Civil Rights, and Reynolds. It's not just polygamy anymore.

 I have spoken and written about the Reynolds case, Reynolds v United States 98 US 145 (1878). While the case turned on polygamy, there is a far greater issue involved.

Today we see Twitter and Facebook banning the President of the United States from Tweeting. They have decided, now that the Electoral College issue has been decided, and, to quote Rahm Emmanuel in "not letting a good crisis go to waste", has used the rioting of a minuscule number of what is likely over a million people protesting the obvious theft of the election, to clamp down on the President, and many other conservatives.

Remember, they don't hate Trump, so much as they hate his supporters. If you were in DC to support the President, to them, you were every bit as responsible for the breach of the Capital as those who did it. Period.

Reynolds is an interesting case. The case was specifically whether George Reynolds, a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (referred to henceforth as "the church"), could practice his religion by engaging in plural marriage. At the time, and to this day, The Morrill Anti-Bigamy Act was targeted directly at the church, and its members. Yes, a law specifically aimed at a religious faith. 

Before you start hanging Warren Jeffs around my neck (full disclosure, I am a member of the church), let me point out to you that the practice of plural marriage at the time was strictly regulated within the church, and only a very small percentage were allowed to participate. They had to maintain either a separate home for each wife, or at the very least, separate rooms. 

The case was decided that while members of the church could believe in plural marriage, they could not break the law by practicing it.

THEY COULD BELIEVE, BUT NOT PRACTICE.

In the first case regarding gay marriage, the challenge to the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), United States v Windsor 570 US 744 (2013), the federal ban on gay marriage was struck down. Interestingly enough, Reynolds was not used in this case as a defense. Part of Reynolds, was that polygamy was so contrary to the morals of the land, that it was acceptable to legislate. At the time DOMA was passed (with huge majorities in the House and Senate, signed by Bill Clinton) gay marriage would have fallen into that category. How strange, I wonder why not? Let's move on.

Of course, there is Obergefell v Hodges 576 US _ 2015. This case eliminated state gay marriage laws. It was interesting that in Windsor, King Kennedy wrote in the opinion, that while their ruling eliminated the federal ban on gay marriage, the Court had NO authority to meddle in what was a matter exclusive to the states. Yet, just two years later, that same King Kennedy, decided that states did not have the right to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The irony would be hilarious, if not so sad. Guess what was not used? Reynolds.

You see, had Reynolds been involved, with either of these cases, it would have been overturned, and that doesn't fit in with the plan.

Reynolds has far more practicality than just about marriage. Its ruling is such that it even could be used to extend beyond even freedom of religion. Remember up above.

The First Amendment states: 

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.

Does the term "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" sound like it is confined to beliefs? But there it is, in Reynolds. You can believe, you just can't do. Now maybe you are sitting there saying "well those Mormons deserved it, going out to a place  that no one wanted, establishing a territory that today no one would recognize from what it was when they arrived. Practicing such a barbaric thing as polygamy (you know, like Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob?)" Well the language is such that any religious practice that the State (meaning any government body) may find offensive (reading the Bible from the pulpit, defining within your church marriage as between a man and a woman, etc.) could be criminalized. But really even more than that.

What about speech? Or the press? Peaceable assembly? Twitter is a private corporation, as is Facebook, Google, etc. Yet in today's world, with the government putting its gun to your head and forcing you to stay at home, these are no longer so much private as they are public accommodations. As such, they shouldn't be able to do that. Yet they are.

Do you want to rely on Justice Roberts to protect your rights? They may just say.

"You have a right to speak, just no right to a microphone. or social media, or other outlet." or "You can believe in the Bible, and for now we will let you read the Bible, just not out loud, in public."  

Don't believe me? 

It says so in Reynolds.

While I did use the term "Mormons" once in an epithet sort of way, I want to emphasize that the name of the church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.