The Boundaries of Polygamy

As I was reading the news today, I was full of bewilderment at the latest incident in Texas where 400 young girls were freed yesterday by police authorities out of a polygamists compound being operated by a religious sect known as the Fundamental Church of Christ of Latter-Day Saints. Allegedly, the young girls were paired with old men in polygamous union, often by force and coercion or moral coercion, in accordance with the sect’s religious belief and practice.

It is of note that the above-mentioned sect is a breakaway cluster from the main Mormon religion formally known as the Church of the Latter-Day Saints, which had long ago negated on the practice of multiple marriages as a religious practice, where the U.S. Supreme Court had time and again decided against the practice of polygamy in America.

A landmark case on polygamy, one that is still being referred today as a leading case, is the 1879 U.S. Supreme Court decision entitled Reynolds v. United States where it was cited prominently how polygamy was (is) an “odious” conduct and ultimately contrary to “historic American values and culture”, even “from the beginning of time”, declaring farther how “marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law”

Yet, it is still an open secret in America, especially in locations within Utah and Arizona states, that polygamy have and are still being practiced and once in a while, such societal American phenomenon comes out in the open, like the Waco Incident of 1993 and now with this very recent detection of a polygamists compound in San Angelo, Texas.

Of immense interest now is the legal concept of freedom of religion, as to whether or not one’s belief and conviction allows one to practice his or her religion unabated and unhindered by any governmental restriction, as a matter of constitutional right?

Our constitution guarantees freedom of religion where the Bill of Rights, under Article III, Section 5 of the 1987 Constitution of the Philippines, states that:

“No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. The free exervise and enjoyment of religious profession and whoship, without discrimniation or preference, shall forever be allowed. No religious test shall be requires for the exercise of civil or political rights.”

While in America, the First Amendment similarly proclaims:

“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.”

In the end, “freedom of religion” in our territory and in America, where our jurisdiction had mostly structured the form and content of our laws, as well as government system from, remains one constitutional right that is held with enormous weight and sanctity, just like “freedom of expression” that the law and the judiciary often bestows attention to it, resolving questions involving such question of religion and practice in the most prolific manner and in often public spectacle, for the community to relish and appreciate. (Read this very interesting case on marriage and religion – Estrada vs. Escritor.)

Yet, the point of final determination as to the question of ‘freedom of religion’ remains in the one singular rule that proclaims unambiguously how the right to belief is not tantamount to the right to practice, where in the 1940 U.S. Supreme Court case Cantwell v. Connecticut (310 U.S. 296), applying the Belief-Conduct Distinction, it was deemed that:

“The Free Exercise Clause ‘’embraces two concepts—freedom to believe and freedom to act. The first is absolute, but in the nature of things, the second cannot be.’’ “

Similarly in our local jurisdiction, it is dogmatic that an individual has absolute freedom to believe in any form of religious belief, ‘he may even believe in the devil and worship Satan’, but once he or she puts this believe into action or outward conduct, then the State begins to interfere in the form of regulation and prohibition where in the present issue, as to whether or not freedom of religion allows one to establish highly anomalous and very scandalous polygamy compound such as the one in San Angelo, Texas where girls as young as 12 years old are compelled to enter marriages with much older men, and where there are persistent rumors of rape and physical harm.

Of course, American laws squirm at and reject polygamous union that despite that the leaders and members of the Fundamental Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints believe in such, the law does not allow them and they have in fact violated pertinent laws, criminal laws for that matter, and their ‘freedom of religion’ would in no way come in towards their protection or the justification of their conduct.