This is an argument that gets used relatively frequently in the discussion. I really don't find it convincing.

It's correct that you can argue that this fits in, technically speaking. But really, that reading strikes me as disingenuous and counter to the natural connotation of the text.

If you polled 100 people on the street and asked them, "is a person who practices polygamy following the rule that marriage is between one man and one woman," I believe most people would say, "no."

That is, that statement, for most people, probably implies not just one-woman-per-marriage (in which case, we get in on a technicality), but also one-woman-per-man.

I happen to agree that a man with two spouses is involved in two marriages, each with one spouse. Unfortunately, any court that wishes to rule against plural marriage will almost certainly construe such a relationship as "a marriage of one man and two spouses." Having framed the issue in that way, they would find a violation, if the proposed amendment was passed.

This argument comes down to what the legal definitions are.

Religiously speaking, commandments sometimes change. This is not hypocritical, it is following the commandment at the time.

Eric sums up my thoughts, and Elder Oaks' as well. :)

Besides, whatever has happened in the Church, it has always involved marriage between a man and a woman -- a heterosexual marriage. There are no exceptions in our doctrine to this.

Isn't it just as 'hypocritical', then, to support gay marriage but oppose plural marriage? (Gay marriage supporters go out of their way to make this clear...)

At the risk of being offensive (which has very rarely stayed my tongue in the past) I believe that Constitutionally, civil marriages are the right of any adult of consenting age. This means brother and sister, father and daughter, man and man, woman and woman, first cousins, unrelated man with unrelated woman, people of different races and faiths and nationalities, etc. should all have the legal opportunity to choose to be married to each other. (Note...this idea leaves out the concept of marriage to children or animals, as they have no legal way to consent.)

Marriage to one adult at a time, however, precludes the plural marriage concept, and thus would be trickier to defend constitutionally (but not religiously for some faiths).

People who want to impose limits legally would be in violation of the civil rights granted by the Constitution, even if their actions were well intentioned or borne of deep and abiding faith.

Some of those choices above would be offensive to my sensibilities, some of those choices would be offensive to some people because of their belief systems, but the civil rights of the few should not be abridged by the tyranny of the majority.

Isn't it just as 'hypocritical', then, to support gay marriage but oppose plural marriage? (Gay marriage supporters go out of their way to make this clear...)

I don't know many "gay marriage," supporters who would be against polygamy though I am sure there are some out there. In my opinion both should be legal because there is no victim in either situation, as long as the marriage occurs between consenting adults. A majority of Americans support gay civil unions, but they don't support gay marriage. Why get hung up on the word? How is this any different than the "separate but equal," phrase used for justifying segregation? Are gay's not our equals?

The churches support for proposition 8 saddens me as our ancestors were once the victims of this same kind of bigotry, some of who paid with their lives (Joseph Smith for one). Why would we seek to take rights away from others who don't hold the same beliefs that we do? You can still believe marriage is only a sacred union when between a man and a women, and oppose a ban on gay marriage at the government level. These are not conflicting views.