If it looks like a marriage and sounds like a marriage, then the polygamous marriage of former Hildale police officer Rodney Holm to his then-16-year-old bride did indeed run afoul of Utah's bigamy statute.

That was the opinion of the majority of justices of the Utah Supreme Court in a politically charged ruling released Tuesday. In a 4-to-1 decision, the justices ruled Utah's use of its bigamy statute to go after polygamists is not unconstitutional and upheld Holm's conviction on two felony counts of unlawful sexual conduct and one count of bigamy.

Holm was "obviously disappointed" but did not say much else about the ruling to his lawyer, Rod Parker.

"He was pretty quiet about it," Parker said Tuesday. "You could tell in talking to him, his demeanor, that he found it very disappointing."

Parker said he did not know if he would appeal the ruling. He has 90 days to decide.

Not every justice agreed with the ruling. In a dissenting opinion, Chief Justice Christine Durham said she felt the ruling would leave open the ability of the state to tread into the religious practices and personal relationships of its citizens.

In dispute is the definition of marriage. Writing the majority opinion, Justice Matthew Durrant said that when Holm took 16-year-old Ruth Stubbs as his third plural wife, their ceremony was akin to a marriage.

Stubbs wore a white wedding dress, vows were exchanged and, as Stubbs later testified at trial, the then "spiritual" bride answered "I do" as her vows.

"At the ceremony, Stubbs wore a white dress, which she considered a wedding dress," Durrant wrote. "In short, the ceremony in which Holm and Stubbs participated appeared, in every material respect, indistinguishable from a marriage ceremony to which this state grants legal recognition on a daily basis."

The fact that the two lived together and had regular sexual relations adds to this assertion, the justices said. According to the bigamy statute, people have violated the law when they "purport to marry" or cohabit with another while married to another person.

In a move that proved contentious with Durham, Durrant declared that the Utah Legislature deemed the definition of the word "marriage" to include those ceremonies not sanctioned by the state but for the narrow purpose of prosecution.

"It is clear that the Legislature intended 'marry' to be construed to include marriages that are not state-sanctioned," Durrant wrote. "The Legislature has acknowledged that the attainment of a marriage license from the state is not determinative of whether a marriage exists."