Hogan v. Hogan
140 Ohio App. 3d 301, 747 N.E.2d 299, 2000 Ohio App. LEXIS 5395 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state's neutral, generally applicable divorce statute does not impermissibly burden an individual's constitutional right to the free exercise of religion, as the state has a compelling interest in regulating the civil institution of marriage and its dissolution.
Facts:
- Kathleen Ann Hogan and Clifford Floyd Hogan were married on November 24, 1984, and had two children.
- During the marriage, Clifford Hogan was verbally and physically abusive towards Kathleen Hogan, at one point breaking her collarbone.
- The couple lived separate and apart for over one year without interruption and without engaging in sexual relations.
- Kathleen Hogan sought a divorce on the grounds of their separation.
- Clifford Hogan opposed the divorce, stating that his sincere Roman Catholic religious beliefs consider divorce a mortal sin.
Procedural Posture:
- Kathleen Hogan (plaintiff) filed a complaint for divorce against Clifford Hogan (defendant) in the Butler County Court of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations Division.
- Clifford Hogan filed a “Motion for conciliation proceedings,” which Kathleen Hogan opposed.
- The trial court held a final hearing and found that the parties had lived separate and apart for over one year, which is a ground for divorce under Ohio law.
- The trial court entered a decree of divorce on February 2, 2000.
- Clifford Hogan (appellant) appealed the trial court's judgment to the Court of Appeals of Ohio, Twelfth Appellate District. Kathleen Hogan is the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state court's act of granting a civil divorce pursuant to a neutral state law impermissibly burden the constitutional right to the free exercise of religion of a spouse who objects to the divorce on religious grounds?
Opinions:
Majority - Valen, Judge
No. A state court's act of granting a civil divorce does not impermissibly burden a spouse's religious freedom. The court applied a three-part test to analyze the claim under the Ohio Constitution: (1) whether the religious beliefs are sincerely held, (2) whether the regulation infringes upon the right to religious practice, and (3) whether the state has a compelling interest and used the least restrictive means. The court conceded the sincerity of Hogan's beliefs but found the remaining parts of the test were not met. First, the civil divorce does not infringe upon Hogan's religious practice because his church may still consider him married, separating the legal status from the religious one. Second, the state has an unassailably compelling interest in regulating marriage and divorce as part of its police power, particularly to dissolve a legal relationship that is no longer beneficial to the parties. The court further noted that since the claim fails under the more protective Ohio Constitution, it necessarily fails under the less stringent standard applied to neutral, generally applicable laws under the U.S. Constitution's Free Exercise Clause.
Analysis:
This decision reaffirms the state's broad authority to regulate domestic relations, establishing that this power generally overrides individual religious objections to neutral laws of general applicability like divorce statutes. The case highlights the legal distinction between a civil divorce, which dissolves a state-created legal status, and a religious or sacramental marriage, which a court's decree does not affect. This reinforces the principle that the Free Exercise Clause does not allow an individual to veto a generally applicable law or compel the state to maintain a legal status, like marriage, against the wishes of the other party and in contravention of state law.
