The 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver today will take up the case of three people suing for the right to become husband and wife — and wife.

Court briefs are due this morning in the case of Bronson vs. Swensen, a lawsuit that is challenging Utah's ban on polygamy. It's a case that has people who practice plural marriage hoping it will legalize their relationships.

"Eventually, we will have the right to live our religion," said Laura Fuller, a member of the Davis County Cooperative Society, a fundamentalist community composed of members of the Kingston family. "A person should have the right to choose their mate, not the state."

Fuller, who is also a law student, has followed the case closely. So have other members of polygamous communities.

"It will be interesting to see whether the court addresses the freedom of religion issue in this case or whether they keep it strictly within the bounds of civil rights for multiple marriage partners," said Susie Timpson with the Centennial Park Action Committee, a pro-polygamy group in the border community of Centennial Park, Ariz.

"We will be watching and praying with interest," she said in an e-mail Saturday to the Deseret Morning News.

In December 2003, three people identified in the lawsuit only as G. Lee Cook, D. Cook and J. Bronson went to the office of Salt Lake County Clerk Sherrie Swensen, asking for a marriage license.

The Cooks and Bronson paid $50 and completed the marriage application form, indicating that G. Lee Cook was legally married.

"He orally informed the defendants that he wanted to legally marry a second wife," the lawsuit filed by civil rights attorney Brian Barnard states.

After the clerk's office denied the license because plural marriage in Utah is illegal, they sued — seeking only one dollar in damages and a change in Utah's anti-polygamy laws.

The Utah Attorney General's Office believes the lawsuit has no teeth.

"He sued a county clerk, claiming that what they're afraid of is prosecution under our anti-bigamy law and the constitutional prohibition of plural marriage," said Utah Solicitor General Annina Mitchell. "Sherrie Swensen has no ability to prosecute them for bigamy, even if she wanted to."

Mitchell also claims there are court decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court and the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that support Utah's ban on polygamy.

"The state of Utah has a compelling interest in banning plural marriage," she said.

Barnard contends Utah's anti-polygamy laws violate his clients' constitutionally protected freedom of religion rights. Court papers he filed with the 10th Circuit also cite the controversial U.S. Supreme Court decision of Lawrence vs. Texas, which decriminalized gay sex.