who were rendered more vulnerable in polygamous relationships. Although Debbie Evans and other claimants are related to a religious sect where polygamy is an accepted practice, their chances of achieving success in the appellate court are negligible. The Utah courts do not permit polygamy. In their rulings they have clarified that it is the objective of the law to provide protection to the vulnerable people. The Utah Code § 76 – 7 – 101 outlaws polygamy, and despite the various attempts made to discount it, over a period of years, its constitutionality has never been questioned, by the courts. In fact, the courts have always ruled that this anti – bigamy statute is in conformity with the constitution. Therefore, Debbie Evans and others cannot successfully claim a marriage license from the Court of Appeal. As such, the opposition has very bright chances of success against the appeal also. They can successfully counter the appeal that is supposed to be filed by Debbie Evans and others, regarding their marriage license certificate against the orders of the lower court. List of References Cosgrove - Mather, B. (2004, January 27). Utah Polygamy Ban Challenged. Retrieved May 17, 2010, from CBS News: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/27/national/main596268.shtml/ Lawrence v. Texas, 539 US 558 (Supreme Court of the United States June 26, 2003). Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (Supreme Court of the United States June 22, 1992). Re Inquiry of a Judge, The Honorable Walter K. Steed, 20050127 (Supreme Court of the State of Utah February 24, 2006). Robinson, B. A. (2008, October 2). U.S. laws and Senate hearings on polygamy. Retrieved May 17, 2010, from Religious Tolerance: http://www.religioustolerance.org/polylaw.htm State of Utah v. Rodney Hans Holm, 20030847 (Supreme Court of the State of Utah May 16, 2006). State of Utah v. Thomas Arthur Green, 20010788 (Supreme Court of the State of Utah September 3, 2004). Utah Criminal Code. Offenses Against the Family. Bigamy – Defense. Amended by Chapter 296, 1997. (n.d.). Utah, United States of America: Utah State Legislature. Utah’s Bigamy Statute and the Right to Privacy and Religious Freedom. (2006, September ). Retrieved May 17, 2010, from American Civil Liberties Union of Utah: http://www.acluutah.org/bigamystatute.htm Read More