This may not mean as much as it seems to, at first reading.

I believe this is Round Two of appointing a special person to "assess the likelihood of criminal convictions in the Bountiful community."

All the assessing leads to nowhere; the attorney general always decides the chances of a conviction are too unlikely. And that's how far it goes.

How and Canada, which allows gay unions and only raised its age of consent from 14 to 16 in May, object to polygamy, especially of consenting people?
What a slippery slope we find ourselves on.

The way I have thought about this is how can we go to another country like Iran and start a war because we believe their human rights are been violated? Yet we can let the basic human rights of our children be violated in our own country? In my eyes a 14 year old girl is a child and if that 14 year old marries a 50 or 60 year old man and has a family here is no way you are going to convince me this is freedom of choice. If they are told this is the way it is going to be and are not given any other options then their basic human rights have been violated (freedom of choice). If we do nothing about this we are know better then the people we have condemned. I have a 16 year old daughter and there is no way she could make a logical decision if she was confronted with something like this. At that age no child is mature enough to make this kind of decision.

Maybe Canada will be a little more sensible than Texas. I see a little irony. In the United States, Hugh Hefner, OJ Simpson, Eminem, Snoop Dogg, Charlie Sheen, Bill Clinton, and any other man with scores of female relations is considered a hero. Yet if a man in El Dorado or Colorado City has three women he considers a wife, and supports his dependants, he is considered an abusive pervert.

Good point there, Tai. As long as the women involved in the union are capable, consenting adults.

good point and Tai, the pervert part is when the other woman is actually a underage child. Otherwise if church sanctioned adultry, since a 'celestial' marriage is not a legal one (with license and all) and never recorded in the public records. Where the line is drawn is when the church encourages of forces such actions on underage children without the proper marriage as required by law.
No child should be taught that such a thing is proper and allowed.
The goal of any CPS is the protection of the child. They can remove the child until a proper investigation is completed; and, many of the presumed Constitutional protections don't apply until criminal acts are detected and proven.
Texas, Arizona and Canada don't seem to give a rat's butt if a man has twenty wives (I can't imagine wanting two, let alone several. (What size honey do jar has he got?) Wierd is not an issue; I doubt if they'd be concerned if they had antennas gorwing from their heads. From everything said by the three authorities, it's the protection of the children that is the whole issue.