This Note will argue that the new Utah child emancipation statute will be only marginally effective in assisting the lost boys because they face additional barriers, such as a lack of education, fear of outsiders, little support from independent agencies, widespread anti-polygamist sentiment, and social deficiencies.9II.
§ 76-7-101, § 3 of the Utah Enabling Act, and § 1 of Article III of the Utah Constitution. We therefore VACATE the district court's judgment in favor of Swensen on the merits of these criminal-prohibition claims and REMAND the case for entry of an order dismissing these claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Utah complied with this requirement, and, in 1895, a nearly identical version of this proscription was included in Article III of Utah's Constitution: The following ordinance shall be irrevocable without the consent of the United States and the people of this State: First:-Perfect toleration of religious sentiment is guaranteed.
Plaintiffs subsequently brought a civil rights action under 42 U. The district court held that plaintiffs possessed standing to challenge the constitutionality of Utah's civil and criminal prohibitions against the practice of polygamy, as reflected in Utah Code Ann. After concluding that plaintiffs have forfeited any challenge to the constitutionality of Utah's civil prohibition of polygamous marriages, we hold that plaintiffs lack standing to bring claims against Swensen based upon the purported unconstitutionality of Utah's criminal prohibition of polygamy. Legislative Background In 1894, Congress passed the Utah Enabling Act, which demanded as a condition of statehood that Utah enact an “irrevocable” ordinance preserving the security of religious beliefs, but forever prohibiting “polygamous or plural marriages.” See Act of July 16, 1894, ch. 107, 108 (“That perfect toleration of religious sentiment shall be secured, and that no inhabitant of said State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship: Provided, That polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited.” (emphasis in original)). The constitutional prohibition of “polygamous or plural marriages” has spawned civil and criminal legislation.
This principle was among the most challenging aspects of the Restoration—for Joseph personally and for other Church members.
Plural marriage tested faith and provoked controversy and opposition.
Bronson filed an application for a marriage license, and Defendant-Appellee Sherrie Swensen (“Swensen”), the Clerk for Salt Lake County, Utah, refused to issue the marriage license. § 1983, alleging that Swensen's refusal to issue the marriage license violated their associational, substantive due process, and free exercise rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.