Reading this article it shows you that sympathy was a very narrow thing. The New York Times talking about what to do with Polygamy had this to say:
The mere suggestion of a conservative course in this business throws the radical anti-Mormons into spasms of indignation. They declare the time has come for the extirpation of the evil, and that the work must be accomplished forthwith, even if it requires the entire military force of the United States to do it. Men who do not favor the fire-and-sword policy are denounced as “Jack-Mormons,” secretly favoring polygamy.
So after that different term usage of Jack-Mormon the Times turns to the Edmunds Act which is being discussed.
The Edmunds bill goes to the root of the main difficulty heretofore encountered in all attempts to suppress polygamy by act of Congress. It has been impossible to prove the polygamous relation of accused persons. Under the Edmunds bill, persons are disqualified and disfranchised by reason of their polygamous practices, and this offence is to be established by the fact that the defendant or accused cohabits with more than one woman. The rite of marriage need not be proved. The practice may and can be proved. It would really appear that the bill, it shall become a law, may be made operative in the suppression of polygamy.1
As far as the Times is concerned the middle ground is to in effect to arrest and imprison people for sleeping with more than one women and staying in each house. One can imagine what those Victorians would have thought of their progenitors and their free love habits of a few decades ago.
1. Polygamy in Danger, New York Times, February 21, 1882.