ARGUMENT

RUNNINGHEAD: ARGUMENT

Argument of Equal Protection-Fourteenth Amendment Lucynthia Tisdale January 18, 2012 Bachelor Capstone of Paralegal Studies Professor Croushore

ARGUMENT 1

ARGUMENT Utah was discriminatory when it deliberately denied the Conways and Ms. Cooks a marriage license due to their religious practice of polygamy. Polygamous marriages are prohibited Utah Code 30-1-2, and deputy clerks are barred from issuing a marriage license Utah Code 30-1-16, Bronson v. Swensen, 500 F.3d 1099, C.A.10 (Utah), 2007. The denial of a
marriage license was a violation of a guaranteed privilege due to the citizens of the U.S., that it violated the religious practice of Mormonism, which includes polygamy, a man married to more than one woman. The practice of polygamy does not hurt society, people who pretend to be practicing polygamy does. The Conways and Ms. Cook pray to the Court of Appeals for summary judgment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW-RATIONAL BASIS STANDARD

The Utah Court of Appeals has jurisdiction pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 78A-4-103. |Utah

Code Ann. 78A-4-105. This review for reasonableness and rationality is the same standard as the
abuse of discretion standard mentioned in Utah Code section 63G-4-403(4)(h)(i). Sullivan v. Utah Bd. of Oil, Gas & Mining, 2008 UT 44, 189 P.3d 63; WWC Holding Co., Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Commn, 2002 UT 23, 8, 44 P.3d 714 (Utah State Bar). The court reviews whether agencys actions violated a partys due process rights, Kennon v. Air Quality Bd., 2009 UT 77, 14, P.3d; Resort Retainers v. Labor Commn, 2010 UT App 229, 12, 238 P.3d 1081,Due Process (14th Amendment) challenges are questions of law that we review applying a correction of error standard. Appellants are seeking summary judgment in their favor. (Utah State Bar). The

ARGUMENT 2

THE DISTRICT COURT ERRED-RELYING ON ANCIENT CASE LAW

1.

As time evolves, the court refuses to shift from ancient law that polygamy will be

forever prohibited Article 3 Section 1 of Utahs Constitution. The court believes this to be a non-debatable issue because of Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1878), a Supreme Court case of the United States that held that religious duty was not a suitable defense to a criminal indictment. George Reynolds was a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, charged with bigamy under the Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act after marrying Amelia Jane Schofield while still married to Mary Ann Tuddenham in Utah Territory (Google Scholar, 2008). Even with emerging issues and as time evolves; a court has yet to offer a reason as why a 134 year old case is supreme law of the land. The only reason to suggest is that the court gives preferential treatment to different religious groups.

2.

For instance, Native Americans may legally cohabitate and practice polygamy.

(Strasser, 2010). Whereas the outsiders would be criminally prosecuted by Utah Code Ann. 301-2 Marriages prohibited/void, and Utah Code Ann. 76-7-101 Anti-Bigamy statutes, respectively. The court believes the Native Americans are a separate entity, and conform to tribal laws, is at best, vague in its interpretation. Also, Native Americans may marry outside of their heritage, and are still able to practice polygamy (Strasser, 2010). This groups Native Americans into a class of their own-a direct violation of the Equal Clause Protection under the Fourteenth Amendment.

3.

Homosexuals were charged criminally with sodomy until Lawrence v. Texas, 539

U.S. 558, 123 S. Ct. 2472, 156 L. Ed. 2d 508 (2003), two gay men claimed Texas deprived them of privacy rights and equal protection under the law when they were arrested in 1998 for having

ARGUMENT 3

sex in a Houston home (Sodomylaws, 2007), it made Utah change its constitution after much debate. The Sodomy laws were amended under the Utah Code Ann. 76-5-402.3 Forcible Sodomy and Utah Code 76-9-702 Lewdness-Sexual Battery-Public Urination statutes, which are basically rape and/or indecent exposure statutes. The debates and petitions clearly showed that homosexuals were put into a class of their own because of their beliefs to be with the same gender. Again, the courts are forcing their moral codes upon society on those who wish to be left alone.

4.

The government does have a legitimate interest in protecting vulnerable

individuals, such as women and children, (Google Scholar, 2006) . However, the government intrusion goes so far as to enforce their moral codes upon people. The Fourteenth Amendment guarantees us equal protection, and for the government not to have preferential treatment amongst the groups. The belief that all polygamists are rapists and enslaving women for their own personal sexual desires is one that cannot be prove, (Google Scholar, 2006). The governments intrusion into consenting adults who are not to harm vulnerable individuals rights have been impeded upon by the government. The Appellants seek summary judgment in their favor.

ARGUMENT 4

References

Google Scholar. (2007). Bronson v Swensen. Retrieved January 10, 2012, from Westlaw: http://campus.westlaw.com.lib.kaplan.edu/find/default.wl?cite=500+F.3d+1099&rs=WLW12.01 &vr=2.0&rp=%2ffind%2fdefault.wl&spa=0040428372000&fn=_top&mt=CampusLaw&sv=Split

Google Scholar. (2008). Reynolds v. U.S. Retrieved January 10, 2012, from Google Scholar: Reynolds v. US, 549 F. 3d 1108 - Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit 2008

Google Scholar. (2006). State v Green 2004 UT 76. Retrieved Januar 17, 2012, from Google Scholar: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=8224887458822136014&q=state+v+green+utah&hl =en&as_sdt=2,36

Sodomylaws. (2007). Lawrence and Garner v. Texas. Retrieved January 10, 2012, from Sodomylaws: http://www.sodomylaws.org/

Strasser, M. (2010). Tribal Marriages, Same-Sex Unions, and an inter-state Recognition Conundrum. Retrieved January 10, 2012, from Law Digital Collection: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1015&context=twlj&seiredir=1&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com%2Furl%3Fsa%3Dt%26rct%3Dj%26q%3D native%2Bamericans%2Band%2Bgovernment%2Bsigned%2Btreaty%2Bfor%2Bpolygmay%26s ource%3Dweb%26cd%3D1%2

Utah State Bar. (n.d.). Utah Appellate Procedure. Retrieved January 17, 2012, from Utah State Bar: http://webster.utahbar.org/barjournal/2011/01/utah_standards_of_appellate_re_3.html