The Court's rationale in Reynolds Mormon polygamy case included the following steps:

Because society is built upon the civil contract of marriage, the government can permissibly pass laws regulating marriage.

Permitting a certain class of people to willfully defy the nation's laws without repercussions in the name of religious liberty would permit every citizen to become a law unto himself and lead to the existence of a government in name only.

While laws of the nation cannot interfere with religious beliefs and opinions, they can interfere with religious practices.

In Yoder, Chief Justice Burger ignored that

 

belief and practice.

Reynolds distinction by holding that Amish

claims were rooted in their beliefs, that there is no separation in Amish life between

 

In Smith, twenty years later, the Court skipped over the Yoder decision and seemed to

go back to Reynolds.

How can you account for the different outcomes between these two cases (Yoder and

Smith) that might have contributed to these diverging opinions.

• Was the difference primarily a function of changing times? In the 1970s the country was facing upheavals over anti-Vietnam War protests, Civil Rights protests, and college students and "hippies" protesting and using drugs that had only been declared illegal by the 1970 Controlled Substances Act. By 1990 Richard Nixon's declared War on Drugs (1971) was in full force.

• Or were there other factors that differentiated these cases? Think about the plaintiffs in these two cases--Amish fathers who wanted to make choices for their children based on their religion and Alfred Smith, an indigenous member of the Klamath tribe who participated in a Native American Church ceremony that included the sacramental use of peyote.

Give  explanation for these divergent outcomes and be sure and quote from the readings on each of the cases.