Our so-called representatives, wanting to appear productive (and gain voter support from targeted groups), continue to make laws that later bite us in the ass. This is another of many examples.

Can polygamy be illegal if it isn't called plural marriage? The original Constitution, had it been literally interpreted and strictly enforced, would have kept us on the path intended by the founders. But the Ginsberg supported concept that it is a "living document" and must be continually tweaked to suit current popular opinion has created one quagmire after another.

There are an estimated 60,000 polygamists living in Utah. The Morman Church banned it years ago as a condition of Utah's gaining statehood. So practitioners simply formed a customized version of Mormanism and claimed protection as a religion. Now they claim equal protection under the law, one that Congress and the Supreme Court tinkered with to serve some other special need du jour.

A continuously changing set of rules make the game impossible to play or to follow, yet we seem unable to stop the runaway train. Have we ruined the Constitution? Can it be fixed?

Personally, I couldn't care less about a cult living in the dessert whose main thing is having 20 wives and non-stop sex as long as they stay in their "compounds" and don't cause any problems. But they breed and brain wash the kids into believing the cult is the way things are supposed to be. They abuse the kids and the women without their even understanding they are being abused. It is sick and disgusting and should be stopped. I think that breaking up the cult and dispersing the kids at least gives the kids a chance to learn that they have been lied to. Maybe they can have a normal life.

If they can't enforce polygamy there shouldn't be a law against it. Simple as that. There are too many laws on the books we can't enforce and should be made legal so our law enforcement doesn't waste time dealing with them. Like you say, if two people are a legal couple, how can you say three or four or more aren't?

Gary, with all due respect, a couple is two. Three would be a threesome, four would be a foursome and so on. Two is not the same as four.

Also, laws against rape auto theft are also difficult to enforce. Should they be legalized so law enforcement doesn't have to "waste time dealing with them"?

Your points(?) are illogical.

...and yet, society has never had a problem endorsing the "healthy lifestyle" of swinging, wife swapping, etc., if you so choose to pursue that. Orgies have been around as long as there has been "society". For THAT aspect, what's the difference whether a group is doing it on weekends around the pool, or living that lifestyle?

I DO NOT agree with the aspect of young children being forced into a lifestyle they are ill-equipped, either physically or emotionally to handle.

ADULTS have to right to consent. Children being forced to participate in such a lifestyle is criminal.

In all fairness, that may be an inaccurate characterization. Society in general doesn't "endorse" swinging or wife swapping, and while I concede that orgies have "been around" throughout time, their existence, especially today, doesn't translate to a societal endorsement. Most societies tolerate even errant behavior among consenting adults so long as it stays behind closed doors and neither involves children nor exposes them to such behavior.

So you can probably guess my answer to your question. Living the "lifestyle" behind closed doors may be tolerable to much of society while demonstrating or advertising the behavior in public is not.

But I am glad we agree completely where children are concerned. And while I would normally stand against taking children from their families, in this case, I am in complete agreement.

Let's not forget that polygamy is illegal and calling it by another name doesn't change that. Orgies and swinging, while objectionable to most, are not illegal (in private). It is an apples to oranges comparison.

This is a splinter group from the Morman Church that wishes to pursue polygamy and seeks to teach their children the practice. That hardly qualifies as a religion. A more accurate description would be a cult that is violating the law. Calling themselves a "club" or "social group" or "swingers" in order to separate themselves from the act of polygamy doesn't change what they are.

Stimulating discussion thread today! I love it!

I think the "don't ask, don't tell" policy we all seem to accept is a form of complacency. We have been taught to be "tolerant" of others' behaviors to the extent that we would rather ignore wrongs than openly object to them. We say we fear "offending" people, but mostly we are just lazy. We falsely believe that, by ignoring others' errant behavior, they will ignore ours. As a society, we seem to have lost our moral compass.

What has been going on at the YFZ Ranch is not only morally wrong but illegal and a lot of people knew it but did nothing. That was wrong, too. Let's place the blame squarely on ourselves and vow to do better.

My goodness, what an educated discussion today! Jack and I agree with most of you that they had to be shut down and the children removed and placed in foster care. They deserve a chance to learn that what they were being brought up in was not representative of our society. I don't know whether it was a cult or not, but it wasn't right or even legal.

I also don't like that simply by not calling themselves husband and wife, some polygamists seem to be able to wiggle around the law. That shouldn't be allowed either.

Brings back memories of Janet Reno's fiasco with the Branch Davidians (or Followers of the Seven Seals as David Koresh preferred they be called), doesn't it? At least this time, we didn't kill anybody.