I had a really interesting thought about religion and law that came out of the comment thread at this post.
A friend who is a minister once used the phrase "the canon of scripture is closed" to describe how his faith differed from Mormons. I thought his wording was particularly powerful, and it stuck with me. Mormons are very different: they believe that God still can and does speak directly on occasion. In short, traditional Christians have more fixed doctrine, while Mormons have a more fluid and evolving one.
Anyway, the traditional Christian idea that revelation no longer happens is analogous to how conservatives think about the Constitution and the Supreme Court. But, the Mormon view that revelation is continuous is analogous to the contemporary liberal viewpoint that Constitutional law is fluid and should change with the times.
Here's the kicker. Contemporary liberals find the Mormon idea that doctrine is editable bizarre, but think nothing of the idea that society can edit Constitutional interpretation as it sees fit. On the other hand, (typically Conservative) Mormons have a faith whose doctrine has evolved through time, but tend to be Constitutional strict constructionists.
This all strikes me as very odd. It's kind of like the observation that those who favor abortion tend to disfavor the death penalty, and vice versa.