Opinion ID: 1672964
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: separation of church and state

Text: Nick quotes from the Bible: What ... God hath joined together, let not man put asunder, [1] Matthew, Chapter 19, Verse 6, and Mark, Chapter 10, Verse 9, King James Version. It is Nick's contention that when the courts of this state assumed jurisdiction in this divorce case, they infringed upon his religious freedom contrary to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provides that: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof .... [2] and contrary to Article I, Section 3 of the North Dakota Constitution which provides: The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination or preference shall be forever guaranteed in this state .... Although this court has recently confronted church-state separation contentions in school cases, [3] it has not heretofore directly considered the relationship between divorce and religious freedom. Nick has not cited any case from any other jurisdiction directly in point and we have found just one. The Oklahoma Supreme Court in a recent unanimous decision affirmed a trial court decree granting a divorce even though it was contended that the court was without authority because it contravenes the religious oaths and vows taken by the parties, and, the authority of God, the Bible and Jesus Christ. Williams v. Williams, 543 P.2d 1401 (Okla.1976). The court distinguished ecclesiastical obligations from those involving the civil contract between the parties granted by law. We conclude that the reasoning of the Oklahoma court is sound and should be applied here. Principles defined by the United States Supreme Court in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 25 L.Ed. 244 (1878), as to a conflict between law and a belief in the doctrine of polygamy, support this conclusion. The decree in this case specified that Nick should pay Betty, through her attorney, the sum of $50,000 within 30 days of July 2, 1982, or surrender the home to be sold and the proceeds distributed. This was stayed upon appeal and, by necessity, a new deadline will have to be set. The case is remanded for entry of an amended judgment accordingly. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed. ERICKSTAD, C.J., and PAULSON, SAND and VANDE WALLE, JJ., concur.