"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Specifically the part about "prohibiting the free exercise"
righteousjohnson
Favorite Answer
No, because at the time, before becoming a state, they weren't governed by this rule. They were not yet part of the country that these amendments had authority over. This is much like the limitations put on our present day territories.
The prohibition against polygamy was presented to the people of Utah as a prerequisite to becoming eligible for statehood.
It's a loophole yeah, but it was legal.
Anonymous
The Supreme Court has consistently found that as long as the law in question has a primarily secular purpose, then it is not a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Here, there are non-religious legal reasons for keeping marriage a partnership between just two people. So this was not a violation.
∞Infinity∞
Yes I think it was. There are certain lines that have to be drawn however. You can't claim it to be a "religion" if it's forcing people to marry against their will, especially when they are underage. You also can't hide under the first amendment if you are murdering people or committing other heinous crimes in the name of God.
That law was made by people who didn't know the people who were living polygamy in Utah and therefore it was made out of ignorance.
Fedup Veteran
They still do have polygamy colonies in Utah. Romney's cousin has a colony in Mexico. No, I am not kidding..you can easily learn the fact on any search engine.
firewomen
polygany is a religion>>>>>