Defending Mormon Polygamists: The ACLU Squeaks Up

Published Apr 21 2008, 05:19 PM by Wendy Kaminer

By Wendy Kaminer,

        Now that Judge Barbara Walther has refused to release from state custody the 416 children taken from their parents in the raid of a polygamous compound in Texas, ordering all parents and children to undergo DNA testing, the Texas ACLU has issued a tepid, tentative statement of “concern” about their civil liberties.

        "While we acknowledge that Judge Walther's task may be unprecedented in Texas judicial history, we question whether the current proceedings adequately protect the fundamental rights of the mothers and children," said Terri Burke, executive director of the ACLU of Texas.

        "As this situation continues to unfold, we are concerned that the constitutional rights that all Americans rely upon and cherish -- that we are secure in our homes, that we may worship as we please and hold our places of worship sacred, and that we may be with our children absent evidence of imminent danger -- have been threatened," Burke said.

        This general acknowledgment that the summary removal of 416 children absent actual evidence of their abuse threatens fundamental rights is preferable to the silence that preceded it, barely. The ACLU’s statement is more like an exercise in public relations than a defense of civil liberty; taking no stand for or against the state’s unprecedented actions in this case, which threaten to consign over 400 children to foster care, the statement seems designed to offend no one, while providing cover for the ACLU, should it be accused of ducking a hard civil liberties case. ACLU spokespeople sound more like bureaucrats than fearless advocates of individual rights: they carefully pay deference to state power to protect children, ignoring the dearth of evidence in this case, and stress that the ACLU “deplores crimes against children” and “stand(s) opposed to child abuse,” in case anyone thought the ACLU stood in favor of it.

        Obviously anxious about appearing “soft” on child abuse (at a time when rational approaches to protecting children have been perverted by hysteria about abuse,) the ACLU prefers being soft on violations of civil liberty, when the liberties of wildly unpopular or politically incorrect groups are at stake, when standing up for civil liberty might adversely affect fundraising. The polygamous practices of Mormon fundamentalists are generally repugnant to ACLU supporters (they’re repugnant to me) even if they don’t involve the abuse of minors. Perhaps that explains why the ACLU statement is silent about mandatory DNA testing of the parents and children taken from the Yearning for Zion ranch. Elsewhere, the ACLU trumpets its concern about DNA data bases and opposes mandatory DNA testing of everyone arrested, stressing that “in America, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty” -- unless they’re members of a Mormon fundamentalist sect, I guess.

Back to Free For All

Back to Free For All

3 Comments

jerry said:

<i>unless they’re members of a Mormon fundamentalist sect</i>

But if it's a sect that is obviously breaking the law in terms of polygamy, how does that affect their first amendment rights?

On Coast To Coast last night, a usually pretty lousy show, but it is on at the right hours, was a very interesting guest, <a href="www.irenespencerbooks.com/">Irene Spencer</a>. Spencer is a 71 year old former polygamous wife and she has a really interesting tale.

Certainly of abuse, of slavery really as she calls it, but also some perhaps unexpected insights too. Years and years and years after leaving her "family", she still sees some and she says that she still feels very close to many of the women that helped support each other.

She's relatively okay about what consenting adults do, but adamant about the abuse of the kids, and the basic enslavement of the children and women.

I understand the defense of first amendment rights and other civil liberties, and the concern about what this means to other churches, or as I've alluded to earlier, even what this means to government taking away kids from individual families for other reasons, or taking kids away from a parent (father) even when there is no concern for violence or abuse.

But polygamy IS illegal, so I am not sure what first amendment rights this group has, and maybe you could help me understand what your position is, or what rights they do have, or should have.

(That said, do take a look at the Irene Spencer links, I don't think I have ever recommended to anyone a coast to coast guest, but her interview and story was surprisingly compelling in many ways.)

April 21, 2008 6:07 PM
Russ said:

An excellent commentary about the issues involved. Your participation on Lawyer to Lawyer was compelling. There is a need for more dialogue regarding the violation of the constitutional rights of these people. We are in a society where anything can be claimed with little or no evidence, and the results can be horrible. I anticipate challenges in the Federal courts very soon. It may prove to be the only way these mothers can reclaim their children.

May 7, 2008 7:05 AM
Robert said:

Well, Wendy, where were you and the ACLU during Waco? Or ANY Second Amendment case? The ACLU is VERY selective, and gun owners and anyone who can be slandered as a "cultist" is beneath their care, concern or consideration for the entire history of the so-called ACLU.

May 24, 2008 7:58 PM