Yes, you are. Now you have 4 errors in this thread.
The bigamy statute has been upheld by all courts that have considered it. Your bald declaration that it's unconstitutional does not change that.
Bigamy is legally distinguishable from homosexual conduct under the law. In
Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court overturned the homosexuality ban, holding, "The Texas statute furthers
no legitimate state interest which can justify its intrusion into the personal and private life of the individual." Privacy is not absolute; it must yield to legitimate state interests. The Supreme Court of Utah has examined their satute in light of
Lawrence, and held that "the protections enshrined in the federal constitution, as well as our state constitution, guaranteeing the free exercise of religion and conscience, due process, and freedom of association do not shield HolmÂ’s polygamous practices from state prosecution."
State v. Holm
______
Polygamy is "The having of a plurality of wives or husbands at the same time; usually, the marriage of a man to more than one woman, or the practice of having several wives, at the same time; . . ." The practice of "having 2 or more women (or men) as your partners" is called "having fun", not polygamy.
Care to make it 5 errors?
