Dupaix countered that the U.S. Supreme Court ruling dealt with sexual contact between two consenting adults, and not minors as with Holm.

Justice Matthew Durrant questioned what the difference is between Holm's relationships and college roommates who live in a non-sexual way.

Dupaix said bigamy is about prohibiting "multiple marital relationships." However, Durham said she believed the bigamy statute was meant to prevent fraud in which one married person pursues another marriage without the spouse's knowledge.

Durham said times have changed since the 19th century. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has recognized the right for adults to pursue various relationships without prosecution. "We're in a different place in the 21st century," Durham said, where the mores of sexual relationships have changed.

The passage of Amendment 3 last year has also thrown in a twist. "If the constitution defines marriage as one man and one woman, then one man and three women is then not marriage," Justice Michael Wilkins said.

This distinction could render the bigamy law useless unless a person seeks more than one legal marriage through the state, leaving prosecutors apparently unable to prosecute polygamists for their lifestyle.

Outside court, Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff was asked what he and prosecutors will do if the court strikes down Utah's bigamy law. Shurtleff said he would accept the court's decision but continue to prosecute those in polygamy who abuse women and children.

"It's not about religion. It's about protecting women and children and crime in those sects," Shurtleff said.

Justices also called into question a passage in Utah's constitution banning polygamy. The passage reads: "No inhabitant of this State shall ever be molested in person or property on account of his or her mode of religious worship; but polygamous or plural marriages are forever prohibited."

Wilkins said from a religious freedom argument, Utah's ban on polygamy appears questionable.

"What if it banned Buddhist ceremonies?" Wilkins theorized.

Parker said the case for his client is about religious freedom, not simple belief but the right to practice.

"Sitting around and talking about it is not enough," Parker said.

Dupaix said the court should not lose sight that this case was about a man who was already married to one woman who brought in her 16-year-old sister to take as a bride.

Justices are expected to issue a written ruling in the coming weeks.

---

E-mail: gfattah@desnews.com