To begin with, Mitt Romney gave a speech on religion. This speech was brilliantly summed up in a comment to Chris Kelly's recent Huffington Post column:

1. We should all be tolerant of religions, even ones we don't agree with.

2. Secularism/atheism is a religion.

3. Let's all hate on those traitorous, treasonous, blasphemous secularists/atheists!

Today's generations of Americans have always known religious liberty. Perhaps we forget the long and arduous path our nation's forbearers took to achieve it. They came here from England to seek freedom of religion. But upon finding it for themselves, they at first denied it to others. Because of their diverse beliefs, Ann Hutchinson was exiled from Massachusetts Bay, a banished Roger Williams founded Rhode Island, and two centuries later, Brigham Young set out for the West. Americans were unable to accommodate their commitment to their own faith with an appreciation for the convictions of others to different faiths. In this, they were very much like those of the European nations they had left.

But what if this conventional wisdom turns out to be wrong? What if the 2008 election is a real snooze-fest, and voters are barely motivated to go to the polls?

That used to be an unimaginable question. Not "unimaginable" in a negative sense, but "unimaginable" in the original, neutral definition of the word: "unable to be imagined," or "not imaginable." The concept of two people of the same sex being married wasn't even raised in the American conscience until the 1990s (or perhaps late 1980s -- I haven't researched the actual date, this is from my own recollection). After that point, of course, the idea has grown in prominence in the American political debate, both pro and con.

But now, mostly due to a Mormon running for president, the issue of polygamy is also inserting itself into the political debate. So the question must also be asked: Do you support the concept of polygamy? If so, why? If not, why not?