I see a number of inaccuracies and assumptions in the comments posted above, but I will refrain from pointing them out in this forum because doing so in other forums has only forced me to defend myself against knee jerking by those who care little about the law and the notion that law is based on evidence and not hearsay, conjecture and personal opinion.

The key issue here was whether the children would be in danger in the custody of their mothers. Clearly the courts decided there was no evidence that they were in danger. If the fathers were suspected to be a danger, the state has the power to have them removed from the homes. So far none of the fathers has been charged with anything. Time will tell if any will be, but it seems plausible DNA evidence might demand charges of child abuse against some of the men. Even at this point I find it unlikely the county will find cause that the mothers are a danger to their children

It also has come to light that many of the detained individuals were not children, and were not pregnant as the county had claimed. A long growing list of civil rights violations could damage this case and prevent the law from putting real criminals behind bars.

J

I agree that the government has no role in marriage. A marriage should be a private contract. If you wish to have that contract sanctioned by a church or other private organization, that is also a private matter. Government regulation of the private contract should be to settle disputes, not to license and promote one type of contract over another. To me gay marriage is a non-issue unless the government requires a private organization to recognize the contract as equal with all others. For example, if the government required the Catholic Church to recognize a gay marriage or a privately owned company. If the government wishes to recognize a gay marriage for employment benefits I suppose that could be a political issue because public officials are elected. But IMHO should be covered outside of employment and be portable regardless, which would also make the marriage issue null.

Thanks for stopping by. As always, I appreciate your comments. Be sure and keep in touch.

You raised very good points. I must add that children are seized from homes regularly by child protective services in urban neighborhoods around the country without a blink of an eye. In fact, this is a fear that some people have.

I agree with you about our position on polygamy. It is out of alignment with our acceptance of promiscuity. Personally, I believe that marriage is a personal decision. Perhaps we should have a clear separation of church and state where rights of family (whatever you consider it to be) is completely separate from deciding what constitutes a family.

In other words, it would be better, to me, to be able to go to the county court house and say that these people are my immediate family and any children that is a result of this union. Rather than the state mandating that only one man and one woman can enter into a union and call it a family.

Marriage is a cultural institution. It should not be modulated by the government.

Also for a really good indepth site with news coverage of the whole story go to http://www.ksl.com. My SLC friends say that is the best coverage of the whole story.

The larger part of the story was the conspiracy, child abuse and rape charges.

I agree that there is much in this case that is problematic, however there is also much in this case that is not known outside of the LDS community.

I also agree that there are a lot of reasons why parents (especially homeschooling parents) should be concerned, but I don’t think that this is necessarily one of them.

LL

I haven’t heard this anywhere else.

As I said - this did not “start” with a single anonymous call….it started with a rape conviction in Utah. From there the investigation turned to the YFZ Ranch. The police were working on getting multiple warrants based on the Utah case. Then they got the call and they thought there was probable cause to go in earlier.

Do you have a source? It is my understanding that no men were arrested. Only the children were taken.

I am not the only one questioning this. There are some mainstream professionals raising legal questions about this mass government seizure of children. This has never been done before, and that is the problem. If it is allowed to stand, it sets a legal precedent allowing the government to seize children en mass with virtually no evidence.

The government usually attempts this type of tactic against groups who are indefensible, meaning no sane person wants to defend them. But if the legal precedent is set they can use the same tactics against anyone.

Watch out… there is a significant percentage of Americans who believe homeschooling is child abuse, and most of them work for the government. I’ve even talked to Republicans who believe homeschooling is kooky and people should be forced to send their kids to government schools. I would guess that “forced” would mean having your children taken from you and given to someone else who would send them to government school.

The FLDS child custody situation in Texas could have serious consequences for anyone who does not have “mainstream” beliefs.

At the very least… every mother… every father… every child… every family… should be able to make their case separately in a court of law. That is not happening in this case and it is frightening. The entire group is being treated as a single legal entity.

I agree that this is a clear case for changing welfare laws. It is one of many! While you are technically correct in stating that the government was “subsidizing” the child abuse, there is still the whole personal responsibility issue to deal with. The individuals engaged in the illegal activity are ultimately responsible for their own actions, aren’t they?

LL

I am not suggesting that polygamy laws should be overturned or that Jeffs isn’t a pervert.

My point is that if they (the government) can seize your children because of an unsubstantiated anonymous phone call, doesn’t that bother you? If they can do it here, can’t they do it to anywhere? Or do we just trust the government not to abuse this power and only use it on the fringes of society? People say “I don’t care about these freaks. Lock them up.” Fine, but what if you are the accused? What is in place to prevent that? The fact that they can just show up and take my children and I have to prove I am not abusing them scares me.

Isn’t this a clear case for changing welfare laws? Isn’t the government complicit and liable for this abuse? Can’t one say, in this case (and many others) that the government subsidized child abuse?

And, if this lifestyle is sick (which I think it is), why does our society seem to condone other forms of the same behavior?

1) the founder of this cult Warren Jeffs) has been under investigation for quite some time. He was tried, convicted and sentenced to jail for rape, rape as an accomplice, incest and sexual conduct with a minor. Basically he is a sexual predator. As a result, the other male members of his cult were under scrutiny.

2) There is probably a case for welfare fraud to be made here. Since the mothers were eligible under current law, the only way that the state could have stopped funding them and the cult would have been to change Texas Welfare laws and we all know how easily THAT will happen.

3) polygamy laws have been on the books for as long as the LDS church has been around (this cult is an offshoot of the LDS church which is why the Utah press has been so invested in this case). The only way Utah was allowed to become a state was for the LDS church to renounce the polygamy teachings of Brigham Young. A case could be made if you wanted for repealing those laws if that is your thing, but meanwhile the laws still on the books as of today.

LL