I think in their view they never separated from the Church in the first place.  Some might think themselves "more Catholic than the Pope," and a few might think the rest of the Church separated from them, but  they definitely seem to consider themselves true Catholics.

The TSA is focused on the wrong goal.

We had hijackings and bombings before 9/11 and we didn't overreact.  The game changed because the hijackers flew the planes into buildings.

The proper response to this was already figured out that same day by the passengers of Flight 93: fight back.  Under no circumstances allow hijackers to fly the plane.

The goal of the TSA should be prevent terrorists from using planes as flying bombs:

• train the pilots not to give in to terrorist threats
• harden the cockpit doors
• arm the pilots
• and, as a last resort, make sure the Air National Guard has the resources it needs to shoot down hijacked planes approaching major population centers

The marriage rate has fallen to a record low of 51%.  If 1-2% of the population practicing polygamy would be such a disaster, what about the 49% of the adult population who are unwed?

True, that's why people who want to get drunk fast drink shots.  And you can knock back quite a few shots in the time it takes to smoke a joint.

This is already a problem across the pond:

Although the Government says there are only 1,000 such bigamous or polygamous unions in the UK, two experienced Lancashire social workers told me that, although it’s difficult to be precise, in their estimation the figure is closer to 20,000.

The social workers said the multiple marriages are encouraged by a welfare system which allows a second, third or fourth wife to be treated as a single mother who gets a house and an array of other state payments for herself and her children.

Controversially, it means that a man can take a new spouse (from anywhere in the world), sire any number of children with her, and yet have no responsibility for this family’s upkeep or care.
These marriages are not recognised officially, so they do not appear in government statistics or have any status under the law. They also do not count when assessing welfare payments.

If you officially recognized polygamy, and then did not treat the wives as single moms, wouldn't that actually save taxpayer money?

Are you afraid we'll scare away the moderates?  Have you considered that perhaps some will be pleasantly surprised to find that this topic generates so much debate, and that there are in fact passionate advocates of SSM on a site like Ricochet?

Seems to me these debates serve as evidence that this site, and the conservative movement more broadly, really is a "big tent" where many conflicting viewpoints are welcomed and engaged.  Seems like that should help rather than hurt our brand.

Aren't Tommy and Mollie in agreement on this issue?  I thought they both take the libertarian position that the government should stay out of the marriage question entirely.

From NPR:

Polygamy in the U.S. is not limited to remote enclaves in the West or breakaway sects once affiliated with the Mormon Church. Several scholars say it's growing among black Muslims in the inner city — and particularly in Philadelphia, which is known for its large orthodox black Muslim community.

No one knows exactly how many people live in polygamous families in the U.S. Estimates from academics researching the issue range from 50,000 to 100,000 people.

Zaki believes ultimately, polygamy is good for society — especially in the inner city, where intact families are rare and many kids grow up without their fathers.

And while polygamy may seem like a man's paradise, Abdullah says, often an unmarried woman initiates it.

"Sometimes a woman may be interested in a man, but he's off limits. That's not the case in Islam. Does he have four wives? No? Then he's still available."

"We're dealing with brothers who are incarcerated — that is, unavailable," she says. "And then unfortunately, you have the AIDS and HIV crisis... So when you look at it that way, there is a shortage."

Yes, I agree this is true, and moreover as you put it "plainly" true.  I doubt you'll find very many people who will disagree with these claims, whether Protestant, Buddhist, or atheist.

The question MFR and MG posed, at least as I understood it, was: is there an official Catholic Church hierarchy of sins?  And the answer, I believe, is no.  You don't page through the Catechism and find that X is a Class A mortal sin worth 500 years in purgatory while Y is a Class F venial sin worth 42.7 hours in purgatory.

It seems to me the hierarchies of goods and crimes are accessible to reason and known by philosophy, so there's nothing distinctively Catholic about them.  That's the point I was trying to convey.

Would there be any legal distinction between a marriage and any other type of "household?"  Would a household have some, but not all, of the rights and benefits of a marriage, or would the law require they be treated exactly the same in all ways?

For instance, what about divorce?  If my sister moves in with me, and I register her as part of my household for tax reasons, and then we have a fight and she moves out, can she hire a lawyer and sue for half our joint property and alimony payments?

I note in particular your use of the phrase "more excusable."  I think this is a common psychological evasion to excuse our own behavior by comparing it to the supposedly worse behavior of others.  "Ok, so maybe watching porn is a teensy bit wrong, but it's not such a big deal, at least I'm not like those wicked sodomites over there!"

Once again Jesus holds us to a much higher standard:

[27] "You have heard that it was said, `You shall not commit adultery.'
[28] But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

In one sense of course it's very natural to try and rank offenses by degree of severity.  Our justice system reflects this, we should think it very odd if a pickpocket and a murderer received the same sentence.

But in another sense this is a very worldly way of thinking.  The Church clearly teaches -- and I will freely admit I've struggled with this -- that if you die in mortal sin you will be damned.  So in that sense, God gives the unrepentant pickpocket the exact same sentence as the murderer: eternal damnation.  God holds us to the very highest standard:

You, therefore, must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

That's why we're all in need of forgiveness, because of course that's a standard none of us can meet on our own.

Yes, the only "degree of sinfulness" I'm aware of in the Catechism or other compendiums of official Church teaching is this distinction between venial and mortal.  Nor is this a distinctively Catholic teaching, in that it doesn't trace back to a Papal Encyclical or Council but rather to 1 John:

[16] If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.
[17] All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

Thanks for the kind words!  Though now I feel under pressure to live up to the hype...

Thank goodness I have better things to do with my time than to spend it interacting online with a bunch of people I've never even met! Er, wait, what am I doing here...

Tater tot burrito sounds yummy, I need to try that next time I'm in the Midwest. And I love that they didn't even bother to name the chain "Taco Juan's."