The term marriage has various meanings in different religions. Whether it is to formally bind you to one person until death, or informally just announce your relationship with your partner or partners. In this case, Lynn S. King, who is a devout Pentecostal Christian is refusing to allow her partner, Henry King, to divorce her. She believes that the Bible forbids divorce and marriages are promises to God that can never be broken. In 1993, Henry King filed for divorce based on cruel and inhumane treatment, Lynn King fought this divorce and after no evidence of cruel and inhumane treatment being found in their marriage, she ended up prevailing in the state court. Once 2010 came along, the state of New York passed a Domestic Relations Law (DRL) that allows for a divorce claim to be filed if a marriage has been broken beyond repair for a period longer than six months. This law allows for what is called “no fault” divorces, which means you do not have to have solid proof as to why you are filing for divorce, you just need to describe how your marriage has been permanently broken. Clearly the DRL will allow for H. King to successfully divorce L. King as long as he proves that their marriage has been unfixable for at least six months. Once H. King filed for divorce again in 2016, L. King immediately challenged it behind the argument that her marriage can not be undone by the state, and that this law allowing for no-fault divorce violates the free exercise clause and establishment clause.
This case raises the issue of whether forcefully ending a marriage is a violation of one’s free exercise clause and establishment cause if this marriage that is being ended strictly goes against one’s religion. State defendants argue that L. King has no constitutional right to remain married and that she is not entitled to force H. King to remain married to her because of her religious beliefs. The state also recognizes that there is a distinction between legally ending a marriage and religiously ending a marriage. L. King’s rebuttal to these points is that the DRL is forcing her into a life of sin and shame because she is being forced to go against the word of God.
In this case we are looking at whether forcing someone to end their marriage, if it goes against their religious beliefs, violates the free exercise and establishment clause. Does L. King have the right to say that the state can not end her marriage strictly because that would be against her religion and would in turn force her into a life of sin. In my opinion, it is completely within the states rights to legally end the marriage and I do not think L. King should have the right to force H. King to remain married to her. Forcing a human to remain married to someone else against their own will would on its own be a serious violation of their constitutional rights. H. King would have a much stronger argument about how his first amendment rights were being infringed upon if he were to be forced to stay married. Forcing one individual to do something against their will strictly because of another individual's religious beliefs would be a direct violation of the establishment clause. Marriage is viewed as a partnership between two people who have given consent. The argument that this consent can not be taken back is invalid, because there is no law stating that you have to stay married once you are married. If the state did decide that H. King had to stay married to L. King, this would be implying that the state does show a preference towards religion and beliefs. The state would be saying that L. King’s beliefs are the correct ones and H. King had to follow them. This would be a complete violation of the establishment clause because the state would be siding with a certain side of a religion.
12 comments:
I also agree that forcing the Kings to remain married is a violation of H. Kings rights. Furthermore, if the state was to force him to remain married it would be similar to coercing him to abide with L King's religious practices. It would also place a substantial burden on his freedom. I am curious as to what L. King's response would be to the courts differentiation between a legal marriage and a marriage recognized by God. Would she argue differently?
I agree that forcing a human to remain married to someone else against their own will would be a violation of their constitutional rights. Although she may see the marriage ending as a violation of her religious rights, it is important to consider how his rights are being protected. I believe it was smart for them to make a distinction between a legal marriage and a religious marriage and I think the court was smart for establishing that religion had nothing to do with the legal marital status of the couple.
If the court legally allowed L.King to force her husband to remain in their marriage, despite his lack of consent, it would lead to a very slippery slope of forcible relationships that may result in abuse. While the first amendment states individuals have a right to practice their religion freely, this must have some sort of limitations to stop society from disrupted and from individuals from being emotionally or physically coerced or abused. In this case, forcing an individual to remain in an unhappy or potentially abusive marriage is incredibly concerning and the safety and mental health of the husband should definitely take precedent in terms of constitutional protection over a claimed right to free exercise of religion. Additionally, I believe the issue of intent is necessary here. In our society, it is legally accepted and even common to get a divorce. L.King went into her marriage presumably understanding this, and, because of that, seems to be hiding behind religion as a way to get what she wants. Because she was, presumably, aware of the tie between divorce and legality in society, using her religion as an excuse to get her way seems invalid to me.
I agree that the state can not force people to stay married. The most important aspect of this case to me is that marriage is a civil union within the state and does not inherently have any ties to religion. All Mr. King wanted to due was get rid of the civil union between himself and his wife which has nothing to due with their religious beliefs. It is very clear that Ms. King is simply trying to use her religious beliefs to get what she wants because the civil aspect of marriage has nothing to due with her religious beliefs. Lastly, if the court was to side with Ms. King it would be the state imposing religious beliefs on someone because it is clear from Mr.Kings many attempts to obtain a divorce he does not hold the belief that he can not get a divorce.
I agree with your stance here and I don't think that states should be allowed to force someone to stay in a marriage. Just because it is one person's religious belief and or duty, doesn't mean that it should apply to everyone. The state forcing them to stay married to tend to one person's religious beliefs creates an establishment of religion, as it forces the other partner to follow the beliefs of the other person. Also, marriage is a much bigger topic than just religious beliefs. I don't think it is right to force someone to stay in an unhappy relationship, especially if its harming their mental and or physical health. Marriage doesn't just boil down to one's religion this day in age therefore I don't think that states should be allowed to force someone to stay in a marriage. They should remain neutral and not enforce or prevent anything based on religious beliefs.
I agree that Mr. King should not be forced to remain married to his wife. I liked your statement on how marriage is between two consenting adults. In this case, Mr. King is not consenting to stay in a marriage with L. King. If you use the Lemon Test, it is evident that DRL does not violate L. King's religious rights. The DRL has a secular legislative purpose, and its primary effect is to protect the rights of those trying to file for a divorce. If the courts were to force Mr. King to remain married, this could create a slippery slope and stop those from getting out of marriages that can be abusive.
This is a particularly interesting case because it directly involves two individuals rather than a singular person or a group of people. I agree that states should not be able to determine whether one person has to stay in a marriage as although L. King believes it will condemn her to a life of sin, that is imposing and violating the rights of H. King by forcing him to stay in the marriage. This decision is an important one to be had and heard due to the possibility of states protecting the marital status of individuals who may be abusers within their relationships. This may be an issue to L. King however this is an issue of her and her husband that the state cannot dictate because the consequences of that would be extremely controversial in regards to Mr. King's consent and autonomy as an individual.
This case is interesting as it is one that I would never see coming. I agree with the author as I believe that by forcing H. King to stay married is infringing on his own individual rights. Additionally, this will be a violation of the establishment clause because then the state is ruling in favor of religious law rather than state law. This reminds me of the case with the prison inmate who had to have certain types of food and therefore was moved to a different facility. The difference is that here, L. King is using her religion to impede on another persons right that is guaranteed by the state. Also, what is stopping H. King from claiming a religion that does support divorce. If the state is protecting L. King's religious laws, does it not have to protect H. King's religions laws?
I agree that you should not be able to force someone to stay married. It would be a violation of H. King's rights if he were forced to stay married to his wife. I also agree with the point that legally remaining married has nothing to do with religion. In God's eyes you can still be married even if your legal papers say otherwise. Religion should not play a role in whether someone can be legally divorced or not because forcing someone to stay in a marriage due to religion is a violation of that persons right to choose.
I agree with Jared and the rest of my classmates, no one should be forced to stay in marriage simply because their partner's religion denies divorce. Forcing someone to stay in a relationship is against that individual's right and making H. King stay in his marriage despite the couple being separated since the mid 90s is completely ridiculous. Your religious freedom and rights should never impose upon someone else's rights. And just as Hallie and Sofia pointed out if the court sided with L. King this would lead to a slippery slope of allowing individuals to be forced to stay in a relationship where they feel unsafe or simply no longer want to be due to their partner's religion. No contested divorces exist for a reason and this a perfect example of where it should apply.
I agree with the author here that forcing someone to stay in a marriage, especially one that they are claiming is abusive, is a violation of ones constitutional rights. Even though King is challenging that by allowing divorce is a violation of his free exercise clause, I think it is validated be use of the establishment of this new state law that allows a "no questions asked" policy when filing for an unfixable divorce. I would argue that it would be considered inhumane to force someone to stay in an abusive marriage, regardless of if it violates ones religion. I think that religious beliefs are constantly being altered and since they were established at the beginning of time it does not mean that they still align with societal norms today.
I resonate with Jared and my peers. Forcing the Kings to remain married is a violation of H. Kings rights. Additionally, refusing a partner to engage in divorce would be coercion. It is also important to evaluate the safety of the individual in the marriage. Sofia and Hallie noted that forcing individuals to stay in a relationship when they feel unsafe. Regardless of religion, an individuals should be able to leave a marriage for sheer safety reasons.
Post a Comment