It seems that folks sure do get worked up over the marriage issue and fret about relationships that exist beyond their own experiences and definitions. Most recently, when the topic of marriage arises in conversation, thoughts no doubt turn to the issues of the LGBTQI community and their efforts to achieve marriage rights.

Especially in the past five or so years, much public and private dialogue has occurred surrounding marriage, but there has been little real change for couples who wish to legalize their unions.

One state has extended marriage rights to LGBT couples, a few others offer domestic partnerships, a couple recognize civil unions, and the rest either have not taken action, have anti-marriage legislation (read that so called 'marriage protection') in process or stand by their existing constitutions that already declare man-and-woman unions as the only legitimate option.

Now, you are probably thinking, "Okay, we already know this, so what about it?" Well, if you've caught some of the latest news, it's obvious that the definition of what constitutes a marriage is under attack in a completely different arena. One that raises some new yet old issues.

The Mormons have been ostracized since they were founded by Joseph Smith, Jr. in the early 19th century, largely because of their belief in polygamy. We wonder if this is any more realistic or fair than is the prevention of lesbian and gay marriages.

And we are bothered by the quality of media coverage about the police raid of the Zion Ranch compound and subsequent removal of a number of women and children. The reporting seems to distort the real issues by referring to polygamy instead of using the terms pedophilia and misogyny, which are exactly what has been going on in that compound.

Women and children were removed by officials for their own safety, and children have since been placed in foster care for further protection.

The Reformed Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) banned polygamy some time ago, however, pockets of Mormons still believe in and practice polygamous relationships. Aside from the fact that they are breaking the law, why does it matter? We don't think it should. We think they should have the right to establish multiple marriages just as the LGBT community should have the right to marry.

In essence all adults should be allowed to arrange legal contracts of partnership, marriage, family, inheritance rights and health care to include end-of-life decisions. In other words, having state or federal policy limit such choices is the antithesis of the inherent democratic principles of self determination and frequently violates separation of church and state.

Are we advocating breaking the law as some Mormons are currently doing? No. We suggest that the law should be changed. And when we say that we believe in polygamous relationships, we want to clarify that we also believe in polyandry because women should be allowed to have more than one husband, too.

It's only fair, and we are big on fairness; if our memory of biology and health classes serves us correctly multiple husbands is probably the more viable option anyway.

But whichever configuration is preferred we think the entire concept of marriage needs to be updated and expanded to include more choices and relational preferences.

We certainly take issue with child abuse and the forcing of young girls to marry, have sex with dirty old men (our definition, of course) and become mothers at extremely young ages.

In fact, we find the male domination of the women and children in this religious compound to be absolutely appalling. They are kept literally 'barefoot and pregnant,' uneducated, unenlightened and seemingly in a controlled state of physical and mental imprisonment.

This ranch is in fact so rigid that it even broke away from other Mormon sects who still practice polygamy (secretly) but do not maintain a prison camp lifestyle for their women and children.

As mother's ourselves we cringe at the removal of children from their mothers' care, but we also realize that these mothers probably aren't protecting their children from harm and would certainly return them to the same situation if given the opportunity.

But the recent police actions raise many questions. Since there was apparently a mole living in the compound, why was the abuse tolerated for so long? Why was this particular ranch targeted? Were they amassing a huge cache of weaponry similar to those folks in Waco?

And why does the media persist in referring to the "polygamous commune," with the operative word here being "polygamous?"

From our perspective what has been going on at the ranch has much to do with cruelty, dictatorial control and torture and has little if nothing to do with polygamous relationships. It's this bias in reporting that concerns us.

Spousal abuse, child neglect and abuse, underage forced sex and marriage, mental and physical imprisonment, misogyny, incest and the inevitable inbreeding that occurs in such closed groups are the issues with the Zion Ranch, none of which has to do with adults living in voluntary, consensual, loving, polygamous relationships and choosing multiple marriages.

In fact, we have to consider that the very act of making polygamy illegal, and thus removing such a choice for consenting adults, has led to the creation of these isolated compounds.

Isolation sets up feelings of alienation and anger, which can grow into a defensive separateness that then becomes an ideology of control to maintain and protect those unsanctioned norms. Increasing threat of reprisal only reinforces the fear of loss of control and extreme measures soon spiral into extreme actions.

Wouldn't it be better to allow more marriage choices and be more welcoming of those who choose to follow slightly different paths than to create environments of non-acceptance that then leads to such deplorable conditions and harmful distortions of what constitutes a healthy family, relationship or quality of life?

As the Zion Ranch story unfolds, we are reminded of other closed communal groups, such as the Amish and Mennonite religious communities, who also eschew the modern world. These groups are sternly male-dominated, and the women are relegated to positions of domestic servants and child bearers. It's fairly implicit that girls will marry young and continue the tradition of holding a second-class position in their group hierarchy.

There have also been reports of stern discipline exacted upon women and children by the male church leaders.

And by the very fact of their exclusiveness, there is also a high rate of inbreeding among these groups, which has led to the passing along of some serious genetic conditions and diseases.

But wait, we don't see any police action directed toward the Amish or the Mennonites. Why is that we ask? Could it be because they are -- monogamous?! Cynics that we are, we think that's a strong possibility.

In other words, as long as individuals and groups live their lives within the confines of approved societal definitions, then other actions, regardless of how cruel, can be overlooked. After all, we seldom interfere with families when they appear to fit the purported ideal of legally married, one mother (born female), one father (born male), nuclear family.

Never mind what might be occurring behind closed doors. And never mind that the images of what constitute a family are rapidly changing whether everyone likes it or not.

We survived the advent of biracial marriage -- and the earth didn't blow up or the heavens reign down upon us -- so just maybe we could survive other definitions of marriage too. With legally sanctioned marriages comes better protections for members of those families, and we could possibly eliminate the need for undercover spies and siren blaring police invasions to rescue victims of cruelty.

For many of the individuals, the rescue is too little too late. Can we really expect some of these children to grow up unscathed by their experiences? And those women who choose to leave the compound will spend the rest of their lives recovering, not to mention trying to catch up to a world that has passed them by, all while avoiding their former "captors."

Marriage and marriage laws are complicated issues, but they don't have to be. If we simply broaden the parameters of the current definition we will be headed in a better direction.

And let's insist that the media stop biasing public opinion and use correct terminology instead of sweeping generalizations in their reporting. They are supposed to report the truth aren't they? Even if that means investigating their own personal biases to ensure their words match the deeds, uh, facts.

Helen Harrell and Carol Fischer can be reached at hharrell@indiana.edu and cafische@indiana.edu.