Polygamy and friedom of speech.

B"H
Can the government censor religious speech in the USA?
Apparently it does as pointed out on Ztgstmv:

Re: A TEXAS BIGAMY DEFENSE
April 4, 2009 by ztgstmv

To: jfloyd@JohnTFloyd.com Hello there. Good work blogging on the FLDS cases. What do you think about this idea: Bigamy laws should be overturned because they violate Free Speech rights, namely the right to call your significant other a “wife” and the right to “purport” to be married. These are the acts that define common law bigamy in Texas — the expression of this thing called marriage, rather than any physical underlying actions or deception. Expression in it self, if harmless, should not be criminalized at all. Why is it that Texas has a law prohibiting “purporting” (making the expression) that one is married to multiple people? Carrying the defense into the realm of free speech, according the Tom Green ruling in Utah, also opens up the door to bringing a defense on the basis of vagueness, which is critical to defeating the nonsensical, circular bigamy statute. (I say it’s circular because it is: you are married if you purport to be
the term “marriage” in public to define his second or third or fourth relationship. Multiple relationships are not, standing alone, illegal. It’s the manner in which the individual defines those relationships to the public. The Texas bigamy statute prohibits him from defining the relationships as “marriages” – whether state-sanctioned ceremonial, common law, or “spiritual” marriages.



The recent decision by the Iowa Supreme Court legalizing “gay” marriages (along with Connecticut and Massachusetts) will ultimately create the new line of attack on bigamy statutes, The traditional reason for prohibiting homosexual marriages, just as with multiple marriage, is the threat they pose to our society’s historical definition of “marriage.” If gay marriage does not unconstitutionally threaten that historical definition, then certainly polygamy does not pose a greater threat. Again, as we presented in our blog, Texas does not, nor do most states, protect marriage, either through its constitution or laws, as an “institution.” It is a “status.” A “status” can be redefined while an “institution” cannot. Ergo, “gay” marriages in Iowa (the American “heartland”), Connecticut and Massachusetts ).



Hope this helps answer your question.



[My response:]

I greatly appreciate your responding to this quintessential question of bigamy’s place on the law books.

I personally question the notion that the existence of a so-called “status” or “institution” has any place in the law books. I still think that’s a restriction on free-speech, free expression, and free thought, and I believe the common law bigamy law can be challenged on that basis. I don’t see any other way around it.

As long as the government can write laws that enshrine definitions for things such as marriage, they can also create definitions for other customs and practices and criminalize human relationships or activities. Take the term “girlfriend” which everyone knows and recognizes — sort of. What’s to stop the government from writing a law that prohibits someone from having a “girlfriend” from another country or to have several at the same time?

These are just social terms (”girlfriend,” “marriage,” “lover,” “associate,” “colleague”), that are constantly changing in their connotations and even definitions on an informal level. Are definitions themselves the province of the legislature? Can the legislature rewrite Webster’s dictionary tomorrow with the stroke of a pen and tell people which words they can and cannot use in public or just in a social context? Can they tell people how they can and cannot define themselves?

Thanks again for the reasoned reply,

Joey


Thanks! Joey

hat tip:
ztgstmv.wordpress.com

This , combined with Blaine Ammendments and few other barbaric discriminatory laws that unfairly persecute people based on their religion (albeit often in a very subtle way) unfortunately leaves millions innocent people in this country oppressed not that much different compared to countries the US is now fighting that assign dhimistatus to minorities .
May the G-d Almighty grant wisdom to people and the leaders of all the states and federal government of this country to truly offer "liberty and justice for all"

.

Frum Satire makes a shidduch

Two bloggers who met each other in the comments section of FrumSatire blog are getting married and here's the tape to prove it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HJ7NArFMfn8

H.R. 1107: Nation's Economic Cohhabitation Act - The new Economic Plan