why the church is fighting gay marriage
 

Is it possible that what the church is very afraid of is the legal recognition of polygamy?

I believe the church would be very much in favor of polygamy remaining illegal.

But even if it was legal, all the church would have to say is "Lord still doesn't want it right now. Not a commandment."

But even then, it would create a pandora's box. Would missionaries teach polygamous families? If they joined the church, would the church require divorces of the "extra" wives? I believe that this is the church's current policy.

If you were a member, and you legally married an additional wife, would this be prohibited? Would you be excommunicated? Even though it was known to be a marriage for time only (at least before proxy ordinance).

Yes, which brings up proxy ordinance. Would we do proxy sealing on contemporaries who died as polygamists?

------------

Now imagine the other side of the coin. I find it impossible to believe the church would reinstate polygamy. But let's say it happens. Imagine the pitfalls and problems. They are too numerous to even begin to describe. A lot of Mormons have worked a long time to be socially accepted in America, and that would be wiped away in one moment.

I can't see the Church accepting polygamy for a long time.

I've always thought the reasons you state are the primary (unstated) reasons for the church's opposition to gay marriage. It's a common liberal view for polygamy to be legal, so long as its between consenting adults. Which would cause a heap of problems for this church.

RedHead, I might pick you up as a tertiary wife should you be available.

:)

There is ZERO chance polygamy will be legalized. If that is an impetus for the LDS church's opposition to gay marriage it's just being stupid. There are many distinctions between gay marriage and polygamy, the most obvious of which is that gays don't choose to be gay.

Regardless, the most common sense reason no court or legislature will either enact a law legalizing polygamy or hold it to be a Constitutional right is politics. There is no constituency. ZERO constituency. Who wants it? Only a bunch of really unfortunate, isolated little groups of people. (Yes, judges appointed for life are very sensitive to political currents; that should be clear.)

The LDS Church doesn't like gay people. The idealization of marriage per centuries old standards is a core concept of Mormon CULTure. That's why it opposes gay marriage, to put the Mormon position in the most charitable terms possible.

There are many cultures in the world where polygamy exists. Immigration becomes an issue.

All it takes is 1 person with standing and a few motivated lawyers who want to make a name for themselves.

The end.

Aren't these the type of groups the courts are supposed to protect, to act as a counterweight to majoritarian discrimination?

At least that's what I heard once in the context of striking down majoritarian laws against gay marriage.

NO SHIT. But there are practical realities. If the exercise of liberty is considered too deviant or anti-social, if it's a matter of choice/not immutable, and if the minority advocating for it is too inconsequential and downright repulsive, it won't work. See Peyote case, which is a much tougher one than polygamy would be.

The problem is that the very people who want the lifetime appointed federal judges to act like legislators are likely the ones who would find polygamy backward and anti-woman, which it is.

What does the Equal Protection Clause have to do with political concerns?

I get it that you're making a political and practical argument, but that type of argument is pretty unprincipled.

Especially when you've trotted out the principled position in favor of gay marriage.

It applies equally to polygamy, and it should.

If the court didn't make the kinds of value judgments I'm talking about (whatever jargon it uses) you'd have a Constitutional right sacrifice animals and smoke peyote. Don't be silly.