ACLU Joins the Debate and FLDS Media Updates

The judge's ruling to let Texas retain custody of 416 children has raised the stakes in this legal contest and also raised media interest. Now the ACLU of Texas has issued a statement in response to the massive custody hearing in San Angelo. It's not clear whether an ACLU attorney will choose to represent any party in the case, but this sort of statement will force the mainstream media to avoid the condescending tone that some stories have taken and instead look at the case and the snowballing issues more carefully. Here are a couple of quotes from the ACLU of Texas statement:

• "While we acknowledge that Judge Walthers' task may be unprecedented in Texas judicial history, we question whether the current proceedings adequately protect the fundamental rights of the mothers and children of the FLDS," the Executive Director of the ACLU of Texas is quoted as saying.
• "[W]e are concerned that government may not be complying with the Constitution or the laws of Texas in the execution of its mandate, from how the raids were conducted to whether the current process protects basic rights," said the Legal Director of the ACLU of Texas, who observed the hearing in San Angelo.

Here are other recent mainstream media stories, which I'll update putting the most recent story at the top:

• Polygamy then and now in a nice SL Trib review titled "Modern-day Mormons disavow polygamy."
• "Thorny issues in prosecuting polygamous sect," an older CS Monitor story dated April 14, but you gotta check out the portaits hanging on the wall in the FLDS living room (or dorm lobby, depending on how you describe their living arrangements).
• "To regain kids, FLDS women try new tactic: public relations," at the CS Monitor, also discussing potential criminal liability of some of the parents. Then there's this CBS News story showing some of the FLDS PR in action. Not sure they're really scoring any points. Here's a quote in the CBS story from an FLDS woman: "[O]ur leader teaches us how to be clean and pure and virtuous. The men teach us, we follow their direction because it's the best way of life. And they themselves are clean and pure." Well, clean and pure and screwing 14-year-olds.
• The SL Trib story on the ACLU of Texas statement. Blogger Connor Boyack is also highlighted in this story.
• "FLDS case raises questions of religious and parental rights, and child protection," at the SL Trib, nicely summarizing some of the legal issues that might make this into a Big Case. The Trib is doing a great job on this story.

Comments

[Christian Prophet]

The question is: what is really, really important?

I viewed the video exposing the drug-riddled Texas Foster Care system at:
http://dayofpraise.blogspot.com/

I have also read over 1,000 thought-provoking comments by outraged citizens at:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/2/free-the-innocent-flds

It seems this is huge historically.

[Stephen M (Ethesis)]

Should be interesting how things go with the ad litems and the 42 USCA 1983 action that is rolling along.

What a mess.

[Bored in Vernal]

Dave, I am concerned about your little aside, "Well, clean and pure and screwing 14-year-olds." So far in this case no 14-year-olds have been found to be involved. There are about 10 16-year-olds who are married, most of them to boys about their own age. I feel these types of comments are very prejudicial. Have you seen any evidence showing that 14-year-old girls are married to older men?

[ECS]

BiV, the FLDS men in this CBS interview this morning don't deny that teenage girls are married to older men and say that many people in the FLDS compound are unaware of the laws against marrying underage girls.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/04/21/earlyshow/main4029811.shtml

[JimD]

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_9002940 (it's also in the sidebar)

If this doesn't get the Mormon feminists up in arms, nothing will! :-P

[Clark Goble]

The main argument at this stage appears to be that there were underage marriages but they were to underage men and not older men as CPS claimed. I suspect we'll have to await the paternity tests to see if that is true.

If it's not then perhaps the CPS didn't overstep as much as it appeared. (Although I still think taking the children under 8 away from their parents was horrible given the evidence)