About polygamy, held by Mr. Reynolds to be a tenant of his religion. SCOTUS rejected the argument, fundamentally on the basis that government is superior over religion when it comes to practice of an action. But the case is interesting for what it says about polygamy, per se. And anything it says about polygamy it would have said IN SPADES about homosexual "marriage."
The case is also interesting as a window into an era when Western Civ thought itself superior (it is, in fact) rather than just one civilization among equals.
Polygamy has always been odious among the northern and western nations of Europe, and, until the establishment of the Mormon Church, was almost exclusively a feature of the life of Asiatic and of African people. At common law, the second marriage was always void (2 Kent, Com. 79), and from the earliest history of England polygamy has been treated as an offence against society. ...But, todays federal judges find homosexual marriage to be a constitutional right, not even in a penumbra wehre the right to abortion resides.Marriage, while from its very nature a sacred obligation, is nevertheless, in most civilized nations, a civil contract, and usually regulated by law. Upon it society may be said to be built, and out of its fruits spring social relations and social obligations and duties, with which government is necessarily required to deal. In fact, according as monogamous or polygamous marriages are allowed, do we find the principles on which the government of the people, to a greater or less extent, rests. Professor, Lieber says, polygamy leads to the patriarchal principle, and which, when applied to large communities, fetters the people in stationary despotism, while that principle cannot long exist in connection with monogamy. Chancellor Kent observes that this remark is equally striking and profound. 2 Kent, Com. 81, note (e). An exceptional colony of polygamists under an exceptional leadership may sometimes exist for a time without appearing to disturb the social condition of the people who surround it; but there cannot be a doubt that, unless restricted by some form of constitution, it is within the legitimate scope of the power of every civil government to determine whether polygamy or monogamy shall be the law of social life under its dominion.
As you can see on this thread, the libertarians have switched to the “religion argument” to promote gay marriage and polygamy.
As though Mosques, Mormons, and gay churches are the answer to preserving marriage, and the even sillier pretense that Americans will vote to end marriage as we know it and remove it from law.