I have been listening to lots of discussion about the Texas raid on the FLDS-"YFZ"" Ranch, thinking about the legal/ civil liberties aspect of the case.
This is, of course, a touchy subject for me being a "mainstream" (REAL) LDS person--I think the general public has figured out that the LDS church is not like (and does not condone) these polygamist groups. Although I oppose polygamy and I HEART the Rule of Law (and obeying it per The Articles of Faith), I can't help but wonder at the hypocrisy of taking legal action against its practioners. And although I oppose polygamy, am descended from my great-great-grandfather's seventh wife, who was loved and well-cared for all her life.
I think it's unfair to other polygamists for the FLDS to get so much publicity focused on the polygamy when the problem is the underage marriage and sexual abuse, not the actual plural marriages. The FLDS do some scary, just-plain-wrong stuff (like bleeding the beast, not supporting their wives and children, etc). So I think it is important, as the Texas officials have said, to separate the abuse issues from the polygamy issues, because at this point, opostition to polygamy has no legal leg to stand on.
If the Supreme Court can repeal anti-sodomy laws because it's nobody's business what we do in the privacy of our homes as consenting adults, that argument can stretch to cover a myriad of activities ("rights"), the least bizarre of which is polygamy. I wondered if anyone else has noticed this weird hypocrisy, and I googled this article. Turns out the argument was made years ago. And, PS, how can California tell me how to educate my children when I am free to do what I want in my own home? (Well, they can't tell ME--I don't live there and never will--but I mean its citizens). It's really lame.
I guess the same argument can be made with the abortion issue--you either believe the government has no place in your personal business, or you believe they can tell you what to do. For the record I believe in the "Rape, Incest, Mother's Health" law, and I don't believe any public funds should be used to end human life under any other circumstances. But that just leaves so much open to interpretation. It's really hard to define all this stuff, but I am always in favor of judicial restraint--less government, less regulation is generally better when it comes to our homes, families, and income.
Also, another little strain of sympathy I have for polygamists comes from this thought: So, it's okay to be a Baby Daddy as may times as you want/ can afford (and by okay, I mean legal), but don't even think about marrying, housing, supporting, etc. your Baby Mama(s) because THAT would be illegal. HUH? I know we can jump in with lots of arguments about protecting the sanctity of marriage--one man + one woman in a religious context, married before God--and I happen to be all for that. In my mind, marriage is religious and civil unions can/ should be something outside of the religious union in the civil/legal arena. If you defend 'traditional' monogamous marriage, you have to condemn gay marriage AND polygamy. If you oppose traditonal marriage, then polygamy and gay marriage are fine. But you can't pick and choose, legally speaking.
So I'm trying to have as much integrity as possible in my views. I believe that my government should protect me and our constitution, promote my genereal welfare, and put up no road blocks in my pursuit of happiness (how I worship, educate my children, take care of my body, entertain myself, etc). I believe it should be up to me and my neighbors to care for those around us and meet the needs of the less fortunate--not up to the government. I believe we should be free to choose what goes on in our own homes as long as it upholds the constitution and doesn't impede others in their pursuit of happiness. We are free to choose the actions and accept the consequences without whining for a bail out or a special break. I wish the states and the Supreme Court would get all of this stuff in a straight line, too. Privacy, marriage, civil liberties, parental rights, etc...our governing principles have to be evenly and fairly applied; we cannot pick and choose to have government intervene against one lifestyle choice while supporting--or even promoting--another.
12 comments:
Hey Maj,
I appreciate your post. I have been really bothered by the actions of the state of Texas.....Taking the kids was just wrong. They are all clean, well
cared for, well fed and loved. I am just so angry that the state thinks they can do this. All I have to say, is look out they'll be comin' after you next! Think about it, if they will rip 400 kids from their mothers on an anonomous phone call, and hear-say evidence......what will they do next?! I know that Dana has had trouble with the school district that they live in, letters and threats of fines for the kids missing a certain number of days of school........I would be taking my kids out of that school today! Anyway "Big Brother really bothers me! The government has no place in my personal life, as long as I obey the law and pay my taxes. They need to Butt Out!!!
...and I question the paying taxes part...!!!
Ron Paul for President!!! ;)
You and I are like a Libertarian match made in Heaven.
I don't understand the fanatical freak out over these polygamists. Polygamy was practiced in ancient times and it is now, so what?
The REAL issue as you said is the underage sex thing. I'm sorry but if the news cared about underage sex they would do away with pornography and men going after 14-year-old girls.
Want to know what I believe? CNN and whomever else could give a darn about underage sex, but instead are just drawn to the crazy world of polygamists. It's just like a real life episode of "Big Love."
I am so sick of the press "discovering" polygamy year after year. I feel bad for the families that are doing just fine and want to be left alone.
I agree. I feel so bad for the families and the children. There are so many things I can on about but I'm too tired.
Hey Maj,
I had another thought....what is the difference between the mothers in the compound, married to one man with more than one wife, but several childern, and the ghetto mothers who are married to no one, and have several children each with a different man? They are both "Bleeding the Beast", but which children are being raised the best?!!!!!!?
More than a little bothersome indeed! You know as well as any of us that this is not the US's government anyway, it simply goes to the "highest bidder" For as we are all aware "You can buy anything in this World with money."
I cannot agree with what these people do, but I don't agree with what a lot of people do; But they are not having their families taken away.
I couldn't agree with you more!
It's sad where people tend to put the focus....and I just can't imagine what those mothers are going through. And the children, too.
Okay, how is that even possible! I read the article you had attached about the welfare and not paying your property taxes, aren't these the real issues that are at stake? How can that be condoned? Trust me, I live here in Texas and I am appalled at how this whole situation has been handled. Of course what is going on up there is wrong, but shouldn't there be a certain order that things get done? Like shouldn't someone have had some evidence first?? And why aren't the REAL issues being addressed?? Don't mess with Texas... Well, someone should.
I feel sorry for the kids especially--- this is the only thing they know. I can't imagine my kidlets being taken from me & being put into foster care--- surely there is a better way??
Here's my 2 cents:
A-I agree that if people are going to insist that "civil unions" are to be fair and equal under the law, that polygamist unions should, too. Not that I agree with either, but if marriage isn't only defined as between one man and one woman, then all possibilities must be allowed. I hope it doesn't come to that, but what's good for the goose (crazy liberals) is also good for the gander (other crazies).
B-I was horrified that the authorities in Texas raided the FLDS temple. Because it sets a precedent that a place of worship cannot be a sanctuary. If there was wrong doing in the FLDS community (which I'm sure there was because there is wrong doing in all communities), it was wrong of the leaders(who are WHACK!)to use their temple to hide the wrong-doers. But, it was equally-or even moreso- wrong of the authorities to defile a place of worship. I don't want someone, somewhere, who is anti-LDS to claim something illegal is taking place in one of our temples and have authorities raid it. When our places of worship and homes are no longer safe refuges from the evils of the world, where can we turn?
Thanks for letting me get on my soap box....
lots O people have stuff to say about this issue. I agree with most of you and i would really love it if the Government would keep out of the personal side of things. I have seen it first hand when the Gov. gets to pick and choose your lifestyle... they pretty much suck at it. Freakin Texas! its like they have a statement to make about how they enforce laws in that state. Remember Waco and all the other crazies there. I think it is a big propaganda issue. Texas authorities are probably re-thinking their way of doing things now that this has become such a huge issue. Going in with guns and armored vehicles? come on people, who are you trying to impress. Ok, i've said enough. Love ya Jamie, come see us soon.
Jamie,
Anna and I have been talking about this all week. I was even asked at work by a friend who is fascinated by our Church how closely I had been following the FLDS situation. Today, I caught the "last word" on IN SESSSION (some cable channel show that is just court stuff) in which the announcer quite vehemently stated that the children's Fourth Amendment right was violated in taking their DNA w/o parental consent, and even the raid and all its evidence now stands in jeopardy now that it has been determined that the "witness" does not nor ever existed. My take is that the "witness" is the Sheriff's buddy who "has been providing information over the past four years." It's all a hoax, and, as Dana already stated, a "don't mess with Texas" attitude.
I tried to find a related article from Dallin H Oaks regarding your original post, and I know I've read something from him before that relates to the difference between the freedom of religious belief and the restrictions on religious practice (or at least I thought it was from him). Anywho...he has much to say that is quite enlightening regarding the legal aspects of all that's involved. Ironically, though the Church may denounce polygamy and those who practice it, we are one of the largest and most vocal advocates for religious groups whose practices others find questionable, curious, or downright weird and wrong. Experience has taught us to be that way, but Elder Oak's provides some keen insight into our responsibility as citizens and Church members to protect religious liberties as the foundation for all our other liberties.
Post a Comment