RLUIPA and inmates' right to have sex with their spouses

[Volokh, Eugene]

Jean Dudley writes:
 
> I'd say that yes, the courts would have to uphold conjugal visits.   

	OK, say that this is so.  Now would that create problems of
discrimination in favor of religion that are far more serious than the
norm (a normal level of discrimination which Cutter v. Wilkinson did
accept), and far closer to the level that the Court struggled to avoid
in Seeger?  After all, if the rule is "You aren't allowed to have sex
with your wife [or any other woman] ever again -- unless you're of the
right religion," that's a pretty serious thing to treat people
differently about, and pretty clearly the sort of thing that could quite
easily pressure someone to get religion (or to fake getting it). 

> Let's take it one step further:  What if a woman is 
> incarcerated, and it was her husband who was filing suit 
> saying that his religious duty was being infringed upon?

	Oddly enough, I'm pretty sure he'd lose, since RLUIPA only
protects institutionalized persons.  But if he managed to convert her to
a religion that imposes the proper requirements on her, then she could
file her own claim.