Polygamy next?

So...

How can the Utah legislature decriminalize polygamy?

First of all, welcome aboard, Tuba. I hope you find this forum as enjoyable as the rest of us have for the past year.

I think perhaps my intent has been misunderstood, which is probably my fault for not being more clear in my original post. I am not "blaming the gays" for this most recent onward march of what Robert George referred to as "social liberalism." The undermining of marriage as understood throughout Western Civilization for at least the last 2,000 years goes back to the increasing acceptance of divorce (prohibited by Christ in Matthew 19:3-9) and the introduction of contraception in the 1960's. Yes, "straights" made a fine mess of marriage all by themselves--which was then further exploited by the LGBTQ lobby and its supporters (mostly consisting of heterosexuals) to redefine marriage as understood as mere "consent" between two people (regardless of gender) in order to justify the legalizing of so-called same-sex marriage. Once marriage was redefined as consisting of mere consent, it was only a matter of time before polygamy would come knocking at the door, since any ground for denying a person a second wife or husband has been removed by the Obergefell decision. As long as the three (or more) who are involved are freely consenting, on what principle then can such an arrangement be opposed?

To say, however, that polygamy is "Biblical," is like saying that adultery and murder are "Biblical." Simply because something occurred in the Bible does not establish God's sanctioning of such a thing. The most clear Scriptural text on the nature of marriage is this:

The LORD God said: It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suited to him.

So the LORD God formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds of the air, and he brought them to the man to see what he would call them; whatever the man called each living creature was then its name.

The man gave names to all the tame animals, all the birds of the air, and all the wild animals; but none proved to be a helper suited to the man.

So the LORD God cast a deep sleep on the man, and while he was asleep, he took out one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh.

The LORD God then built the rib that he had taken from the man into a woman. When he brought her to the man,
the man said:

“This one, at last, is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh;

This one shall be called ‘woman,’ for out of man this one has been taken.”

That is why a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife, and the two of them become one body. (Genesis 2:18-24)

This last verse above is repeated by Jesus himself in Matthew 19:5 and Paul in Ephesians 5:31. You will not find any place in the Bible where God commands or blesses polygamy. We do find certain figures in the Old Testament who had multiple wives or consorts by which they bore children, most notably Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon. What can be learned, however, from all these situations is that jealousy, rivalry, war, and murder were the direct results of such actions. Those cases were meant to be instructive as to what not to do, and you will not find any accepted tradition of polygamy in either Judaism (since at least before the time of Christ) or Christianity. The New Testament and 2,000 years of Christian history clearly understand marriage to be the permanent union of one man and one woman. 

The practice of polygamy in America came through Joseph Smith, the founder of Mormonism--which is not Christian. It is a heresy of Christianity, as it denies the Trinity and purports to have received a new and authoritative revelation from God outside of the Bible.

Credo... Very well put from a biblical perspective. And to your point (I think), nothing seems to be in the way of legally denying a polygamous marriage.

Now the question becomes, should states be allowed to make the decision about its acceptability for their citizens? I'd say YES.

Given the constitution is silent on the issue of marriage, I believe it, like all other matters it is silent on, is a state matter.

Furthermore, if marriage is defined as broadly as a legal contract between two adults capable of consent (i.e they are not minors or mentally ill), then that would logically seem to condone cousins marrying cousins, fathers marrying daughters, brothers marrying sisters, etc. Would it not?

Can you explain what you mean by this?

If the possibility of passing on a transmittable or genetic disease to newborns is to be met with financial disincentives, then shouldn't potential parents with HIV, hepatitis, hemophilia, Down Syndrome, sickle-cell anemia or any of a host of other diseases that can be passed on to a newborn also have those disincentives applied to them?