California in particular has had significant influence on the rights of homosexuals in general, and specifically became the latest state to recognize the individual rights, respect and dignity of homosexuals, and to afford protection from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.


	Plural marriage was also seen as deviant, and is still illegal and its practitioners vilified. In nineteenth century America, Mormon polygamy was defamed in public.  In Reynolds v. United States, the Supreme Court termed polygamy “odious among the northern and western nations of Europe.”  Reynolds codified the extension of the U.S.’s ban on polygamy to Utah, effectively requiring its Mormon founders to give up their polygamous practices, despite the fact that they considered the practice ordained by God and necessary for salvation and entry into heaven.  Modern courts continue to maintain the illegality of plural marriage. 


The perpetuation of the mythical, natural American two-parent, nuclear family has functioned to exclude the problems and concerns of nontraditional (often labeled deviant) families from political and public consideration.  However, with the normalization of cohabitation, the decreasing stigma of single motherhood and non-marital sexual expression, the increasing acceptance of homosexuality and single-sex couples and the advent of assisted reproductive technology, the historic purposes of confining marriage to “one man, one woman” no longer reasonably apply in modern American society. Indeed, the expansion of the definition of “marriage” and “family” seems long overdue. There is no substantive legal reason beyond satisfying the cry of the vox populi, especially given the definition and expansion of our Constitutional right to privacy in the late twentieth century, why these practices should continue to be stigmatized, banned and outlawed. 


It is notable that the federal courts in America have, with very limited exception, declined jurisdiction over domestic relations issues. Full faith and credit would seemingly provide protection for various states’ practices, however, the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) allows states to ignore civil unions for homosexual couples legally united or married in another state. The federal government may also disregard unions recognized in individual states under DOMA. The implications of the right to marry are extremely complex, involving a variety of often-interrelated rights.


Civil unions serve the same purpose as marriage licenses: recognizing a union of two people and giving legitimacy to their status as a couple. Therefore, the argument comes down to semantics and politics. If a civil union does the exact same thing as a marriage license in the eyes of the state, then all couples, regardless of sexual preference should be recognized in the same way. 


It seems that the Sherbert v. Vernor  and  Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah courts determined a test for preventing legislative interference with religious practice, despite the precedent set in Reynolds whereby a moral argument was made in order to justify religious discrimination and outlaw Mormon polygamy. 


In Hialeah, a group of Cuban refugees formed a church to practice the Santeria religion. 