The raid on the FLDS compound in Texas has again stirred up the question of polygamy -- or, to be more precise, whether the practice of polygamy itself goes hand in hand with child sexual abuse. At least that's one question in the minds of many Americans when they read the news.

For Utahns the answer should be clear: the cohabitation of a man with multiple adult women as a family construct does not automatically mean that child abuse is taking place. We daresay most early Latter-day Saints were not child abusers. And today we have plenty of examples of polygamous groups with no hint of criminal activity -- or even a hint of abuse of the state welfare system, a charge often leveled against polygamists.

On the contrary, most polygamous "marriages" involve consenting adults, and there is no evidence suggesting that the resulting family order is abusive of children. This may be why authorities have long looked the other way on polygamy in general. By and large, they leave the polygamists alone, even though there are some 60,000 in Utah and Arizona. Prosecution only seems to come in the wake of some extraordinary circumstance, as in the case of Warren Jeffs, who is now serving a life sentence for his role in promoting child marriages.

Yet while polygamy is tolerated by Utah officials, child abuse can never be. State authorities have done an outstanding job in prosecuting people like Jeffs, the head of the FLDS sect that now appears to have promoted, on a wide scale, a form of child sexual abuse.

Don't be confused. The two issues -- polygamy and child abuse -- can and ought to be separated. Abuse must be dealt with harshly. Upon this everyone can agree. But the mere practice of polygamy raises many other questions involving the rights of consenting adults.

Polygamy is in the news today, of course, not because of the oddity of one man with multiple wives but because of the appearance of child abuse. After a raid on a polygamist sect's compound, Texas took custody of about 463 children of the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints. The children have been moved to group homes and shelters throughout Texas even as allegations continue to mount.

Whatever the final outcome, the news seems to have revived a feeling among some government officials that it's time for a crackdown on polygamist groups in general. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, in inflammatory and intemperate remarks, called for federal action and lambasted Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff over Utah's supposed inaction against crimes in polygamous communities.

Shurtleff shot back that Reid should keep his trap shut until he becomes informed, a sentiment that was echoed by Arizona's attorney general.

Both states have moved aggressively to protect women and children in abusive relationships, but Shurtleff's rejoinder is a bit of a dodge. Utah doesn't go after polygamists just because they're polygamists, only when they're abusers.

And so the question of polygamy, per se, remains. It's difficult to prosecute a man when he has one official wife of record; his other "wives" are technically mistresses. In a society that seems to be increasingly promiscuous it's hard not to view this as more common than exceptional. Adultery laws are not enforced, and even the Supreme Court has recently ruled that what goes on in a private bedroom is no business of the state.

In Utah, moreover, the LDS Church ceased the outward practice of polygamy in the late 19th century, but it has never repealed polygamy as religious doctrine, and plural marriage continues to apply in the afterlife through LDS religious rites. So polygamy continues to have deep cultural and religious significance among many Latter-day Saints.

On the other hand, opponents to polygamy say it conflicts with society's values. In his column Saturday in the Herald, National Review editor Rich Lowry proclaimed:

"Polygamy is fundamentally inconsistent with our values as a society, and people shouldn't be able to maintain islands of it in violation of U.S. laws. The dynamic of polygamy is that men of older, higher status take as many women as they can. They work to crowd out young men and to make young women as pliable as possible, so as to eliminate any competition from the former and inhibit any tendency on the part of the latter to fall for men their own age."

All this, Lowry said, is fundamentally incompatible with liberal democracy and thus cannot be tolerated.

There are many responses to that, beginning with practical questions. The first is that crackdowns that separate families can backfire. That was true of the 1953 Short Creek raid against a polygamist group -- an action with some parallels to the Texas raid. It only fortified the bunker mentality of polygamist groups, and actually strengthened the movement.

The only one hurt was the Arizona governor who ordered it. He was defeated in the next election, and for decades after that few if any officials wanted to interfere with polygamist groups.

Likewise, the American people as a whole don't seem highly concerned about polygamy. It's a quirky practice, but there is little outcry, except when children are abused or when polygamists are seen as breaking the law in some other way.

If that's the way most Americans feel, then perhaps polygamy should not be the government's worry. Abuse, yes; private sexual behavior or choice of family arrangement, no.

Promiscuity, adultery and divorce are arguably bigger threats to society than polygamy. Yet America shrugs its shoulders at such behavior.

A related argument for making polygamy legal is that victims of abuse may avoid going to the police because they fear arrest and punishment. Dropping the anti-polygamy laws might it easier for victims to report abuse, thus stopping real crimes.

Clearly, the government needs to step in when credible evidence of child or spouse abuse comes to light. But what about the choices made by consenting adults about how they want to live their private lives or practice their religion?

------------------------

Do you agree?