
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.