Polygamy Appeal Brief - Case Study Example

Running head: APPEAL BRIEF - POLYGAMY CASE APPEAL BRIEF – POLYGAMY CASE of the _________________________________ ID No _____ Program: _________________________________________ (course or educational curriculum) Specialization: ____________________________________________ Faculty Mentor/Professor: Name of school ___________________________________________ Abstract The law firm has decided to accept the case of the Spouses Aaron and Barb Conway and Debbie Evans in their appeal from the ruling of the trial court where they sued the Canyon County, Utah, for having refused to issue a marriage license for Aaron Conway and Debbie Evans. The intended marriage is in accordance with the religious beliefs and rites of their sect which allows multiple marriages among and between the members. After having interviewed the Conways and Debbie Evans, it is opined that the planned appeal is imbued with merit and there is therefore justifiable reasons to file the notice of appeal and the subsequent appeal brief. The main thrust of the argument for the case is grounded on the First Amendment and pertinent jurisprudence. (The Amendments. The United States Constitution. U. S. Constitution Online. [internet]) In the Utah Court of Appeals Case No. ____________________ Aaron Conway, Barb Conway and Debbie Evans Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Canyon County, Utah Defendant-Appellee. BRIEF FOR THE APPELLANTS Summary of the Case and Request for Oral Arguments The plaintiffs-appellants Aaron Conway and Debbie Evans filed an application for a marriage license with the defendant-appellee Canyon County, Utah, in their desired union pursuant to the religious beliefs, rites and ceremonies of their sect which allows its male members to have multiple marriages with the female members. Canyon County, Utah, refused to issue the marriage license applied for. In view of the said refusal, herein plaintiffs-appellants filed a case against the Canyon County, Utah, with the District Court of Utah which ruled, however, that the anti-polygamy law of the State of Utah is not unconstitutional and there was therefore justification on the part of Canyon County not to issue the marriage license applied for by plaintiffs-appellants Aaron Conway and Debbie Evans. Hence, herein plaintiffs-appellants filed their notice of appeal raising the matter to the Utah Court of Appeals in order to question the resolution of the District Court of Utah on the ground that the ruling is in violation of the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs-appellants, particularly that which pertains to the freedom of religious beliefs and the free exercise of the rituals, practices and ceremonies appurtenant and corollary to and under those beliefs. Herein plaintiffs-defendants respectfully pray and request of the Utah Court of Appeals that they be allowed to present oral arguments before the court to prove their case on such date and time as may be determined and scheduled by the court, preferably on February 28, 2010, at eight thirty in the morning (8:30 a. m.), or as soon thereafter as they may be so allowed to argue and or to be heard. Table of Contents Summary of the Case and Request for Oral Arguments Pages 3 - 4 Table of Contents Page 4 Table of Authorities Cited Page 4 Preliminary Statement Page 5 Statement of the Issues Presented for Review Pages 5 Statement of the Case and Facts Page 6 Arguments Pages 6 – 10 Table of Authorities Cited LAWRENCE V. TEXAS (02-102) 539 U.S. 558 (2003) 41 S. W. 3d 349, reversed and remanded. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Cornell University Law School. [internet] Accessed February 15, 2010. Available at: State of Utah v. Rodney Hans Holm. p 23. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH No. 20030847. Filed May 16, 2006. 2006 UT 31. [internet] Accessed February 3, 2010. Available at: Preliminary Statement The present action is an appeal of the decision of the Utah District Court which ruled that Canyon County, herein defendant-appellee, was correct in refusing to issue a marriage license to plaintiffs-appellants Aaron Conway and Debbie Evans as already set forth above under the caption Summary of the Case and Request for Oral Arguments. Aaron Conway is legally married to Barb Conway who absolutely consents to the marriage between Aaron and Debbie Evans. In denying the application for a marriage license, Canyon County argued that allowing Aaron and Debbie to be lawfully married ran counter to the law of the State of Utah which prohibits polygamy. After trying the case filed by the appellants, the Utah District Court upheld Canyon County. On the basis of these incidents, the plaintiffs-appellants have opted to seek redress via this appeal to the Utah Court of Appeals which has jurisdiction over the instant relief. Statements of the Issues Presented for Review Firstly, the District Court which tried the case erred in sweepingly resolving that the action filed by the plaintiffs-appellants would not prosper on the sole basis that the state law against polygamy was not unconstitutional. In line with that argument, the said trial court failed to appreciate that in refusing the issuance of the marriage license applied for by plaintiffs-appellants Aaron Conway and Debbie Evans, Canyon County, Utah, violated the rights of the plaintiffs-appellants under the First Amendment which is a more paramount consideration in the litigation. Secondly, it has not been shown that plural marriages pose any danger to public order, public policy or public welfare. Lastly, owing to the relatively new jurisprudence enunciated in Lawrence v Texas, prohibiting polygamy will be a violation of the right to the equal protection of the laws. Statement of the Case and Facts A summarized narration of the case and of the facts has already been outlined above as covered by the sub-headings entitled Summary of the Case and Request for Oral Arguments and Preliminary Statement. Nevertheless, it is material and significant to add here the fact that the action of Canyon County in denying the application for the issuance of a marriage license to plaintiffs-appellants Aaron Conway and Debbie Evans was founded on Article 3 of the Utah Constitution which provides that it guarantees perfect toleration of religious sentiments and that the inhabitants of Utah cannot be molested of their person or property in view of their religious worship. The said Article 3 however further provides that polygamous marriages are barred. The latter provision is the crux of the matter in this proceeding. Arguments Preface It is admitted that desirable customs and traditions in ancient times mandated that a marriage was only between one woman and one man. Albeit arguably, this must possibly be in view of the tenets of God’s commandments handed down by the biblical Moses which restrained one to commit adultery or to covet his neighbor’s wife. By logic, it may therefore be confessed that monogamy was actually based on religious foundations. Accordingly, territories and jurisdictions which are fundamentally Christian or Judaist abhor and condemn polygamy and incorporate this precept in their legal system. This finds truism in the United States of America and that necessarily includes the laws framework of Utah. However, as eras and epochs of history passed by, cultures and doctrines have evolved likewise along with religious factors, among others. Within the ambit of these periodic variations in mores, lifestyles change. Accordingly, it is argued that there must be parallel modifications in statutes particularly those which bear on family relations. The first issue The trial court erred in resolving the case of the plaintiffs-appellants on the only reasoning that the anti-polygamy law of Utah is not unconstitutional. What were more paramount to take into account were the constitutional rights of the plaintiffs-appellants. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution clearly provides for the exercise of religious freedom. As a matter of course and of law, that freedom has its adjunct or supplementary liberties. Hence, the believers or followers of a religious sect are likewise free to adopt or practice the rituals and ceremonies under their faith orientations. For instance, the members of a sect can have their own sets of rules regarding baptism and marriage and must have the liberty to observe and follow the same for as long as they do so without infringing on the rights, freedoms and liberties of their other fellowmen and for as long as those practices do not encroach upon public order, public policy or public welfare. In the case of the plaintiffs-appellants, their filing of the application for a marriage license was in accordance with their religious beliefs. The religious sect where they belong allows their male members to marry more than one of their female members or to have two wives or more among their women devotees. To now restrain herein plaintiffs-appellants from entering into the intended bigamous marriage will be to restrict them of their religious freedom which is what the First Amendment precisely prohibits. At this juncture, it is important to observe that the First amendment is of federal application. It thus applies to all the fifty states of the American nation. This circumstance simply explains the fact that there is no national law which makes a polygamous marriage unlawful or criminal. The second issue It is accepted that the fundamental liberties enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the amendments thereto under the United States Constitution are not absolute. Let us take the case of the First Amendment. There is the freedom of speech and of the press. However, one cannot simply libel or slander another and invoke his right under these constitutional guarantees. In short, there are set limitations for every individual liberty. The same rule applies to the freedom of religion. A religious sect may thus perform rituals and ceremonies in accordance with the doctrines of its faith for as long as the same are not contrary to valid laws, good customs, public order, public policy or public welfare. Therefore, rituals involving minors in sexual intercourse even if in accordance with religious ceremonies cannot be countenanced as being against public order and public policy. In the case of the intended marriage between Aaron Conway and Debbie Evans, there is no element of any infraction of public order, public policy or public welfare. They are both adults who consent to the second marriage of Aaron with the concurrence of his first legal wife Barb, likewise an adult. No party is involved here who is of minor age. On this score, it is worth to mention certain observations which are of public knowledge and which are pertinent to the case at bar. For example, multiple marriages or cohabitations are not very uncommon in Utah and Colorado and such practices in these states are generally not despised for as long as the parties do their sexual exercises privately and in a discreet fashion. In essence, for as long as there is no scandalous character or unwanted encroachment in a polygamous marriage, there does not seem to be a legal or moral ground to make it unlawful or criminal. This squarely is the situation of herein plaintiffs-appellants. The third issue The United States Supreme Court ruled in 2003 that sexual behaviors of consenting adults belonging to the same gender fall under the guaranteed liberties declared in the bill of rights. The partners have their constitutional freedom with which the state has no reason to intervene. (LAWRENCE V. TEXAS (02-102) 539 U.S. 558 (2003) 41 S. W. 3d 349, reversed and remanded. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. Cornell University Law School. [internet]). The cited Lawrence v. Texas case reversed the previous ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186 which pronounced as constitutional the Texas law criminalizing sexual behaviors between two men. In disregarding the Bowers decision, the Supreme Court held that the statute in question had touched upon the human conduct of the accused done privately in the confines of their homes with their dignity intact. It was judicially declared that a person’s relationship within those circumstances is part of his liberty and freedom and which the Constitution allows. If a personal relationship with sexual implications is tolerated as legal for people of the same sex, there is no reason to not allow the same relationship between a man and a woman who are both adults where the only question is the subsisting legal marriage of the man with another woman who anyway consents to the said relationship. To not so allow will be a transgression of the equal protection clause. It may be advanced that the equal protection clause defense is moot and academic here in view of the Rodney Holm case decided by the Utah Supreme Court in 2006 where the facts are very similar to the instant case. It cannot be so. In the Holm ruling, the purported second wife was a minor and it was the stand of the court that consent could hardly be refused by a minor and that she or he could easily be coerced or injured if consent was not given.(State of Utah v. Rodney Hans Holm. p 23. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF UTAH No. 20030847. Filed May 16, 2006. 2006 UT 31. [internet]). Upon the other hand, this appeal arose from an original trial court case which did not involve any minor. At this point, it may likewise be interesting to note that in the said Holm decision, no less than the Utah State Supreme Court Chief Justice Christine Durham who wrote a strong dissenting opinion ruled only on the aspect of the sexual engagement of the minor second wife. She did not go with the majority view that there was bigamy and resolved instead that making a determination of the plural marriage issue would be to invade personal relationships. WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, it is most respectfully prayed that the assailed decision of the Utah District Court be reversed and vacated and that a new resolution be entered declaring as unconstitutional the above-cited Article 3 of the Utah Constitution and ordering Canyon County to issue the marriage license applied for by plaintiffs-appellants Aaron Conway and Debbie Evans. Reference The Amendments. The United States Constitution. U. S. Constitution Online. [internet] Accessed February 16, 2010. Available at: Read More