Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Maggie Gallagher :: Townhall.com Columnist
Parents' Rights Trump Polygamy
by Maggie Gallagher
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Are Barack Obama's friends -- like Bill Ayers -- legitimate political issues?

I never thought you'd hear me say this, but: Thank God for the ACLU, which defended the Texas polygamist mothers.

A Texas district court judge, Barbara Walther, ordered that the more than 400 kids swept away by the state government be returned to their parents' care immediately. (Then she signed an emergency order keeping back one teenage girl who the state claimed was being sexually abused.)

Walther's order requires the parents to stay in Texas, and to allow the children to be examined for signs of abuse. They are also required to attend parenting classes.

The sect meanwhile made a public promise: "In the future, the church commits that it will not preside over any marriage of any woman under the age of legal consent," said Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints spokesman Willie Jessop.

The Texas polygamy case prompted a wide variety of public reactions. As someone who is about as opposed to polygamy as it is possible to be, my first reaction was: How can the government take small children away from their mothers?

The right of a mother to the care and custody of her children (and vice versa) can (or should) be abrogated only when it is necessary to protect the child from some kind of immediate danger.

If the government had swept all the 13-year-old girls into custody, the action would at least have had some relationship to an imminent danger -- that they would be sexually abused by older men under the guise of "spiritual marriage." But no one ever claimed the 4-year-olds were in imminent danger of anything. What right did the government have to take away these kids?

My second, contradictory reaction was: Why do we care so little about sexualizing girls who are not on polygamous ranches? Texas officials justified their actions by releasing creepy photos showing older men on the ranch with early teen girls, and by demonstrating that a large proportion of the teenage girls had been pregnant. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Maggie Gallagher is a nationally syndicated columnist, a leading voice in the new marriage movement and co-author of The Case for Marriage: Why Married People Are Happier, Healthier, and Better Off Financially.

Be the first to read Maggie Gallagher's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Subject: hypocrisy all over the place
MG and several posters here agree that the TX CPS overstepped their authority by taking ALL the children away.
According to G, parental authority is sacrosanct, unless abuse is evident.
Except she doesn't feel that way about GAY parents.

Marriage is preferable for the support of children, which I agree is true.
Except for gay parents.
Marriage is an option for adults without the intention or ability of children, except for gay adults.

Children and what's best for them, I agree are responsible loving parents.
However, simply being one/man and one woman is no indicator that will happen. It's an assumption.

There is also agreement that slaves or those living under Jim Crow conditions were happy with the arrangement.

But many people have convinced themselves that gay people are NOT happy, and require the intervention or coercive inducements of heterosexuals to convince of this.

Such inconsistent applications, rather than equal ones is the problem. The standards of examining these issues separately AND from what socio/political context is important, but ignored.
A majority here is either too stupid to see that, or assumes the exception to that is.

Gallagher is guilty of such inconsistent applications, and none of us need be at odds if equal standards and applications WERE applied.
So, why aren't they?

A new conservative constituency?
I had no idea that so many conservatives were so supportive of polygamy (as long as it is based on religion). I now see where a new conservative constituency can be found--among polygamists and polygamist wannabees. The latter is probably a big part of the population, so I say, go out there and organize those people! Get them registered and get out the vote! McCain won't have the stones to acknowledge this support, but you can vote anyway.

Maybe if there were lots of gay polygamists, you'd let them play too. Ya think?
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.