Technically, this ruling had nothing to do with polygamous marriage, as the party involved did not have a plural marriage.
The ruling deals with whether a person can openly co-habitate with multiple people. It is hard to see how a law prohibiting this could stand in light of recent rulings.
If we allow a person to co-habitate with one other person without marriage, why not two, or three, or more?
Religiously, we should strongly oppose anything beyond sex within marriage. But from a liberty perspective, where do we draw the line regarding government by force of law regulating private actions between individuals?
As far as I can tell Utah didn’t even prosecute for violating their bigamy/cohabitation law anyway, so I’m not sure what difference it makes now that part of it is struck down. When they prosecute it seems like it is always for benefit fraud or some type of abuse.
30 years from now the state might outlaw religiously hetero traditional marriage as unlawful cohabitation. It’s no stranger than ‘gay marriage’ being recognized in 16 states would have seemed 30 years ago.
Freegards
The ruling deals with whether a person can openly co-habitate with multiple people.
That being said i find it hard to believe that many of these people look at plural marriage between men an women even worse than they look at gay marriage and bestiality.
But i believe it is because the word Mormon is involved, it really makes me wonder what kind of people we have here.