The Utah Supreme Court has upheld the bigamy conviction of a polygamist but split over whether the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Lawrence v. Texas reaches beyond consensual sex between same-sex couples.
The court rejected the appellant’s argument that a law prohibiting plural marriages violates his constitutional privacy rights. And though lawyers may take opposite sides on the case, several agree that its arguments may have an effect on the legal battle over same-sex marriage.
Utah law defines bigamy as a married person purporting to marry or cohabiting with someone other than his or her spouse. Under Utah law, a union does not have to be legally sanctioned to be considered marriage, so the bigamy statute could also apply to a polygamous arrangement where no unions were legally recognized, say lawyers on both sides of the issue.
The defendant, Rodney Holm, was legally married to one woman at the time of his conviction, and had two "spiritual wives" with whom he was sealed in Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints ceremonies. One of his wives was 16, and Holm was also convicted of unlawful sex with a minor.
In his appeal, Holm argued the state bigamy law should be struck down under Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, the 2003 ruling that found sodomy laws unconstitutional. The majority in Holm’s appeal disagreed, finding that Lawrence only applies to private, consensual sexual acts involving adults of the same sex. The Utah opinion notes that Lawrence specifically exempts minors.
Details here from the ABA Journal. The opinion is State of Utah v. Holm.