This essay examines a hypothetical scenario in which states revolt over federal restrictions on polygamous marriage, using it as a lens to explore the constitutional tensions between state and federal authority. Drawing on the Federalist Papers, the Tenth Amendment, and historical precedents including Mormon polygamy bans and same-sex marriage debates, the paper argues that secession is a disproportionate response to policy disagreement. It contends that individual liberties, minority rights, and marriage law require ongoing negotiation through constitutional channels — especially the courts — rather than military resistance or withdrawal from the union.
The response of both the states and the federal government in this example clearly calls into question the principles of moderation and proportionality, consistent with the sentiments of Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay as expressed in The Federalist Papers. Both the states' and the federal government's failure to negotiate with one another before hostilities became so inflamed over the issue of polygamous marriage reflects poorly on both institutions of government.
For the states to leave the American union is extreme. As manifested in the Declaration of Independence, America was indeed founded upon resistance to tyranny. But even Jefferson stated that breaking the bonds of government required the "tyrant" to fail to uphold his or her part of the social contract to a degree not manifested in this example. The states were still receiving money from the federal government; citizens' lives, rights, and property were still protected by America's standing army. Total secession requires abuse of civil liberties on a mass scale — not mere disagreement with one of the federal government's policies regarding marriage. The issue of polygamy, even if the right to marry more than one person is in dispute, demands negotiation, not complete withdrawal.
A current example of the conflicts between state and federal laws can be seen in the question of same-sex marriages, where individual states have allowed the practice despite the opposition of many other states. Although some conservatives might prefer that the federal government define marriage as existing solely between a man and a woman, it has not done so because the issue has proved so controversial. Nevertheless, federal legislative policy and federal institutions have asserted authority over marriage law in certain areas — state laws prohibiting the union between individuals of different races, for example, have been found unconstitutional by the Supreme Court because they violate individual rights. The rights of states are not absolute, nor can they be regarded as absolute, because state and federal laws can conflict with individual liberties.
The central disagreement revolves around the Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which specifically states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." However, the wording of the amendment is ambiguous. The needs of "the people" — specifically the minority rights that so concerned the authors of the Federalist Papers — often conflict with the laws of state legislatures, as in the case of a minority population under slavery (the last example in recent memory of secession occurring on U.S. soil), as well as in the case of a minority religion or lifestyle, as with polygamy. The right of the federal government in matters of marriage is similarly ambiguous.
The issue of polygamy has been addressed before over the course of the nation's history. Mormonism's allowance of polygamy was prohibited by both the federal legislature and the Supreme Court during the nineteenth century, and is yet another example of how two branches of government conflicted with the rights of individuals engaged in such practice. The U.S. Congress prohibited the practice and the Court refused to sanction it, overriding the actions of a religious group that would normally be protected under the First Amendment, as well as the laws of states like Utah that might have wished to turn a blind eye to the practice.
"Any policy dispute could theoretically justify secession"
"Religious freedom and marriage policy create paradox"
"West's universal morality argument conflicts with modern constitutional law"
You’re 54% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.