Hell if I know. I'm no lawyer. I'm just thinking out loud about what sounds logical to me.What does all that have to do with precedents in the Kentucky case?
It just seems, bigamy is a crime because it involves lying to your state administration about your pre-existing marital status. It's a way of TRICKING the state into "allowing" polygamy. It's illegal because it's fraud.
But if three or four people go and openly REQUEST a multi-person marriage, they aren't going to be charged with a crime and thrown in jail. They're just going to be told "no".
Reynolds was charged and convicted of the crime of bigamy (per Wikipedia). I don't know that this really sets a precedent against "polygamy", a different thing than "bigamy". I'm sure precedents EXIST against polygamy separately, but I was really looking to hear from Frankie Rizzo about cases where people were imprisoned for polygamy cases, which were also NOT bigamy cases.