Rights are for Everyone

Arthur Farnsley | 05/23/2008 - 10:32

A Texas appeals court ruled unanimously that the state of Texas overstepped its bounds by seizing 468 children from the "polygamist compound" of the Fundamentalist Latter Day Saints. The court was right: Texas Family and Protective services overstepped their bounds.

Please don't misunderstand. I don't think the FLDS has a right to abuse children. I'm about as a big a believer in religious freedom and freedom of choice as you are likely to find, but I don't believe child abuse is protected by either of those. I'm not even making the academic argument that religious beliefs and moral values are all relative. If very young children were being sexually abused, the state should protect those children.

But a legitimate interest in stopping child abuse cannot give Texas the right to swoop into an area and take everyone's children without any due process. Texas never proved all those children were in danger. It never tried "corrective" options short of taking custody, which any agency would do in a normal situation minus the religious hysteria. As one Fordham professor said, the court's decision showed the state's "proof was really weak, not a close call at all."

I suspect the folks at Texas Family and Protective Services really believe they were acting in those kids' interests. The problem is, they don't get to decide that. Parents should always decide what is in their children's interest unless it can be proven they can't or won't. To seize children, the government should have overwhelming, insurmountable reason to believe there is no other way.

I don't like the FLDS and the practice of pairing multiple young girls with older men repulses me. I'm ready to put child abusers in jail no matter what they "believe". But I'm not ready to let the government decide what's in my kids' best interests or to take my kids based on a telephone tip without any other procedures. Rights can't be just for people we like or whose values we agree with.

The Texas appeals court voted to protect personal liberty against the claims of government, saying government had to back up its claims much more strongly before it could limit that liberty. Sadly, there is no reason to think the US Supreme Court would do the same. Every time an individual's rights conflict with the government's plans, the justices side with the government.

Arthur Farnsley's blog | login or register to post comments

varangianguard | 05/28/2008 - 15:07 | Eeyywww?!?

I saw that photo of Warren Jeffs kissing on a 12 year old (allegedly) bride in their "wedding" pictures today. Having multiple wives is one thing, starting on them right out of the gate is sick.

Rebecca Vasko | 05/23/2008 - 21:47 | Another can of worms

Oh boy. The marriage issue really does throw a different light on the matter. In Texas, you can get married at the age of 14, but not without with parental permission. That means FLDS women are participating in the abuse, if they are giving their “consent” for their daughters to marry much older men. But of course, if they themselves were mentally and emotionally coerced into it at such a young age, they wouldn’t necessarily know the difference. What a cyclical mess! And—I’m sorry—but how convenient for FLDS men, who hold all the power in the church.

I argued in an earlier post that removing all 400-something kids from their homes was overstepping, so I don’t disagree with the court’s decision, but something should be done to break that cycle of abuse, no matter, as you said, what they “believe.”

Arthur Farnsley | 05/23/2008 - 16:19 | Well...

I agree that raising awareness about FLDS is a good thing. Is it child abuse to mentally and emotionally coerce 14 year olds into becoming someone's fourth wife? Probably, especially since the fourth wife thing is already illegal. And the courts and legislatures should sort that out and the police should enforce it.

But the fact that there may be some instances of this, or even that a group condones it, can't give a state carte blanche to start taking kids from everyone in the group. As a very small matter, I don't think it's statutory rape if the 14 year old and her partner are married, no matter how many years older he is. I'm pretty sure that's how it is in Indiana. Marriage trumps the age difference distinction.

Rebecca Vasko | 05/23/2008 - 13:07 | I agree with the Texas Appeals court, but . . .

It is difficult to understand why Texas CPS officials did not proceed more cautiously. One would think that, if they were truly--and only--concerned about the welfare of the children, they would have proceeded in such a way as to be sure they had a case that couldn’t be so easily dismissed on appeal. I can't help but continue to think FLDS difference played a role.

Nevertheless, I am not sure the awareness it raised about FLDS practices was a bad thing. If there are, in fact, 14 year-old girls pregnant by significantly older men, the men are arguably guilty of sexual abuse. At the very least, they’re guilty of statutory rape. (In Texas, a 14 year old girl can lawfully engage in sexual activities, but it is considered statutory rape if her partner is more than 3 years older.)