The iconic Mormon opponent of the LDS Church position was Sonya Johnson, who went on to come out as a lesbian new age demonstrator. One wonders how much of the push behind the ERA was the intent of homosexuals to create an opening in the constitution for their agenda.

A special irony is that the Supreme court found in the 1880s that religious freedom under the first amendment did not exempt someone from government laws governing marriage. Yet with the Roe v. Wade ruling and other ones on abortion and homosexuality, the courts have been giving to sexual practices an autonomy from regulation that is not based in any specific language of the constitution but has been held to override all state and federal law. A homosexual couple seem to have attained the status of separate sovereignty that is conferred only on Indian tribes. Today, the best legal path for advocates of polygamy is NOT to emphasize the religious basis of their behavior, but simply to argue that they, like homosexuals, must be allowed to give free rein to their sexual proclivities, no matter what society at large decides to the contrary.

The modern attitudes of courts reminds me of the rulings of the Utah Territorial Supreme Court, which held in the same year that the Elks Club was a tax-exempt charitable organization because it served liquor in service of fellowship, while the LDS church Women’s Relief Society was NOT a tax exempt charity even though it used its resources to provide food and clothing to the poor.

What the Left is telling us is that physical relationships are sacrosanct, but religious relationships are not.

My fear is that courts will continue to come out with decisions along this line, giving sexuality priority over religious behavior, to the point that other government officers will finally see the absurdity of the rulings, and refuse to obey them. And when that happens, the legitimacy and authority of the courts will effectively expire. By becoming lawless, judges are destroying the courts.